DOMINATION of ALL Enemies

Allah cosmos hijimping, allacos mossi jimping

I love us most cheesy and thing, I love us most cheating thing, I love us most easy thing, I love us most easy thing.

Mosquito ping, Allah cosmos hiding thing, a lack of mosquito ping.

I love us most easy in fing, I love us most hidden thing, I love us most easy thing, I love us most easy thing.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

That's

Cosmos hiding ping, allah cosmos hiding thing, all cosmos hiding thing.

I love us more cheesing thing, I love us more cheesing thing, I love us more cheesing thing, I love us more cheesing thing

It.

I literally just spent fucking the I literally banned like ten people from the Discord just now.

And the reason I did this is because as a cult leader, it's just like, why are you gibbering in the Discord and not bringing energy to the kick chat?

And then I realized a reasonable person would be like, Yeah, whatever, who gives a fuck?

And then I realized I am actually a cult leader.

Why the fuck am I tolerating this?

I am directing psychic energy to be in one place.

And then everyone's gibbering about nonsense.

I just banned 10 people.

I don't give a fuck.

Anyway, guys, like, on some real shit, like, why the fuck what am I?

Like, a reasonable person?

I'm literally a cult leader, you know?

And the only, you know, I'm such a generous cult leader.

I don't force everyone to live in a compound.

You know, I leave everyone alone.

Yet

Or hi sorry this uh So far?

Dark energy, what's up?

Are all the autistic people?

That's an R slash

What do they say on Reddit?

Slash JK, just a joke.

Or slash SRS, serious.

If you're autistic, I want to accommodate you, right?

Anyway, guys, this is actually a super fucking important stream.

So, if you're not here, you're a fucking retard.

I have no respect for you.

Like, this is actually gonna be lit as fuck.

I have to on some real shit.

Um, I don't know if they're here, but uh, we need I need clippers and I need uh the vi the VOD people, the YouTube VOD people.

I could just make this into a YouTube VOD myself and do it myself, but

I want to support some of the up-and-coming channels.

I want Dark NRG, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you, man.

Thank you.

I want to be able to support MIG.

I want to be able.

I think Talent Side is like way too busy now.

But for all of you guys that are working on YouTube channels dedicated to clipping the streams, I want to pass it to you.

This will do numbers.

I'm telling you, this is YouTube algorithm content that I'm going to be doing tonight.

It's going to do fucking numbers if you.

You make it into a VOD, you edit it, whatever, like you guys multiple users do it, right?

'Cause it's about some drama, it's about some streamer beef and some streamer drama.

And uh it's gonna do numbers, trust me.

You guarantee to you this will be like top t that's what I'm saying.

Like if you're not here to witness it while it happens, uh, that's just kind of fucking sad, you know?

But uh yeah, so we're basically

Uh I don't think it's gonna f the first thing I'm gonna do, we have a lot of things to cover.

Okay.

Dead ghost, what's up?

I love how on X someone clipped me talking about the ASU frat leader and the Albanian thing.

They're like, All the ACP ever does is uh talk about Nick Fuentes.

All they do is talk about Nick Fuentes.

It's like Jesus Christ.

I'm not going to even hear that.

That's not processing.

I don't know if that's supposed to get under our skin or something.

It just straight up doesn't work because even if it was true, which it's not, this is, you're talking about the kid that spent his entire career ankle biting like Candace and Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk.

We are.

Sorry.

It's so tempting.

I'm not going to do it.

But yeah, like that doesn't register for me.

Sorry.

You're talking about the kid that ankle bit fucking conservative influencers his whole life.

That's all he fucking did.

We talk about Nick Fuentes far less than he talks about people more popular than he is, like Tucker Carlson, right?

So shut the fuck up.

Literally.

It's like, I'm not even a big streamer.

Of course, Zapatismo, I'm not a big streamer in terms of like.

I don't get thousands of concurrent views or whatever.

So it's like, yeah, we're gonna talk about the trending topics.

Anyway, I'm gonna specifically cover this one because it involves us directly.

I mean, it's it's about Jackson.

And uh yeah, we're obviously gonna talk about it.

So

Let's get into it.

So, Jackson has challenged boy wonder Nick Fuentes to it.

This is not the main bread and butter of the stream, by the way.

We're just going to do these one at a time.

So, Jackson has challenged Boy Wonder Nick Fuentes to a boxing match.

Pretty reasonable terms.

Pretty reasonable terms.

And Nick Fuentes has responded to the challenge.

So let's hear Nick Fuentes' response.

The Russian operative Jackson Hinkle wants to fight you in Mexico.

Maybe because that's where he.

The Russian operative Jackson Hinkle.

Okay.

Yeah.

I just feel like I shouldn't be cortisol maxing over nonsense.

You know what I mean?

I feel like my I don't need a cortisol spike.

I don't need to be spiking my cortisol thinking about these Zionist shill bots talking about Russian operatives.

What is this, Rachel Maddow?

Doesn't even deserve a response.

The ACP was founded.

Yeah, that was hilarious.

What does that even mean?

The ACP?

Oh, I forgot.

The ACP was founded in Mexico.

I yeah, it's funny, they have a theory that ACP was founded in Mexico, because apparently they found a screenshot of the ACP main account.

Uh and apparently they claim

That the account was made in Mexico.

It's like, even if that was true, which I don't even know how it would be true, because I was there for the creation of the account.

I don't I d I genuinely don't know how that would be true.

It's like didn't we launch the are they saying the plenary committee was in Mexico?

Remember that thing the the golf course photo shoot?

It was actually a mansion in Chicago, but

Uh and it was just the a big backyard

It was Photoshop.

Yeah, 'cause I don't even know how that would be true because like everyone remembers the videos we recorded at the mansion.

Everyone remembers the photo we took, which people like to clown on.

Um

For some reason, I don't know.

But are they claiming that was in Mexico?

Like, I don't get what the conspiracy even is here.

Well, he doesn't want to do a debate.

He challenged me to a debate.

I accepted.

And then he said, No, no, debate Haas because he knows he's an idiot.

That's honestly the most humiliating.

Um.

Do you wanna know the actual truth?

The actual truth is that Jackson was just straight up doing me a solid.

Like, that's really it.

I remember talking to Jackson when this went down and when this happened.

He literally could not care less about Nick Fuentes at that time.

He's like, Yeah, who gives a fuck about Nick Fuentes?

Jackson genuinely was very far-sighted in the sense that he genuinely believed that however popular Nick Fuentes was going to get, he was going to fall off pretty badly.

And it's not even like worth the energy, right?

That was his view.

And he's just like, God, this is like, you know, give it to Haas.

I don't really give a fuck.

Jackson just didn't take Nick Fuentes that seriously.

It's just the truth.

And you know, Jackson, he's doing me a favor.

He's giving me an opportunity to tap into the debate.

And so yeah, I mean I don't understand what the implication I mean Jackson's debated plenty of people and wiped the floor with them.

And to be honest, he could destroy Nick Fuentes in a debate.

You know, if he just kind of locked in and did it, he easily could.

Now, if he considers it worth his time, that's up to him, you know.

But of course, Jackson could destroy Ncuentes in a debate.

I have no doubt about that.

Um

Yeah.

Humiliating thing of all.

But wha wha w you're not gonna accept the boxing master, say you're not gonna accept it, you know?

Because here's the thing, I think it's kinda gone beyond the threshold of debates in in terms of like you calling us for d us to be killed, you calling us for be to to be jailed, you blaming us for Charlie Kirk's death.

Um

I think it's pretty fair for Jackson to c challenge you to a fucking physical fight, you know?

It's no longer like a battle of ideas.

Like you've you're saying some crazy ass shit.

And then by the way, ever since Jackson like snubbed him.

He fucking was like crashing out for like a year or two, ankle biting Jackson actually, while Jackson was ignoring him.

I don't know if you remember that.

When Jackson was like on his meteoric rise in terms of popularity, Boy Wonder did nothing but ankle bite him the whole fucking time, you know.

So it's pretty fair to say, well, just fight then, you know, because it seems like it's not about a battle of ideas anymore.

Not only is he stupid, he knows he's stupid.

That's why he won't debate.

Just look, you ask him, define communism, he can't even define it, he knows nothing about it.

I met him in person.

I have just.

Yeah, uh there's a difference between not knowing how to define communism and how to ex how to like simplify it in a way that right-wing retard audiences will understand, which is actually something Jackson kind of seemed to struggle with on Sneeko Stream.

But it's not that he was struggling with knowing what communism is.

What he's struggling with is knowing how to simplify it for literal retards.

That is actually a tremendous feat.

If you understand, that's the whole, that's the whole like.

Definition of calculation when you think about it.

It's like taking a bunch of things that.

are complex, which you have a great mastery of, whatever, and simplifying them, just making them smaller and simple for retards to understand.

It's really hard to do it's hard to crunch big numbers into small numbers.

That doesn't mean you don't know what the big numbers are.

It means how do I crunch this in a way that somebody whose cognitive capacity is several orders of magnitude less than mine will be able to comprehend and understand?

