DOMINATION of ALL Enemies

Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping

Al-Qa-Kosmos He-Jang-Peng,

Allah-Kosmos-Hij-Jimpin,

Allah Cosmos He-Jim-Pen

Apple and Kolozheni-Kollah

Kappa PIN POMAYGELAIC Apollo Santa Al-A-Q

A La Cosmosmosi-Gy-Gimpin

Al-Qa-Cosmosi-Jimpin Al-Gasmosi-Gimpin Al-Cosmosis-J-cosmuseum-peng, allah cosmoses impen,

allah cosmossi-jim-peng, allah-l-l-l-l-l-l-hall-a-l-l-haw-hack.

Al-a-cosmosi-impin ping, allah-cosmosi-jid-pain,

all-h, al-a-gosmos-i-dheng. Gala Cosmosy of Empeng, Gala Cosmosy imping Alla Cosmosi in pain Hello, Oh, Oh my

Blah Thomas Can I Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping.

Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping,

Allah Cosmos Hegempe, Al-Qa-Cola Zana. allah cosmocy in pain allah cosmocy in pain allah cosmocy in pain allah cosmocy in pain, allah, cosmocity imping, ala, no, I know, I know, love it

a lot, yeah.

Al-a-cosmucid imping, allah, cosmosi, imping, all the cosmos and imping, all the cosmos

it, and em, and then, all the cosmos, and pain, al-a-l-l-ha-ha-ha. you bring I know I love a man Oh Oh, ho-hoa-coma-coma-coma-N-Han-N-

Oh, ha, ha, Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Cosmos He Jinping, Allah Mosheed Jinping Allah

Moschimbing

Allah Bos

Moschid Jinping

Nakolakolakola

Qolaolaola Sanna allah cosmos it jing pain allah cosmos jing pain allah cosmos jim pain allah cosmos jim pain allah cosmos jim pain allah cosmos jim pain and then ala cosmosis

imping, allah cosmocy

imping, allah cosmocy

imping, allah cosmocy

imping, ala cosmosisim pain I don't

la la laa

a Oh, oh, oholkomo Ska!

Allah Kiyymp! Allah Kosovo, Hizimping.

Allah, Allah, Kosovo, Hiz Allah, Colombia, Kalalakola, Zana.

Al-A-Kolossack! allah cosmosity imping allah cosmoscis impen allah cosmosy jim pain allah cosmosysi impen allah cosmosysi imp allah, cosmosid impen, allah, cosmocid impen, allah, cosmocid impen. Oh! Oh! Oh!

Oh!

Oh!

Oh!

Oh! I'm No

I'm

No and I want to be able to be.

I don't know. and the other people my own I'm

I'm

I'm I'm and the other people and we're not going to say

and nothing

I'm going to I'm

a lot of people

and I'm

a

and I'm

a lot and I'm not

I'm a lot

I'm going to

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm and I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

a and the I don't know I'm

a lot of

I'm I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

and

I'm I'm

I'm

The

I'm I'm going to

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm not I'm not

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm Holy shit. I literally just spent the...

I literally banned like 10 people from the Discord just now.

And the reason I did this is because as a cult leader, I just, it's just like,

why are you gibbering in the Discord and not bringing energy to the kickchat.

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

jibbering about nonsense.

I just ban ten 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. All right. force everyone to live in a compound. You know, I leave everyone alone. Yet?

Or, sorry, so far,

Dark energy, what's up?

Are all the autistic people?

That's an R slash...

What do they see 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, like, going to be lit as fuck.

I have to, on some real shit.

I don't know if they're here but uh we need i need clippers and i need uh the vod people the youtube vaude people i could just make this

into a youtube vaude myself and do it myself but 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 Talentside is, like like way too busy now but for all of you guys that are

working on you know youtube channels dedicated to clipping the streams i want to pass it to you

you know 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 people

should just do it

right

because it's about? Because it's about

some drama.

It's about some streamer

beef and some streamer drama.

And it's

going to do numbers.

Trust me.

Guarantee to you,

this will be like

top.

This is what I'm saying,

like,

if you're not here to witness it while it like, top, this is 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,

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

all the ACP ever does

is talk about Nick Fuentes.

All he was talk about Nick Fuentes.

It's like Jesus Christ.