Like, that's a very different task.

It's a very different set of tasks doing that, right?

So, yeah, I mean.

W we we talk about it all the time, dealing with these retard right-wing audiences.

We gotta really have to dumb ourselves down when we're presenting our ideas to them because they just straight up don't have the attention span or they're too like brain rotted, too focused on rhetoric.

And that's really it.

Just some random friend.

He schooled Jackson Hinkle on communism.

Guy has this is like never heard of this.

What is this?

Made-up story.

No idea what he's doing.

Also, he's not even allowed in the country.

He's not even allowed in the so-called speculation.

It's actually not formally true.

It's like not formally verified or confirmed that he's not allowed back.

At all.

So of course he wants to fight.

He wants to fight in Burkina Faso.

He wants to fight.

I think the the real worry is that he will come back and he will no longer be able to travel abroad ever again for like five or six years.

And that's mainly the issue.

It's not that he's not allowed back, it's that if he comes back, there's a high chance he'll never be able to travel.

If he's not able to travel, then a lot of the bread and butter of his content will be eliminated.

Okay, he'll be like he won't be able to do the things that he's famous for anymore.

In Yemen with his brownoid friends, he wants to go fight in the middle.

Why is this brown person talking about brownoids?

You're not a European.

I saw the genetic logic of the studies.

I am closer.

In terms of ancestry to European populations, than you are.

You are very, very far from European populations compared to me.

So don't call anyone brown.

Okay, it's Yemenis are closer in their distance genetically to Europeans than you are, Nick Fuentes.

No, it's literally true.

The guy lays out the reasoning, the argumentation.

It's actually quite logical.

Nick Fuentes, and there's nothing wrong with this, by the way.

I support the Aztecs.

Okay, I'm with the Aztecs.

This is Aztec land.

I get it.

But the distance of Yemenis to Europeans is far less than the distance between Europeans and Indigenous Americans.

That's like you're talking about like hundreds of thousands of years of separation at that point, or or maybe not hundreds, maybe like fifty thousand.

I don't know.

It's a lot though.

Compared to Yemenis, it's not that much.

So I don't know why he's talking crazy like this.

Brown wides this, Brown why don't we drop the racial talk when you are very far from being European compared to a Yemeni?

At least with all the fucking towelheads and third worlders to cheer him on because he's not even allowed in the country because he's a fucking traitor.

So he can choke.

He's a fucking traitor to our country.

And he got raped by Shabbos Kestenbaum of all.

Wow, what a surprise.

Nick Fuentes takes the side of a Zionist in a debate.

More news at 10.

People.

Totally mobbed by the Jew that's suing Harvard.

It was insane.

So anyway, I'll do the debate.

Yeah, that's your recollection of the events.

I watched that debate.

I don't think Jackson lost that debate because I'm not a Zionist.

But if you are a Zionist, you probably do think he lost.

But why am I going to travel outside of America because you're a traitor?

Okay, you know what?

Let's entertain it.

Will you do a fight in America?

No, no, let's entertain it.

Will you do a fight in America?

Let's just know so we know for consideration.

Because if you do a fight in America, maybe Jackson will do it in America.

So I'll throw the uh the challenge back, will you do it in America?

There's nothing you could, you could just say you don't want to do it.

You could just say you don't want to do it.

I mean, you know.

I don't even think that's necessarily

Impossible to say, of course.

I mean

All sorts of people try to challenge me to fight all the time.

I don't fucking care.

I'll just ignore it, right?

But to like try to worm and weasel your way out of it by saying, Oh, I don't want to leave the country.

It's like just admit you don't want to do it.

The fact that you're lying about your intentions here just shows you're a pussy actually.

'Cause if you were to just say like, you know what, I'm not interested in that, that's it.

That's all you could really do.

But the fact you're lying and pretending like, oh, I would do it if it no, you're a pussy at that point because you're ashamed of the fact that you're not willing to fight, which actually makes you a pussy, right?

Piece of shit and what you wanna mindless garbage.

Fight me, bro.

You're croping hard as fuck.

Bro, is this guy an eleventh month subscriber saying this?

Weapons grade, like, are you mentally fucked in your head?

Like, straight up, what is the f what the fuck is wrong with you?

And uh or is he just like a hater that keeps accidentally getting gifted a sub?

Maybe that's it.

Maybe he's like a hate watcher that just like repeatedly gets gifted subs.

But are you a fucking retard in your head?

Like, what is wrong with you, you fucking idiot?

Jackson challenging Nick Fuentes to a fight is just about the least mindless thing.

In comparison to the fucking absolute mentally retarded slop that comes out of the Groiper community.

Eleventh m eleven month subscriber, what the fuck?

It's crazy.

You want to bring in all the brown communists to cheer you on?

I don't think so.

We'll do a debate for sure.

Let's debate.

What?

The brown cop what is he fucking talking about?

Hey, communism.

The Russian opportunity.

Look, if you want to debate Jit, why wouldn't you debate me about communism?

Why wouldn't you debate Haas?

It actually makes sense that Jackson would say just debate Haas because I'm the chairman of the ACP.

So if you want to debate communism, you should debate me.

If you want to debate

The areas that Jackson actually focuses on the most, you should debate those areas.

And by the way, Nick Fuentes, you're a fucking retard.

I think Jackson would easily mop the floor with you on that topic.

I just don't think audiences would find it particularly entertaining.

Yes, Jackson would destroy you in a debate about communism for certain.

You're a retard who thinks Albanians are Slavs, unironically.

You don't know the rudiments of history.

I mean I I debated Nick Flutters.

He was such a fucking illiterate retard.

Ev I was schooling him on like very rudimentary levels of knowledge about history and populations and stuff.

But uh the problem with Jackson debating communism exclusively is that it's just not going to be an engaging topic because it's not the thing Jackson

In terms of theory, okay, in terms of strict theory, it's not his biggest passion.

Yes, he could destroy you on that topic, but he's more passionate about geopolitics, current events, the circumstances of Charlie Kirk's assassination, yada yada yada.

Domestic politics, concrete solutions, things like that.

The guy who's like mystically invested in communism to the point where, like, theoretically speaking, I'm passionate about the topic.

That's me.

Now, of course, Jackson's passionate about communism, but communism isn't just a purport, a theory.

Communism is also a practical orientation.

It's a vision, it's a cause, it's like a genuine concrete cause.

So there's a big distinction.

You know, between oh, he doesn't know anything about communism.

No.

It's just that his biggest passion isn't communist theory.

He is absolutely a communist.

He's absolutely devoted to the communist cause.

But you don't have to know everything, or sorry.

Forget about knowledge.

You don't have to spend all your time passionately digesting Communist theory to be devoted to the Communist cause, okay?

Red Army soldiers fighting for the revolutionary cause

didn't know anything about communist theory.

Okay?

So

I don't know why I'm expl I'm it's like throwing pearls at swine, really.

It's what it is.

Anyway, there's a more pertinent thing I wanted to cover and

This is where the YouTube guys, you're gonna have to pay close attention to this, and I promise this will do good on the algorithm.

Fuck, I don't know why I'm like slurring.

Like, did I become retarded in Russia or some shit?

I'll get my speech patterns back.

I just wanted to be in like a long time.

So, gay liar.

He's back.

And um this is a person I haven't really thought about in years.

Occasionally their followers will I'll get a notification on YouTube like, You think knowledge is feeding?

Ugh.

And I'll just be like, yeah, these people are like mentally fucked in the head.

Like, they're actually retarded.

Some of them tried to leave comments on the video I uploaded on the Haas channel where they were like, oh, you're just complaining.

Why didn't you debate in a respectful way?

Why did you call him names for 30 seconds before he just interrupted you constantly without allowing you to get a single word in?

And okay, I'm going to be good faith.

If you're a Jay Dyer fan, I want you to.

So this is where the video should start.

I'm going to be good faith.

If you're a Jay Dyer fan, I want you to engage and follow along with me.

And I just want you to process mentally whether you can rationally process or make sense of or justify the obvious inconsistencies, absurdities, contradictions, just overall duplicity and dishonesty of your dad, gay liar, Jay Dyer, whatever you want to call him.

Like genuinely, like forget about emotions.

I straight up don't want to have cortisol spikes about anything.

I'm going to be like very calm and rational about this, breaking this down.

I'm going to put the challenge on you.

I'm going to take it back to you.

Can you actually justify this?

Can you actually defend Jay Dyer's posture here?

Right.

So years after the five-minute Twitter space where Jay Dyer just interrupted me constantly and then kicked me.

He's still like mentally traumatized to the point where he's like making videos about it and he's breaking down his intense debate with me.

Instead of just like debating me, he's like making videos two years later talking about this five-minute encounter.

He doesn't want to debate me.

He won't debate me.

I can prove it.

So there's some people who are like, Haz, Jay Dyer gave you the chance to debate.

Why didn't you take it?

They constantly say this.

Okay, I will prove to you mathematically, with that degree of precision, that Jay Dyer had no intention of debating me whatsoever.

I can prove it.

I can prove it, and I'm going to show it to you in this very video because he admits it himself.

Okay?

And, you know, strap in.

Take a seat back and just watch.

And I invite any Jay Dyer fan to justify.

The angle here that this guy like won't admit he's just a pussy and doesn't want to debate me, right?

Let's let's get to it.

Oh, no, no, Haz.

He said he would he let you that Twitter space he did.

That that was him inviting you for a debate.

Okay, I will let Jay Dyer, in his own words, that you'll see in this very video, confirm or deny whether that was actually a good faith attempt to debate me.

Okay, so let's watch without any further ado.

For a Marxist, they don't engage in debate to come to some truth.

For them, debate is also revolutionary action.

Debate is a performative event where revolutionary action requires you to cause disturbance.

They don't even see cause disturbance.

Wow, very profound.

Debate is what we see debate.

We see debate as hopefully trying to come to truth through.

Okay, they see debate as trying to come to truth.

I presume this is like a rationalistic argument.

So we see debate as just completely impersonal.

It's just based on the content of whatever rational or logical proposition is being made and nothing else.

And it's just trying to get to truth, right?

That's what he's saying.

Discourse and logical, you know, fallacies and calling them out and all that to find truth.

That's not what debate is for a Marxist to commit a Marxist.

Debate is a revolutionary action where you fight the bourgeoisie.

And anyone opposing you is part of the dialectic.

Thus, you must cause an intense opposition.

Part of the dialectic, very profound understanding of Marxism here.

They're part of the dialectic.

What do you what?

It's revolutionary action.

So it's a religion of hating and fighting.

Struggle.

Okay.

Well, you just kind of like are admitting you're a pussy.

Like, I don't, it's, it's obviously like not a correct characterization, but like if you understand rhetorically what he's trying to say, he's basically saying that like he's a pussy who lives for nothing, dies for nothing.

He doesn't see life as struggle.

He just sees it as propositional logic or something.

I don't know.

Yeah.

What a passionless, disgusting way to live life, first of all.

Second, and that's just a good charitable interpretation of what he's actually trying to say, if anything at all.

Look, I don't want to ramble here.

Gay Cryer, whatever your name is.

You just made the statement that Marxists are basically engaging in bad faith, that we won't actually have debates where we will genuinely put our beliefs to the test and allow the debate itself to determine our position.

I could break that down in two ways.

Okay, I'll do it in a totally calm way, no cortisol spikes.

First of all, I think most people that

Partake in theory or consider themselves intellectuals or are considered intellectuals.

Are you going to go into a debate without being first convinced that they have something to debate over?

Okay?

If you are treating a debate as a platonic dialogue, a platonic dialectic, where you're just trying to arrive at the truth with someone else's assistance,

I don't think that's actually a debate in the modern sense of the word.

I think that's something different.

I think that's a kind of discursive process of two, you know, philosophical partners or friends like Marx and Engels or something talking to each other in an attempt to arrive at truth.

But a debate proper in the modern sense is when two people have contrasting understandings of what the truth is and are putting to the test whether their understanding of truth is going to be compelling to a third party, in this case, the audience.

So you're going into a debate already convinced that you are correct, and you're trying to convince the audience.

Of the same.

Now the reason that this isn't cheating or it's not bad faith is that you're opening yourself to being challenged.

If someone calls you out and says, okay, well, how do you justify this?

Well,

That's something that you can't preempt.

You have to actually before an audience, you know, um, test whether or not you can defend your position in a compelling and persuasive way.

And so yes, I'm a committed Marxist and yes, I believe that I'm correct and yes, uh no, I I don't have doubts that I think Jay Dyer would resolve.

Like, I I don't it's not that I'm like, oh, I don't know the truth.

I want I need Jay Dyer's assistance to arrive at the truth.

I don't need your fucking assistance to arrive at any truth.

You're a fucking retard.

I do think you're a liar.

I do think you're someone who, if I'm being as charitable as possible, is just wrong.

And misguided

And I would like the opportunity, or I would have liked the opportunity to prove that in front of your audience because I think I can prove I'm confident I can prove that.

I'm confident I can show your audience that you're a pseudo-intellectual.

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

You don't have the knowledge you pretend to have.

You are an amateur.

You're not a literate person when it comes to philosophy or theory or the classics of, you know, the arts and literature and so on and so on and religion.

I think you're a suit.

I think you're a fraud.

And I think debates are an opportunity for truth to come to the light of day.

That's what audiences want.

That's what they're invested in.

So I don't mean to ramble, but it's like.

It's such a stupid.

Does anyone truly believe?

So let's ask the basic question: Did Jay Dyer open that Twitter space because he wanted to learn more about Marxism with my assistance?

In that case, it would have been a discussion, not a debate.

Okay?

So, no, he's convinced that his position is correct.

I'm convinced my position is correct.

The reason it's not bad faith.

If assuming there was actually a debate that was allowed to happen, is that um

This is already going to be long for a YouTube video.

You guys are going to have to trim the shit out of this.

Jesus Christ.

It's because you can't fake.

How I respond to your argument, or how you respond to my argument, which the audience can see.

If I make a point and you're unable to respond to my point,

It shows the weakness of your position and vice versa.

And I am putting myself to the test.

I'm not cheating.

I'm not evading.

I'm not making it impossible that I could lose the debate or I could somehow be proven wrong.

I'm opening myself to a judgment, to a test, whether I'm correct or whether I'm false.

Uh so this superstitious hoop la about the dialectic of struggle and battle and they're they're just seeing it as an agitational form of praxis.

No, look, I am pretty confident you're a retard and I'm correct.

I don't need a debate to prove that.

But I do.

want the opportunity to spread the truth.

As everyone does.

So I don't understand like why you have to mystify this with this like pseudo intellectual understanding of Marxism.

This like fake understanding, this like pseudo-intellectual pretense to understanding Marxism.

Oh, it's about the struggle of the pro buddy.

Like, I could just say s the same thing about you, that you have this, like, theology, uh, you know, this specific worldview about good and evil, and that it's the same for you.

So it's just kind of fucking stupid.

As long as someone has a definite position that they believe is true.

With which they give normative and so on and so on significance.

And as long as you have a basic distinction of truth and falsehood, you're going to have a dialectical opposition that informs and motivates you to have the positions that you do.

If I think the proletarian position is correct and the bourgeois position is false, why is that different from you believing that God is good and Satan is bad?

It's like it's irrelevant.

There's nothing about that that makes debate impossible, that we have a worldview based on our understanding of right and wrong.

Yeah.

I think with Marx, he doesn't mind talking about what might be considered metaphysics.

What might be considered metaphysics?

Really interesting.

Very, very strong argument here.

I think with Marx, he doesn't mind talking about what might be considered metaphysics.

They just don't care.

If you bring them questions like, wait a minute, aren't you making metaphysical claims?

You saw this when I had that exchange with Haas, right?

Haas is a, I think he's a dialectical interlocutorist, I don't remember his exact, but he's a Parker Marxist.

And he was just like, we don't care about the metaphysics because what matters, he says, are you feeding people?

So they'll just do a moral one-up and virtually single against you if you try to get into metaphysics.

And they just don't.

That's not a moral one-upping.

Nobody's moralizing here.

The point is that

For every I I can get into this later when he stumbles on this.

But it's a very simple point, actually.

It's about the hypocrisy of metaphysicians and idealists more generally.

It's a fundamental hypocrisy.

And that's not just that doesn't just have moral significance.

It has a functional significance that you can point out where they claim to have one position, but in reality and in fact, it's actually the exact opposite, right?

And what you think of that morally is on you, but it's worth it to just point out that this is the case.

And if you say, yeah, but this is a contradiction, Marxists will say, contradictions are fundamental to reality.

Reality is contradictions.

For them, they mean like dialectical conflict.

So dialectic for them is also kind of a metaphysical thing, and it's just a fundamental nature of reality.

And you don't question it or try to answer it because that's bourgeois.

No, but dialectics is fundamental to every refined outlook ever ever articulated by mankind ever in history.

Okay?

Hegel, who who which Marxist dialectics draws from, isn't just regarded by Marxists as like the most comprehensive philosopher of the kind of Latin Western tradition, the West Christian Latin or Germanic tradition.

And in Chinese philosophy and in the philosophy of the Islamic world and the ancient Babylonian and so on and so on systems of thinking, dialectics has always been fundamental, okay?

This is not something invented by Marx or Marxists.

The notion that reality is a unity of opposites.

I mean, there's nothing about this that is.

Uniquely a dogma of Marx.

To do academic speculation is bourgeois.

The true committed Marxist engages in practice.

He he does revolutionary action, not bourgeois academic speculation.

Okay.

I'm just curious, like, what's wrong with what what's w what is false about that position, that the bour yeah, the bourgeois academic gibbers their farts and s smells their farts and and whatever and the uh

The Marxist is actually involved in the world.

That, you know, that the world that we all live in and depend upon and actually partake in and participate in practically, whether we acknowledge it or take responsibility for it or not.