I'm not, I'm not gonna even, like, hear that.

That's not processing.

I don't know if that's supposed to, like,

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 Candice 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 going to talk about the trending topics.

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

I mean, it's about Jackson.

And, yeah, we're obviously going to 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 the-

The Russian operative Jackson Hinkle.

Okay.

Yeah.

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

You know what I?

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

I don't need to like 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.

It's funny.

They have a theory that ACP was founded in Mexico. It's funny. They have a theory

that ACP was founded in Mexico

because apparently they found a screenshot

of the ACP main account.

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 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 golf course photo shoot?

It was actually a mansion in Chicago,

but, uh,

and it was just a big backyard.

It was Photoshop. Yeah,

because 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, I don't get, 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, 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 want to 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 flintas jackson

genuinely was very far cited in the sense that he genuinely believed at however popular

nick fuentes was going to get he was going to fall off pretty

badly

and it's not even like worthy 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, uh, 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 flintas 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, worth his time, that's up to him, you know? But of course, Jackson could destroy Nick Fuentes in a debate. I have no doubt about that.

Um, yeah. debate. I have no doubt about that. Yeah.

The thing of all.

But you're not going to accept the boxing master.

Say you're not going to accept it, you know?

Because here's the thing. I think it's kind of gone beyond the threshold of debates.

In terms of like you calling us for us to be killed, you calling us

to be jailed, you blaming us

for Charlie Kirk's death.

I think it's pretty fair for Jackson

to challenge you to a fucking physical fight, you know?

It's no longer like a battle of ideas.

Like 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 to...

Yeah, uh, there's a difference between not knowing how to define communism and how to

how to, like, simplify it in a way that right right wing retard audiences will understand, which is actually

something Jackson kind of seemed to struggle with on Sneco 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 retarts.

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,

taking 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. That's a very different

task.

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

right?

So, yeah, I mean,

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

We got to 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 brain brain rotted too focused on rhetoric and that's really it is 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, uh, that's a 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.

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.

It's Yemenis are closer in their distance genetically to Europeans than you are Nick Flentis no it's literally true the guy lays out the reasoning the argumentation it's actually quite logical Flentes, 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 maybe

not hundreds, maybe like 50,000 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 brownoids this

brown why don't we drop the racial talk when you are very far from being

european compared to a yemeny 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 So he can choke. He's a

fucking traitor to our country. And

he got raped by... He's a traitor.

Wow. Shabbas 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. 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, it just shows you're a

pussy, actually. Because 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 want to mindless garbage fight me bro you're cropping hard as fuck

bro is this guy an 11th month subscriber saying this?

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

Like, straight up, what is the, what the

fuck is wrong with you?

And, 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

Groyper community.

I'll the Groyper community. 11th, 11-month subscriber. What the fuck?

It's crazy.

You want to bring it all the brown communists to cheer you on i don't think so we'll do a debate for sure

fx thank you what the brown what is he fucking talking about a communism the russian opera

look if you want to debate jett why wouldn't you debate me debate, 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 debated Nick Foote's.

He was such a fucking illiterate retard.

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

But 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, 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 of theory. Communism is also a practical orientation. It's a vision. It's a cause. It's 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 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 explaining. 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 going to 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 have a,

more Marxist.

Like a long time.

So, uh, gay liar is back.

And, um... is back and 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 and I'll get a notification on YouTube, like, you think knowledge is feeding.

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 you why

didn't you debate uh 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 gonna be good

faith if you're a j dire fan i want you to so this is where the video should start i'm gonna be

good faith if you're a j dire 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 very calm and rational about this, breaking this down.

I'm going to put the challenge on you.

I'm going to like 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, Ha's, Jay Dyer gave you the chance to debate. Why didn't she 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 and and just watch okay and i invite any j dire 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 huss he said he would he let you

that that that that was him inviting you for a debate okay i will let j dire 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 diet.

What are 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 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 his struggle.

He just sees it as lot, you it as propositional logic or something.

I don't know.

Yeah.

But 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, of 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 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, you know, 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 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, 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, no, I don't have doubts that I think Jay Dyer would resolve.

Like, 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, of, you know, of, 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 ev 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.