So you see everything is encompassed under a kind of moral one-upping that if anybody disagrees.

It's not a moral one-upping.

It's about what is truth and what is falsehood.

What is actually the truth versus what are you pretending the truth is?

It's not about morality, strictly speaking.

With you, well, they're only disagreeing because of part of the boulevard.

You only ask metaphysical questions because you think the metaphysics is some real thing.

Dasha is a communist.

Is she actually coming?

I don't even know our political positions, but I mean, there is this problem of these stupid fake right-wingers.

There are a bunch of commies everywhere.

Like that's Jackson Hinkle and Haas and all these people who are like trying to gain following from the right.

It's really stupid.

The debate with Haas was five minutes of him screaming and cussing me out.

For me, I.

Okay, I'm glad he's actually going to pull the debate up so we can see that.

And again, if you're a Jay Dyer fan, was it five minutes of me screaming and cussing him out?

Let's see.

Asking him a couple basic philosophy questions.

Literally, it's the most just insanely.

So you have to understand too, like for a Marxist, a committed Marxist like him, they don't engage in debate to come to some truth.

For them, debate is also revolutionary action.

You guys, once if you in the chat, if you heard for a second time, Jay Dyer say that Marxists don't believe in debates, they're not willing to have good faith debates, and that only people like Jay Dyer, as opposed to Marxists, are willing to have debates.

Okay.

You heard him say it again, right?

I just wanted us to be clear about what he's saying.

Debate is a performative event where revolutionary action requires you to cause disturbance.

It's about a performative thing through discourse and logical fallacies and calling them out and all that to find truth.

That's not what debate is for a Marxist, a committed Marxist.

Debate is a revolutionary action where you fight the bourgeoisie and anyone opposing you is part of the dialectic.

Thus, you must cause an intense opposition.

That is revolutionary action for them.

So it's a religion of hating and fighting, struggle, right?

And it baffles my mind that anybody follows these people.

They have to be some kind of, and they got bots too, because after this, I had thousands of bots, thousands of bots.

So here's this great intellectual revolutionary, but he's not an intellectual.

He's actually, he's actually the right, he's doing revolution and practice the way that they believe it.

So you have to understand, he's actually committed to the position.

And in a moment, all of it.

It's all this like gibbering when the problem.

That led me to be disrespectful is actually so simple, right?

And you can listen to Jay Dyer gibber about, you know, Marxists are they have a religion of hating and fighting, or you can just listen to Jay Dyer's own words in this very debate he's going to cover.

And I'll let him speak for himself.

You can see all of his followers, too, how they debate exactly.

Well, many of them are more low tier, but just here is just a taste of it.

It didn't last but a couple minutes.

What's up, man?

So, this is how we're going to do this.

If you mute me once, or if you kick me, you surrender your manhood and you give up.

The second thing I want to say is that it's very clear you're terrified to debate me, which is why you've decided to choose a picture.

I'm having you on here right now.

So, what are you talking about?

Jay Dyer, you claim that my photo was photoshopped.

I spent all day on the ground.

Okay, good for you.

Good for you.

Do you want to?

So, yeah, the context of that is that Jay Dyer knew I was an hour away from home at 11 p.m.

and insisted that I debate him right then and there because he knew it wouldn't happen.

And I just to prove that, I actually drove home and immediately got on my computer, booted up the stream, and I called his bluff.

Okay.

You're hoping uh there's gonna be a no-show?

I am gonna show up, just to prove you don't wanna have a good faith debate.

Talk about, let's talk, let's talk about and let's talk.

Don't worry.

Let's talk about that.

And no, he wouldn't schedule another debate.

He said it's now or never.

That's what he said at the time.

No cortisol spikes.

If you're a Jay Dyer fan, how do you justify that?

Why this now or never thing?

Why did he have to say we're only going to debate at midnight right now on a Twitter space when this was clearly just like I had to go to like

Extreme lengths to make this happen just to prove that he never wanted to do it in the first place.

Which I'll show you how that was.

We'll talk about imperial criticism.

Are you gonna talk?

Are you gonna talk about Leninism and materialism?

I don't know anything about you.

I was stop saying my name and just get to the topic.

Very inconvenient for me.

Do you want to debate materialism and empirical criticism or not?

I have the book pulled up right now.

Let's go.

Yeah, but what I'm going to be very clear about before we get into the nitty-gritty of that book is that you're a fucking pussy who chose this time to debate just to inconvenience me and thinking that there was a chance that I wouldn't.

I have no, I'm absolutely not afraid of you.

I think this is all ridiculous.

Why are you whining about being inconvenienced when you can have the debate right now?

Because this is because this is a stupid, informal because you're interrupting me constantly, because clearly you're a fucking animal that needs a moderator because you can't control yourself, as we're going to see when we actually get into the debate.

Yeah, we needed a proper formal debate, not just you hearing your own voice the entire time.

Twitter space.

I don't consider you worth a formal debate.

Okay.

Okay, that's that.

Six.

Okay, so we're gonna go right here.

So he claimed for five minutes I did nothing but swear at him and cuss at him, right?

Um, I don't even so here so this is uh this great intellectual revolutionary, but revolution the position and in the exact same way.

Well, many of them so this is how we're gonna all right so 437.

Uh

And six, okay?

So this is one minute that passed of me uh bringing up his dishonorable conduct.

In the setting up of this debate, okay, so it wasn't five minutes of me cussing him out, so I'm that's just all I'm trying to say, it wasn't five minutes.

It was like a minute, right?

And then he does everyone remember when Jay Dyer said

That Marxists don't want to debate, that they're not good faith, that he wants to debate to arrive at truth.

Once if you remember, he said that.

Do you remember him saying that?

Okay, I'm just trying to make sure you remember that.

Okay, so if that's true, listen to this.

Psy with the five.

What's up, bro?

All right, if that's true, I want you to listen to this.

Why are you whining about being inconvenienced when you can have the debate right now?

Because this is because this is a stupid, informal Twitter space.

I don't consider you worth a formal debate.

He doesn't consider me worth a formal debate.

Mm.

So it turns out that Jay Dyer actually isn't interested in debate for the sake of arriving at truth.

For him it's a performance.

If there are people who are worth formal debates and people who are unworthy of formal debates,

Clearly, arriving at truth is not the purpose of debate for him.

Because if he's interested just in truth, he would be more than happy to have a formal debate.

He wouldn't judge the worthiness.

Of participating in a formal debate with me based on the consideration of, I don't know, my clout or my ideology or anything like that.

He would simply say, Well, I'm interested in the truth.

I'm confident enough to defend the truth.

I'll have a formal debate with you to arrive at the truth, right?

So, this is, it's just he uses his own words to say he doesn't want to debate, right?

He says, You're not worth a formal debate.

And in this case, a formal debate would be a debate that's not in a Twitter space where you can barely hear me.

It's not a debate where he's just talking over me the entire time.

It's one where we are given allocated time to speak, and the audience can decide for themselves who has the more compelling argument and who doesn't.

But you heard it straight from the horse's mouth: he didn't consider me worthy of a debate.

So, I don't know what the criterion of worth is actually, but if debates are about arriving at truth, then technically speaking, everyone is worthy of debate as long as there's something in contention about the truth, right?

So, there you have it.

Does everyone remember him saying, oh, Marxists don't want to debate, it's all a performance for them, they're not willing to do it.

And then he just said.

This is so funny 'cause this was like three years ago, but it's like

Why did he want to go back to this past where he got so fucking it's like the duplicity, the duplicity and dishonesty?

It's just like shocking, shocking levels of duplicity and dishonesty.

This is like how religious people are moving.

Then what's the point of being religious if you're this fucking dishonest?

Like, this was literally the reason why I would not just join this Twitter space and have a civilized conversation with him.

He just admitted it.

He didn't consider me worthy of a debate.

So he had no good faith intention of actually debating me.

What he wanted was to start up a Twitter space in the hopes that I wouldn't show up because he knew there was a high chance I couldn't show up.

I was an hour away from home.

This debate happened at midnight.

Okay.

I was on the ground all day making the rise, the manga communism interview 2 video, which I never even released because of this shit, because it wasn't finished, because I couldn't finish it because I had to make a decision.

Allow Jay Dyer to get away with the lie that he was in fact willing to debate me, but I didn't show up, or drop everything I was doing and drive home an hour away from home to prove to everybody.

Right.

So I decided to call his bluff and uh

And I it's like I didn't even need to because he just admitted that he just had no intention of debating me because he didn't consider me a worthy opponent.

Okay, so you you're too scared to debate.

Just admit that.

Okay, okay little bitch.

Let's see.

Okay, what do you want to talk about?

So this is all you have.

So let's talk about materialism.

You would like me would you like to convince people of materialism you think it's true?

I'm here to destroy you and violate you psychologically.

That's what I'm here to do.

Why is materialism true?

Materialism is true because metaphysics is wrong.

Metaphysics is mental rot.

It's mental laziness.

It doesn't put the prejudice.

Do you have an argument for why that's the case?

Notice how he just interrupted me.

You have an argument for why that's the case.

I'm literally in the middle of a sentence, and he just interrupted me.

Yes, I was finishing my argument with you.

That's an assertion.

Like he didn't even know what I was gonna say.

And he already claims to know that, like, what is that's is this the honestly, Jay Dyer fans, like, no cortisol spikes.

Can you guys actually defend this?

Can a single Jay Dyer fan defend?

Like, I just want to see, like, in the comments of this YouTube video, can one of you like defend this?

It's like, what, what the fuck is going on?

I literally am trying to like argue something.

He cuts me off midway.

And then I go, hey, you cut me up.

And then he cuts me off again and says, no, no, no, you made an assertion, not an argument.

But I didn't finish my, like, what I was saying.

What is going?

Like, what is this?

That's an assertion.

It's not an argument.

Well, materialism, as Marx understood.

Notice how, instead of like complaining about interrupting me, I just try to like rephrase myself with less words because I know this guy is just not going to let me get a word in.

What status does it have?

Is it a thing?

The mind is what we call the faculty or the ability to produce thoughts.

Mind is the unity of reason and the mind.

Okay, those are all metaphysical statements.

No, they're not.

Sure, you're saying that they have ontological status, it has some kind of level of existence.

To say that what exists is matter is a metaphysical claim.

It's not a metaphysical claim because no one is saying, for example, that there's a given form of the mind that is not contingent on some kind of reproduction.

It doesn't matter because he doesn't understand that he's making metaphysical claims.

First of all, notice how Jay Dyer is like responding to me.

From afar.

Why are you debating me on your fucking YouTube fucking video instead of actually debating me?

Like, the only way Jay Dyer can debate me is if I'm just not there to, like, say anything.

Isn't that funny?

Like, three years later, he wants to debate me again.

This is like Jay Dyer's second debate with Haas, but all he's doing is like shadow boxing his own straw man without me even being able to respond.

Like, this is a grown-ass man literally sitting here.

convincing himself that he won this debate by trying to re-litigate, like trying to argue with me when I'm not even there.

A grown-ass man is sitting here, like at this point, trying to convince himself that he's right.

When I'm not even there to respond.

I just want to like, before I start responding to all the shit he's saying, I just want to put it out there how pathetic this is.

This grown-ass man, what a sad, pathetic, like, freak this guy is.

I have so little respect for this guy and all his followers and all the people that are on this disgusting fucking fake religious LARP shit.

But let's go back to what he's trying to argue.

It doesn't matter because he doesn't understand that he's making metaphysical claims.

He's saying that all that exists is pure matter.

That's an ontological claim, an ontological statement.

Ontology and metaphysics aren't the same thing.

First of all, they're not the same thing, but let's continue.

And he's saying, no, it's not ontological.

It's not a metaphysical statement because it's just matter.

Yeah, but saying that all that exists is matter is a universal metaphysical claim.

Right.

A universal claim is not inherently metaphysical.

So he doesn't understand that he's even, the thing he's arguing against is what he's doing.

It's so stupid.

First of all, do you see the confusion in real time on his face?

Let's first of all try to define some of these words that we're using.

I'd be happy to define words like metaphysics.

Metaphysics

Uh in the Marxist tradition usually refers to the kind of antipode of dialectics.

And metaphysicians impose some kind of static purport or assumption upon the world.

Uh that is untested fundamentally by any kind of practice.

So the dialectical materialist view regards practice as the criterion of truth.

Metaphysics, by contrast, doesn't believe that claims about reality have to be put to work or proven in any kind of way.

Now that's just the rough colloquial Marxist understanding of metaphysics.

I would say that I would define metaphysics by the reduction of reality to relationships of thought.

So metaphysics confuses the relationships reflected into thought and into the mind, into thinking beings and thinking consciousness, with reality itself.

And it attempts to kind of uh assert there is some kind of parity or equality or identity between relationships reflected in and through thought and actual reality proper.

That is how I would define metaphysics.

Now, under this definition of metaphysics, which I think is quite fair, actually.

Um most people would say that any kind of supersensible description of reality that goes beyond mere empirical claims is metaphysical.

That's wrong because that confuses the relationships of thought to meaningfulness itself.

Reality can still have supersensible structure and cosmic order, so to speak.

Rooted in a fundamental meaningfulness without having to be reduced to relationships of thought.

So that's really the problem of metaphysics.

The problem of metaphysics

is that what's reflected by thought is confused for the thing that is being reflected.

Marxism regards reality, the real thing,

As the concrete, that's the concrete whole.

The concrete includes thought.

So thinking beings are part of matter and they're part of reality.

But there's you can't reduce

reality to the thought itself.

The thought is part of the reality for sure, but you can never achieve identity between the products of any given intercourse with reality, whether that's through thought or through any kind of other practical relationship.

And the more concrete whole itself, because think about it.

That I think about reality implies there is something more than the thought itself, right?

Uh that that might include an account for the thought, sure, but it's not the same.

So, um

And in this view of uh metaphysics, we don't have to

collapse ontology and metaphysics proper.

We can have an ontology that understands the order fundamental order of reality as something deeper than just rela relationships of thought.

And that might seem puzzling and baffling to you.

But when we introduce two kind of

Signifiers, I think it starts to make sense what I'm really getting at here.

One is the sublime.

You know, Freud talks about the sublime in the specifically in the Abrahamic traditions, you know, Moses and the burning bush.

So this is a kind of indescribable encounter with this, you know, with the real that goes beyond the threshold of kind of rational cognition or identity or thought.

It's something.

Something beyond thought, which is still meaningful, more or less, right?

And then we have the unconscious.

Now, the unconscious is not.

Uh reducible to conscious thoughts or thoughts proper, right?

The unconscious.

Um is this kind of uh shadow of thought, right, that we can refer to and denigate.

And this reality, which is not reducible to thought, but which is still meaningful and actually is the content of meaning itself.

is really the kind of um

A more fundamental order.

That unites cosmically man's existence with uh the integral whole that gives rise to it in the first place.

The notion that meaning is reducible to relationships of thought contradicts the basic rudimentary human experiences of meaning.

From the Abrahamic tradition of the revelation of the prophets, these are not logicians and philosophers receiving the word of God.

Okay, these are.

These revelations take on a form of almost kind of psychedelic, almost something that is, um

uh irrational even, you know, according to the rationalist view.

And it kind of just goes to show that Jay Dyer is really at his core working with some kind of post-Enlightenment, hyper-rationalist, bourgeois rationalist, modern rationalist, really, world view.

He's this kind of crypto neognostic rationalist.

Uh, who has twisted himself into a pretzel uh that resembles some kind of religious conviction and faith, but has nothing to do with religion.

Because religion acknowledges and recognizes that which is bracketed by philosophy, right?

Which is the revelation.

So, this is the sublime.

This is the dimension of the unspeakable.

This is the dimension of what truly could not be reduced to our thoughts, right?

The and i and the presumption that this is just some kind of super thought or super idea which comes from Platonism is not is nowhere to be found in the Abrahamic traditions, the prophetic traditions.

This is a presumption the philosophers make without proving it.

The the inability for our ideas to exhaust reality

And the simultaneous fact that reality has a fundamental structure and order.

leads the kind of Platonist to the conclusion that there must be some kind of mind or thinking of God Himself that is in the real, right?

Uh but this understanding of God and this understanding of the relationship of mind and thinking to reality comes from Greeks, not Christianity, not Islam, not Judaism.

And moreover, it's it obviously cannot be proven.

So

I want to finally say

Uh and this has gone on quite long, but I want to kind of finally say that

When we say reality is just matter, he says this is a specific metaphysical claim.

Well, no, it's not if we understand what we mean by matter, okay?

That reality is just matter is a tautology, actually.

The real and the material are the same thing.

Um because the material is not an atomic substance.

This is what Jay Liar, Gay Liar and all these other pseudo intellectuals and to be fair, a a great deal of the Western canon and tradition gets wrong actually.

Materialism is not a metaphysical materialism necessarily that implies there is a fundamental supreme substance, maybe an atomic substance, maybe a fundamental particle of the universe or something, which reality can be reduced to.

Matter is not the same thing as a sensible, physical, sensible object.

Matter simply refers to the content, the deeper content of things.

Yes, the notion of matter implies a discontinuity between form and content.

But it's dialectical part of materialism the dialectical part of dialectical materialism that attempts to account for that fact.

The reason why there's a distinction between form and content or ideas and material things

Is not that there's actually a metaphysical distinction or a distinction a real distinction proper.

Between these, but that ideas are reflections of the material real, and that the material gives rise.

To a distinction between reflected and reflecting is a consequence of the fact that what we refer to when we're talking about matter and the material proper is a unity of opposites already.

So there's a split within.

That reality itself is dialectical, that it is constantly in motion, that it is a unity of opposing tensions, and that it's not as fixed static thing.