So this superstitious hoopla about the dialectic of struggle and battle,

and 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

why you have to mystify this

with this like

pseudo intellectual

understanding of Marxism.

This like fake understanding

this like

pseudo intellectual pretence

to understanding Marxism.

Oh,

it's about the struggle of the

pro- buddy, like, I could just say the same

thing about you, that you have this like

theology,

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, you know, 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 i think with marks uh he doesn't mind

talking about what might be considered metaphysics what might be considered metaphysics really

interesting and and very very strong argument here 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.

And 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 materialist.

I don't remember his exact,

but he's a hardcore Marxist.

And he was just like,

we don't care about the metaphysics

because what matters he says is,

are you feeding people?

So they 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 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.

Okay, 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 dialectics for them is almost 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 Buzwa.

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

Okay.

Hegel,

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 Marxists engages in practice.

He does revolutionary action, not bourgeois academic speculation.

Okay.

I'm just curious, like, what's wrong with what's,

what is false about that position,

that the boogeo academic gibbers their farts

and smells their farts 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, disagree.

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.

You only disagree with you. We'll only disagree with because of the

bucho. You only ask metaphysical questions because you think

the metaphysics is some real thing.

Dasha is a commie?

Is she actually commie?

I don't even know her political positions, but I mean,

there is this problem of these stupid fake right-wingeres.

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'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 insane. 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, 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 want 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 it's a performative thing.

Discourse and logical, you know, fallacies and calling him out and all that define truth truth. That's not what debate is for 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 call as an intense opposition.

That is revolutionary action for them. So it's a religion of hating and fighting.

Struggle, right. And it's baffles my mind that anybody follows these people.

They have to be some kind of, and they've got bots too, because after this,

I had thousands of bots,

thousands of, what was he called it,

Maga communism, right?

I was that related earlier today

about the history of the bullshit.

The second thing I want to say is that...

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 in it.

So he's actually committed to the position.

And in a moment, all of it, you could, it's all this like gibbering when the problem that led me to be disrespectful is actually so simple, right?

And, uh And you can listen

to Jay Dyer, gibber, about, you know,

Marxists, or 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,, how they debate the exact same way.

Well, many of them are more low tier, but

here's 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.

I'm having you on here right now.

So what are you talking about?

Jay Dyer,

you claim that my photo was Photoshop.

I spent all day on the ground.

Okay, good for you.

Good for you.

Do you want to tell you?

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 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 there's going to be a no-show, I am going to. Okay. You're hoping

there's going to be a no-show. I am going to show up.

Just to prove you don't want to have a good faith

debate.

Let's talk about, let's talk about

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 J. 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.

Let's talk about imperial criticism.

Are you going to talk, are you going to talk about Leninism and materialism?

Yes.

Okay.

Before I do that, we have some personal beef because we could have had a...

I don't know anything about you.

I was...

Stop saying my name and just get to the topic.

I would...

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

thinking that there was a chance that I

would 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 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

um

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 at

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

there's this great intellectual

revolutionary but

revolution the position and in this exact

same way well many of them

so this is how we're going to

all right so 437 and 6.

Okay.

So this is one minute that passed of me 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 that's just

all I'm trying to say. It wasn't five minutes.

It was like a minute, right? And then 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.

Sigh with the five. What's up, bro? All right, if that's true, I this sigh 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 i don't consider you worth a formal debate.

He doesn't consider me worth a formal debate.

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 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, all 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.

Everyone, 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 because 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,

he had no,

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 Comm Museum interview two 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 everyone.

So I decided to call his bluff.

And 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're too scared to debate.

Just admit that.

Okay, okay, okay, well, 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.

That's not,

that's an assert.

Like, he didn't even know what I was going to say.

And he already claims to know that,

like,

what is,

that's,

is this that,

honestly, Jay Dyer fans, like no cortisol spikes. Okay. to know that like what is that's is this that honestly

Jay Dyer fans like no cortisol

spikes can you guys actually defend this

can a single J. 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

assertion that's an assertion

that's not an argument

well materialism, as Marx

understood... Notice how, instead of, like,

complaining about him 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.

It consists in the rejection of metaphysics

and idle dogmas

of the mind and idols of thought

and the mind which are not proven

or put to work in any kind of way

practically. Okay, what is the mind?