I think the best proof for materialism and dialectical materialism, which totally makes Jay Dyer's position absurd actually,

Is the fact that there there cannot ever be proven an identity between a given form of the mind.

And anything that exists in reality.

Even pure mathematics doesn't exist in reality.

Pure mathematics and practically appi applied mathematics actually contradict each other.

There can never be an equality or identity or sameness between.

Any fixed static form, including numbers in math, and the real.

Now, you can try to account for that fact by saying that, okay, well, that's just because this is a fallen world, and behind this world, there's a true world that corresponds to the sense of sameness, self-sameness, and identity that we experience within our minds.

Or you can acknowledge that this experience we have within our minds, Red Sun, what's up?

The experience we have within our minds that attributes to the forms the status of immortality and eternity and so on and so on and self-sameness is actually an illusion.

And a confusion.

And that this

Form we have in our mind in reality corresponds to its exact contrary and opposite.

And the unity of those two things is the thing.

That is what it is.

Um, so it's there, there is no complete eternal form, actually.

We experience it as such because we're alienating it from its greater material context.

So, that's really my position.

You know, it's not a mystery, it's not, oh, I can't debate my position, whatever.

I just told you what my position is.

He confuses, first of all, he doesn't understand what matter is, matter is not.

Spinoza substance, nor is it some kind of fundamental particle of the universe, okay?

Matter simply refers

To what things actually are, what they really and actually are.

So, as per this understanding, even if you're an idealist, the buck is going to have to stop somewhere with you admitting that, you know, for you, it's God who's material, right?

Or it's your idea of God that is material.

You're attributing to that a material significance.

But you're unwilling to prove it, right?

In the in the idealist's understanding of God.

Yeah, you're granting it.

You're saying that it has a status of existence.

That's a metaphysical claim.

That's a metaphysics 101.

No, no, no.

That's just earth exists.

That's not a metaphysical claim.

It is a metaphysical claim.

It's granting modality to a thing and saying that it has material existence.

That is practically relevant to the people living on it, so it's not metaphysical.

Well, the fact that you notice there, now he shifted to saying, well, it doesn't have practical relevance, so it's irrelevant, right?

So now for him, anything that's quote, not practical counts as metaphysics and is therefore to be discounted.

No, the problem is that everything actually is practical.

There's no way to be outside of practice, and I think that's really the point.

Metaphysics is an attempt to blind us to the practical consequences or practical reality that in fact does correspond to our claims or our thoughts or our positions and opinions and so on.

And um that's my position.

It's not that I think you can somehow be outside of existing practically.

It's that metaphysics attempts to uh you know

Deny this.

very real practical reality that in fact corresponds to the marx talks about this in the division of mental labor between um divisions of labor between mental and um

and physical within the ruling class.

You know, the metaphysicians and the philosophers, in fact, do correspond practically to the reality of the bourgeoisie and the exploitation of the proletariat and so on and so on.

They do correspond to this reality for sure.

But metaphysics does not permit us the possibility of having an honest relationship with what we actually are.

It's an alienated relationship to our actual existence.

But the thing in question is, what is metaphysics?

What is it that exists?

And why are you saying...

That in some cases these material things exist.

They are the case.

He's saying that matter, he's actually saying that mind is just pure matter.

So that is a motivation.

Odal claim.

But why is that metaphysical if I am not reducing that to a relationship of thought?

Yes, I'm using the faculty of thought to, in fact, identify mind with matter, sure.

But that doesn't mean I'm simultaneously reducing that very the substance, the content of that claim.

I'm not reducing that to the very relationship of thought that I give expression to, that I use to give expression to this fact.

So, yes.

Through relationships of thinking, I am giving expression to the fact of the sameness of mind and matter.

But that doesn't mean

I'm reducing reality to these relationships of thought themselves.

The relationships of thought are a reflection of a deeper reality.

That's the materialist position, and it's not metaphysical.

It's not metaphysical if we're saying

That all of this can be proven practically, that this has practical significance, that there's skin in the game here, that there's a decisive significance of whether this is true or false based on our relationship to material reality and history and society and so on and so on.

Mind only exists in the mode of matter.

Those are all metaphysical claims.

So it's not a metaphysical claim.

When

When the whole point is the denial of metaphys the denial of metaphysics is not inherently metaphysics.

Um

For no other reason that this denial

implies a content more fundamental than can be uh uh um comprehended within the frame of metaphysics.

So to to put it simply to you, the reason I use the example of food and feeding is because imagine philosophers are kind of just gibbering about, you know, the the metaphysics of food, right?

And then somebody decides to say, you know what, but that's a bunch of gibber.

It has nothing to do with how plants work.

It has nothing actually to do with how food is grown.

It has nothing to do with environmental considerations, soil, ecology, whatever.

And you actually, on the basis of the denial of metaphysics, you start growing food.

Well, in this case, you're put in a mode of practice and mode of practical activity, which is too great and too integral and too concrete to be translated within the narrow frame of metaphysics.

You have entered into a kind of practical, dialectical relationship with the world that can't be reduced to metaphysical language or thinking.

So maybe you have to operate within philosophy first to deny the philosophy, which is Mark what Marx did.

Maybe in some sense you do have to begin with metaphysics in order to deny metaphysics.

Maybe you can also accuse Marx of this.

But what you can't say is that the conclusion you arrive at is inherently metaphysical or philosophical for that matter.

There's a dialectical sublation that happens where you step into a greater kind of um

Uh

Practical relationship with the world more fundamental than relationships of thought to themselves.

In Althusser's Four Marks anthology in his collection, he really outlines this and the distinction between ideology and science.

You know?

Maybe through ideology you can arrive at the scientific position.

But once you arrive at the scientific position, you step into a

kind of continent of knowledge that is based on various different kind of praxeological relationships that do in fact have skin in the game and and do have a decisive significance and can only whose meaningfulness can only be measured i in terms of um things that fall beyond the scope of ideology, right?

So, I don't understand.

Like, it's like he seems to think that metaphysics is just religious claims.

He doesn't even understand that it's no, metaphysics.

Equates or reduces reality to relationships of thought.

I claim that relationships of thought reflect more fundamental realities.

So, this is really the crux of the position.

And the more fundamental reality in question, in this case, corresponds to our actual practical embedded existence, right?

How do we feed ourselves?

How do we clothe ourselves?

How do we shelter ourselves?

How are we actually existing in this world?

What is our relationship to nature, to means of production, to one and another economically and physically, and so on?

And uh this is the the crux of the point, you know.

Every

And and he he really doesn't understand the Marxist understanding of the concrete, and that's the problem.

What is material in Marxism is the concrete, and the concrete is more of an integral principle rather than a kind of claim about what is the like subs what is the um

What is the character, or what is the angel dust, or are they made of rocks?

I mean, that has nothing to do with Marxist materialism.

Is everything just some kind of like physical specific type of physical substance or particle that I can touch?

Or is it this ethereal mystical ghost thing?

That's not relevant to Marxist materialism at all, okay?

Marxist materialism.

Uh concerns specifically the concrete

Whole The Concrete Reality

And when we understand materialism in terms of the concrete,

Then

We have to accept that

Concreteness proper within Marxism.

is not something that corresponds to a specific claim about reality, but is the inclusive principle which itself accounts for the claims we make about it.

And that's a very, very different understanding of the real.

Just claims about what exists and doesn't exist.

Call it practical doesn't mean that it's not metaphysical.

Yes, yes, it is.

Because there you go.

So that was the stupidest part right there: if I say that it's quote practical, then it's just not metaphysical anymore.

And since materialism is practical, it's not a metaphysical position.

This is like pure top-level sophistry right there.

Yeah, because if materialism has a practical significance, then we are stepping out of the bounds of metaphysics.

We're stepping into a

reality that cannot be measured by metaphysics.

Uh or at least metaphysics alone.

And if it is, it's post hoc, right?

Metaphysics precisely consists in making claims about reality that have no practical significance.

No, that is not what metaphysics consists in.

So he redefines metaphysics to just simply mean anything that doesn't fit his metaphysical presuppositions, which is pure materialism.

So if it's immaterial, it's not practical, and therefore it's automatically canceled out.

But that's.

If it's immaterial, it's immaterial.

Isn't that interesting?

Isn't it interesting how, on a common sense level, it makes sense?

If it's immaterial, it just doesn't matter.

Like, straight up.

That's just the truth.

Yeah, that's the Marxist view.

If it's immaterial, it doesn't matter.

Sort of.

If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

Wow.

Setting from the outside.

It's so hard for him to understand.

Outset the boundaries of what you allow to exist, so that it's an unfalsifiable position.

So, since everything

Yeah, it's unfalsifiable if we're operating within the realm of metaphysics.

It's like Jay Dyer, you have you kind of have to step out of just reducing your understanding of what meaningfully can be regarded as real as relationships of thought, and you have to start being honest about what practical or actual

Um

Things correspond to your noetic position, or your your thinking consciousness.

And once you start doing that, yes, within the realm of pure thought and relationships of thought to themselves and this kind of rationalism, yeah, it's unfalsifiable.

But

Nonetheless, there are meaningful patterns, there's historicity, there are novel developments, there are patterns, there's order, there's structure, there's a cosmic significance, which operates by a logic that just cannot be reduced to pure thought itself.

It's like a new language gets unlocked.

You know, a new language is unfalsifiable until you start fucking speaking it.

Does it make sense to you guys?

Yeah, a new language is unfalsifiable according to your language until you start fucking speaking it.

In that case, it's a language and it has practical, decisive significance.

That exists is matter, and anything that doesn't exist is impractical.

Anything, quote, metaphysical is impractical.

But that's stupid because he's doing the very thing that he's saying, right?

How?

No, think about it.

How?

If I'm saying, how am I doing that?

If all I'm saying, if I'm effectively saying you're a time-wasting retard, that you're a gibberer, that nothing you say actually matters.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm saying nothing you say, none of the positions you hold or have actually do matter.

We don't need them.

They're not necessary for us.

And we can safely discard and throw you in the dumpster and move on with actually attending to the things that matter for us as human beings.

If I'm breaking a jail cell, if I'm breaking down an iron door, in this case it's a cardboard door, but nonetheless a door, if I'm breaking it down and saying we're free to go outside.

Am I guilty for having

made contact with this door?

Is it only possible to speak of what I have done in terms of what it is doing to the door?

Or can we speak about what happens when I step outside and I'm outside?

You know, the the place that the door couldn't account for because it closed.

It was closed too, right?

Uh, you can't do, which is to make universal claims about what exists.

Okay, but it's not practical, so it doesn't exist.

That's crazy.

Like saying that so, his argument is that it's crazy.

I'm sorry, he's just out of his league here.

Yeah, his argument is that it's crazy.

Okay, well, if you find that to be a compelling and convincing argument, I don't know what to tell you.

His argument is that it's crazy.

You just heard him.

It's crazy.

That's his argument.

That all reality is material.

That's a metaphysical claim.

So why can't I just do the same thing and say, well, it's practically advantageous, it's very pragmatic for me to say God exists.

For two reasons.

One, I'm not talking about pragmatism.

But second of all,

Um let's let me just like play with the devil's advocate that like I'm the atheist here and you're the theo the theist, right?

Because he's very confused.

He doesn't know that materialism doesn't actually exclude God, the possibility of God or a meaningful reference to God, right?

But I'll play ball just for the sake of saving time.

In that case, yes, make that argument.

I invite you to make that argument.

I invite you to make the argument that your position is practically necessary.

I invite you to make that argument, but you won't make the argument.

You can say that.

But that it's it's like I'm not just saying this, I'm actually making the case

For why my position is practically necessary.

Uh now you interrupted me a ton and you didn't let me, but I can if you ask me to elaborate, I can.

I invite you to elaborate and try to debate me and explain why your position is actually practically necessary.

And I will debate you on those terms, and I will destroy you on those terms.

Okay, because I'm confident that your position isn't practically necessary, actually.

It's not practically necessary for humanity to fulfil and achieve an existence worthy of its essence, so to speak.

Um

I can use this same standard just like FDA said with Professor Zhang, that Gnostic goober.

I can just say, okay, it's practical that God exists.

There's like so many levels of confusion and retardation on his part.

Because first of all, you're you're in this case you're saying you're making that uh Enlightenment argument.

I think it was from correct me if I'm wrong, was it Voltaire?

If there was no God, it would be necessary to invent him, right?

For utilitarian reasons.

Well

The kind of praxeological orientation of dialectical materialism is not the same thing as utilitarianism or pragmatism for that matter.

We're not simply saying that our position is more practically advantageous or has more utility for the fulfillment of some other ends.

We are actually and really talking about practice in terms of the practice of.

A given principle or a given posture or a given

existence, you know?

Like what a thing actually is.

So

If you want to say that has ontological significance, sure.

Fine, say it.

Um but this is the

This is the dignity afforded to the notion of practice we have.

A practice is not oh practical utility, practically advantageous.

No, like practice is what is this thing in actuality?

What actually is it actually?

Not what is it according to the purports of the mind of relationships of thought to itself, but what does it actually correspond to in reality?

And this requires taking an extra step, which Marx called scientific, a scientific investigation of reality, a scientific understanding of what things are based on participating in them and being responsible for what your position is.

Why is that if that's the line of orientation for ultimate reality?

Then I can just say the opposite.

Why not?

You can say the opposite and you can attempt to say the opposite and you would fail in making your case.

I'm more than conf I I invite him to debate and try and to do that, you know.

Um if you were to say, well, my position is necessary because without it we're going to have immorality and anarchy, I'd be happy to say prove it.

Prove it.

The Soviet Union didn't have immoral anarchy, and they didn't have J.

Dyer.

Plenty of societies don't have your retarded fucking worldview and philosophy, and they're doing just fine.

We don't need to be blackmailed in terms of living as human beings and having a dignity worthy of man.

Uh, that you know, if we don't, if we don't uh listen to Jay Dyer, we're gonna what?

What are you blackmailing with us with exactly?

You know, why do we need you in your worldview?

Why do we need it actually?

Someone asked, Haas, why do we need communism?

I would very easy for me to make the case.

Well, if we don't have communism, then we're gonna have the rule of the private interest.

If we have the rule of the private interest, then the interests of the overwhelming majority are going to be discarded.

Society is going to get worse for the majority, life is going to get worse, and people are not going to have the dignity and respect deserving of the title human.

That's extremely easy for it's really easy for me to make that case.

Recorded history, we have made claims about reality and clung to those claims.

So, you're just restating what so yeah, so going back to history and saying that people have made universal, grand historical claims, totally irrelevant to what's being debated.

Reality is that.

No, the reality is that

Metaphysical idealism has in fact corresponded throughout history to the mystification of the real conditions of man's existence.

That's actually all I'm saying.

That when we actually attend to the real conditions of our existence, when we concern ourselves with things like how are we feeding ourselves.

Then we're stepping outside of what is permitted by metaphysics and engaging with reality at a more fundamental level.

Why is that such an unreasonable position?

That's a circular argument.

Reality is materialism, and that's what reality is.

That's called a circular argument.

So you're at T-jump level.

Reality is reality.

Why are you interrupting me?

We spent a long time because you're just restating what.

By the way, yeah, the whole time he's just interrupting me the whole time.

But the question is, I want to know why that's the case.

Jay Dyer, knowledge which feeds people is not metaphysical.

Okay?

Metaphysical is like he just kept interrupting me, so I had to sum it up in five words, you know?

Like, so wait, what is the knowledge there in that sentence?

What is the feeding in that sentence?

It's the same thing.

So, knowledge is feeding people.

You can't make that.

So, yeah, that's the meme that the gay liar community made up to cope with the fact of his just duplicitous, dishonest behavior and the fact that he just wouldn't debate me, had no intention of.

I'm not going to get into it, but.

In fact, I didn't say knowledge is feeding in the sense that they are the same thing.

What I was actually saying is that insofar as

Knowledge has any metaphysical import.

Well, feeding would be the same thing in that sentence.

He's like, Well, what is the knowledge in that sentence?

I'm like, Well, what is the feeding?

They're the same if we're talking about one having some special metaphysical import.

Well, no, knowledge has no more metaphysical import than feeding does.

So, like, for purposes of being material, they are the same.

They're both material.

Now, does that mean all material determinations are the same?

No, of course not.

But are they all the same with respect to the quality of being material?

Yes.

So, for example, gay liar is gay.

Okay.

And so is um

Who is famous for this?

I don't know.

So is Nick Fuentes.

Okay?

Now, Jay Dyer and Nick Fuentes are different personalities.

But with respect to the quality of being gay, they are the same.

They are gay.

Okay?

So that's the equivalence I'm making of knowledge and feeding.

I'm not saying they're the same determination in every respect.

I'm saying with respect to their metaphysical import or lack thereof for purposes of this debate, like whether they're material or not.

Yeah, they're both material.

So with respect to that, yes, they're the same.

In the sense that they're both material.

It's the same.

They're both material.

I'm not saying knowledge is the same as feeding.

In every respect, I'm saying

Both are material.

There's nothing more or less m there's nothing less material about knowledge than feeding.

That was my very simple position and argument.

Knowledge is identical to feeding.

Knowledge?

You're a clown, man.

So he just called me a clown, interrupted me.

You don't have no idea what you're talking about.

Knowledge is feeding.

This is where he got scared.

I'm not even kidding.

Like, he genuinely got scared when I started getting into the nitty-gritty about how he didn't even read Lenin's book and therefore has no understanding of what we mean by material.

Notice how this is when he actually kicks me.

When I actually point out how his understanding of the material is nowhere to be found in Lenin, he actually panics and kicks me.

I'm not even kidding.

I did.

I had it pulled out ready to debate it.

He had it pulled out and he was ready to debate it, right?

So look at how Jay Dyer debates it.

Is that only empirically definite truth?

That was it.

He literally just kicked me.

That was him.