What is the mind? What do you mean

what is the mind? 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 ideas.

Okay, those are all metaphysical statements.

No, they're not.

Sure, you're saying that they have ontological status that 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. It doesn't matter because he doesn't understand that he's making

metaphysical class. 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?

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 assass man literally sitting here convincing himself that he won this

debate by trying to relitigate, 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.

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 as matter is a universal metaphysical claim, right?

A universal claim is not inherently metaphysical.

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

doing.

It's so stupid.

First of all, 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, 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

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 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, most people would say that any kind of super sensible 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

super sensible 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,

a whole. The concrete includes thought. So thinking beings are part of matter and they're part

of reality

but 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 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

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

And then we have the unconscious. Now, the unconscious is not reducible to conscious thoughts or thoughts proper, right? The unconscious is this kind of 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... Um... a more fundamental order

that unites cosmically

man's existence with

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.

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, worldview.

He's this kind of crypto-neonostic

rationalist

who has

twisted himself

into a pretzel

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?

And the presumption that this is just some kind of super thought or super idea, which comes from Platonism, is nowhere to be found in the Abrahamic traditions, the prophetic traditions.

This is a presumption the philosophers make without proving it.

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?

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, 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.

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 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 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 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

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 cannot ever be proven an identity between a given

of the mind and anything that exists in reality.

Even pure mathematics doesn't exist in reality

pure mathematics and practically applied mathematics

actually contradict each other

there can never be

an equality or identity

or sameness between any fixed static form, including numbers and 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, Redson, 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.

So 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

a 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 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 metaphysical claim.

That's a metaphysical claim. Yes, yes. Earth exists. That's not a metaphysical claim. That's a metaphysical claim. That's a metaphysical claim. No, no.

Yes.

Earth exists.

That's not a metaphysical claim.

It is a status.

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.

So the 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 that's my position.

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

It's that metaphysics attempts to, 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 divisions of labor between

mental and

physical within

the ruling class. 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 it that exists?

And why are you saying that in some cases, these material things exist?

They are the case.

He's saying that mind is just pure matter.

So that is a total 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.

It's not a metaphysical claim when the whole point is the denial of metaphysics. The denial of metaphysics is not inherently metaphysics,

um, for no other reason that this denial implies a content more fundamental than can be comprehended within the frame of metaphysics.

So 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 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 what Marx did. Maybe in some sense,

you do have to begin with metaphysics in order to deny metaphysics.

Maybe you can also accuse marks 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 practical relationship with the world, more fundamental than relationships of thought to themselves.

In Althusor's Four Mark's anthology in his collection, he really outlines this in 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 do have a decisive

significance and can only whose

meaningfulness can only be measured

in terms of

things that fall beyond the scope of ideology,

right?

So I don't understand.

It's like he seems to think that metaphysics is just

religious claims.

He doesn't even understand that it's like he seems to think that metaphysics is just religious claims he doesn't 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, like, existence, right?

How do we feed ourselves?

How do we clothe ourselves?

How do we shelter ourselves? How 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 and so. And this is

the crux of the point,

you know?

Every...

And 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, what is the like subs what is the what is the character

or what is the

are things made of

you know angel dust or are they made of

rocks I mean that's that has nothing to do with

Marxist materialism.

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

Or is it this aetherial, mystical ghost thing?

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

Marxist materialism

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.

There you go.

So that was the stupidest part right there was 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, or at least metaphysics alone.

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

Physics 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 cancelled out. But that's... If it's immaterial, it's not practical and therefore it's automatically cancelled 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 out.

So hard for him to understand.

Set the boundaries of what you allow to exist.

So 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 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 things correspond to your noetic position, or 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's, 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.

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

place that the door couldn't account for because it closed. It was closed too, right?

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.

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 point.

No, that has direct practical significance

because for a great... 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, let me just play with the devil's advocate that I'm the atheist here and you're 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.

Now, you interrupted me a tonne, you didn't let me, 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 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 fulfill and achieve an existence worthy of its essence, so to speak.

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

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 in this case you're saying you're making that enlightenment argument i think it was from correct me if i'm wrong was it volta 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.

But 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 marks 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 argumentation 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 con. I invite him to debate and trying to do that, you know.

If you were to say, well, my position is necessary because without it, we're going to have immorality and anarchity.