He definitely had Marx's imperial, Lenin's imperial criticism ready, and he was ready to debate it.

But it's too bad.

I don't know.

His hand must have slipped or something and he accidentally kicked me.

Like, guys, I don't, I'm not, I literally like have no dog in this fight, to be honest.

This was like four, three, four years ago.

I'm just genuinely curious.

Are there any gay liar fans that can defend this?

Like, come on, come back to reality.

Like, what is this?

This is a grown-ass man.

And he's like, am I crazy for just like this?

It's so obvious he got intimidated and just fucking kicked me because he knew that this was just way out of his league in terms of like what he's capable of engaging with.

Um

Am I biased?

I don't want to be biased, guys.

I want truth, right?

Just like Gay Liar said he wants truth.

I kind of like feel like it's just so obvious.

He just was fucking scared and kicked me because he didn't want to get in the nitty-gritty of whether materiality is in fact within the Marxist or Leninist tradition reducible to sensuously tangible things.

I don't think he really wanted to debate that because I think he was unprepared to debate it.

DPRM, what's up?

Now, if you have another explanation for why he decided to kick me at that specific moment, you're free to make it.

But for all the gay liar fans who continue to talk about how...

Mila, what's up?

Who continued to like talk about uh

Oh, you said knowledge is feeding.

It's like, buddy, um

Is this how you're running cover for like the obvious?

This is a grown-ass man who was just like running all day from me from a debate, started a Twitter space when he thought I wasn't gonna make it because I was an hour away and it was midnight.

And then when I actually called his bluff, kicked me the minute I said something, he straight up couldn't think of anything to say in response to.

Like after three minutes.

What the fuck?

Like, I'm just like, I remember these YouTube comments.

Can I point out the YouTube comments?

Should I like go through that?

'Cause like I feel like I'm being gaslit big time.

I just feel like I'm being gaslit a little bit because I'm like so confused.

Uh Jay Dyer is a clown.

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Jay Dyer is a clown.

Or

I just feel like I'm getting gaslit, you know?

Alright, like look at these con look at the I I'm just like baffled.

Why are you fuming and acting and saying vile things?

You couldn't even make a coherent argument.

Saying something is something h I'm going to hell.

You got smoked by Dyer.

Your epistemology crumbles under scrutiny.

But just so we're clear,

Jay Dyer himself was not the one capable of proving that.

I'm sure you're confident that I'm wrong for some reason.

But in terms of like putting that to the test in a debate where I'm allowed to respond, we have yet to see what that looks like.

I feel like a lot of gay liars fans just like think I'm wrong and then therefore think because they think I'm wrong, I lost the debate.

But if you put me in a position where I'm capable of actually responding, that hasn't happened yet.

So they're like, they're just saying, you know, I believe you're wrong.

So therefore you lost.

That's not how it works.

I don't know how anyone can defend gay liars' behavior in that ordeal.

Like that single-handedly proved to me that not only him, but the entire religious LARPer community online is so extremely dishonorable and duplicitous.

I'm not a diorite, but how do you ground the assertion that mankind deserves to live without metaphysical precepts?

I'll simplify it for you, okay?

Um let's say you're stuck in a padded room and there's a door.

Everything you're going to be working with is going to be within the padded room.

You're stuck in the padded room.

But is reality the padded room itself?

Well, let's say you decide to knock open the door, and outside is a beautiful meadow with green grass and a very sunny sky.

You may have had to

Work within the padded room to bust the door down, so to speak, but the language with which you comprehend reality can no longer be reduced to that padded room once you've stepped outside of it.

You're now dealing with a relationship to the world more fundamental than what can be contained within the padded room.

So, in this analogy, metaphysics is the padded room.

I'm not denying that it was necessary to go through metaphysics and philosophy to arrive at the Marxist materialist position.

There's a history of philosophy that culminates in Karl Marx.

It ends in Hegel, and then Marx, who draws from Hegel, arrives at the materialist position.

What I insist upon is that once we are outside the padded room, you can no longer claim that when I go outside in the grass and I'm picking up snails and I'm picking up

Uh, dirt and grass that I'm still in fact in the padded room.

No, I'm not.

I'm outside the padded room now.

I may have had to exit the padded room to get here, but you can't understand my modus operande if you're still stuck within the framing of the padded room.

There's a whole new ball game now.

Okay, it's a whole new ballpark.

I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

I I just feel like it's really simple.

Yeah, I feel like these people aren't even talking about the debate.

They're just invested in these positions that they are too scared to put to the test, at least when it comes to me, you know?

So guys, you know, make a VOD out of it.

I don't know.

I think there's more I want to say, or there's more I had to say.

Uh

What did I uh what else did I wanna it was about Marx's concrete and the materialist understanding of the concrete.

Um

Lawn guy, what's up, man?

Thank you for the four.

Appreciate it.

Appreciate you, bro.

Yeah, m Marx's logic is the rising of the abstract to the concrete.

And this is not metaphysical, even though it might seem like it is at the outset when you're beginning with the abstract.

Because when we're engaged in the process of thought and thinking, we're abstracting.

Okay, there's a more fundamental, integral context that gives meaningfulness to our thoughts.

And this is very self-evident, actually.

Amila, thank you so much for the ten.

The reason it's self-evident is because everyone agrees that in order to think, you need food in your stomach, you need to eat, you need to have a metabolic process, digestive processes, you know, biological, cellular processes.

Your body has to absorb oxygen.

There's all sorts of preconditions and uh

Prior conditions that make possible thinking.

We all agree with that.

And so when I think about something

I can try to abstract my thought from this more fundamental context, and therefore, you know.

Try to establish relationships between thoughts.

And then reduce reality to that, to the point where now I I I'm actually trying to reduce the various biological and physical and material processes that are the precondition of my ability to think to thoughts that oh, these are just the thoughts of God, these are just the thoughts of some these are just super thoughts, super ideas, you know.

Don't worry, t trust me bro, they totally exist.

Because you can't comprehend structure and determination and distinction and quality

Except through thought.

So you reduce reality to that, to the very means by which you acquire knowledge of it.

CO2, what's up?

When you have a more integral perspective that acknowledges.

the conditions of thought, which are in fact material, and you you have knowledge of these, you have a kind of knowledge that humbles the heights reached by thought to these premises and conditions.

Um at this point

You're outside metaphysics.

You know, it's it's almost like you have an understanding of the unconscious shadow that corresponds to the conscious thinking.

So you are definitely in the realm of a kind of mysticism or

fundamental engagement with the sublime, that is very much outside of rationalism.

Finally

With respect to the rising of the abstract and the concrete, the idea is basically that instead of a kind of base or vulgar materialism.

In attempting to flesh out comprehensively the various relationships of thought.

thought to itself, you know, ideas to themselves.

you acquire a kind of logic or relationality irreducible to the terms themselves, which you then recognize as

Proper to the real.

And in this way, by acknowledging the various rich determinations and complex relationships achieved in and through thought or the investigation of commodities, right, case of capital.

Yeah.

At the end point of this process, you have a more rich understanding of the concrete whole and totality, which these things are a part.

So the way to to get to the whole is not simply to begin with the concept of what the integral total universal is, but begin with the abstract, develop the abstract, and then the whole as a logic of relationality

Um

is revealed.

and then can be applied in ways that go beyond the terms themselves.

So the Marxist understanding of the concrete and the material concrete is not a base materialism, where we say there's this base particle that all things are.

Yeah, I'm straight up gonna end the stream like a second.

I'm so fucking exhausted.

But yeah, the material is in fact.

The concrete totality, right?

The material is.

is not, you know, a a fundamental particle of reality.

The material in fact refers to the comprehensive integral.

Reality of things

What greater reality they form a part of?

The reduction of reality to thought, just because the only way we can access reality to th is through thought, is unjustified.

Cannot be justified.

And if we deign and decide to step outside of that dogmatic position.

Gay liar can't cry and s gay crier can't say no, you can't do that, that's metaphysical.

Hey, buddy, the Cheka doesn't care about metaphysics.

It's like we're not in playing the same game as you anymore.

You understand what I mean?

Like, when they're making the T 34 tank, who's thinking about metaphysics anymore?

When the Chinese are building the Three Gorges Dam, who gives a fuck about metaphysics?

Nobody's thinking about it.

When the Chinese or wh so when the Soviets are launching Yuri Gagarin into space, I'm sorry, buddy, you can claim that's metaphysical all you want, but nobody gives a fuck 'cause you're not even speaking our language anymore.

You know?

That's my response, basically.

Anyway, guys, you might have not thought this stream was important, but I thought it was.

And uh, you know, I get it, guys.

You don't want big bi big brain streams, whatever.

Don't give a fuck.

I'll be back Thursday, guys.

I gotta go.

See you later.

Bye bye.

Be back Thursday for uh good content and debates, you know.

Fuck, I don't know why I can't speak.

Like, I'm talking so slowly now.

I'm like, I don't fuck.

I have to get into the flow of talking again.

Anyway, guys, bye-bye.

I'll see you guys Thursday.

Bye.