I could, I'd be happy to say, prove it.

Prove it.

The Soviet Union didn't have immoral

anarchy, and they didn't have

Jay 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,

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

What are you blackmailing us with exactly, you know?

Why do we need you in your worldview?

Why do we need it, actually?

Someone has Haas, why do we need communism? I would very, very easy for me to make the case. Well, if we don't have communism, then we're going to 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.

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 relevant to what's being debated.

The reality is that...

No, the reality is that metaphysical idealism has, in fact, 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, you're at T-Jump level.

Reality is reality.

How are you interrupting me?

We spent a long time.

Because you're just restating.

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

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

Jay Dyer, knowledge,

knowledge which feeds people is not

metaphysical. Okay?

Metaphysical is...

Like, he just kept interrupting me, so I had to, like, sum it up

in five words, you know?

Like, Mandelaian genetics...

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 the...

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, like, 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, 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

there's nothing less material about knowledge

than feeding. That was my very simple

position and argument.

Knowledge is identical to feeding.

You're a clown, man.

So he, uh, he just called me a clown, interrupted me.

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

Knowledge is feeding.

Because it's not something that's sensuously tangible.

Is that your fucking argument, you retard?

Did you even read Lenin's materialism and periodicism?

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?

That was it.

He literally just kicked me.

That was him. He definitely had Marx's Imperial Imperial Lenin's Imperial criticism

ready and he was ready to debate it

but it's too bad I don't know his his hand must

have slipped or something and he accidentally kicked

me like guys

I don't I'm not I literally like

to have no dog in this fight to be honest

this was like four three four years

ago I'm just genuinely curious

like 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 like 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.

DPR and 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,

Emilo, what's up?

Who continue 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 going to 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.

Can I point out the YouTube comments?

Should I, like, go through that?

Because, 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.

J. Dyer is a clown. Where is it? Where is it? Where is it? Jay Dyer is a clown.

And of contraries or i just feel like i'm getting gaslit you know i like look at these con look at the, 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 how i'm going to hell you got smoked by dyer your epistemology crumbles

under scrutiny but just so we're clear j 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 a 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, like, religious LARPA community online, so extremely dishonorable and duplicitous.

I'm not a diary, but how do you ground the assertion that mankind deserves to live without metaphysical precepts. I'll simplify it for you.

Okay. 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 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 operandi

if you're still stuck within the framing of the padded room.

There's a whole new ballgame now.

Okay, it's a whole new ballpark.

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

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 vaude out of it.

I don't know.

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

What else did I, what else did I want to?

It was about Marx's concrete and the materialist understanding of the concrete.

Um, long guy what's up man thank you for the four appreciate it

appreciate you bro appreciate it. Appreciate you, bro. Yeah, 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.

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 with the 10.

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 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'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, trust me, bro. Don't worry.

Trust me, bro.

They totally exist.

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

through thought.

So you reduced 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 have knowledge of these.

You have a kind of knowledge that humbles the heights reached by thought to these premises and conditions.

At this point, you're outside metaphysics.

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

So the way to get to the hole

is not simply to begin with a 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 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 You know, Yeah, I'm straight. I'm going to 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 fundamental

particle of reality

the material

in fact refers to the

comprehensive integral

reality of things

what greater reality they form of 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 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 gay cryer can't say

no you can't do that that's metaphysical

hey buddy

the checker doesn't care

about metaphysics it's like we're not in

playing the same game as you anymore

you understand when they're making the T30 like we're not in playing the same game as you anymore. You understand

when they're making the T-34 tank,

who's thinking about metaphysics anymore?

When the Chinese are building the three gorges

damn, who gives a fuck about metaphysics nobody's thinking about it when the chinese

or what so when the soviets are launching uri gagarin into space i'm sorry buddy you can claim

that's metaphysical all you want but nobody gives a fuck because you're not even speaking our language

anymore you know that's my Nobody gives a fuck because you're not even speaking our language anymore.

You know?

That's my response, basically.

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

And, you know, I get it, guys.

You don't want big brain streams, whatever.

Don't give a fuck.

I'll be back Thursday, guys.

I got to go.

See you later.

Bye-bye.

Be back Thursday for 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.

See you guys Thursday. Bye.