ACP UNDER ATTACK!!!! | JIHAD 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

Still a job in the market.

Muhammad sallallahu alaihi

Guinalla Kariya Bakanjak Allah Hasla Sena Satmaz, Yushunja Kalp Malsam, Shukurle Kalma Sam, Deceina Kaipatishunah, Da Hagim Sindell, Wayapasamatwar, Truk Merdevane, Senda Mikiste Ham, Devama Isti Far Gereka Irti Ba Ishinde, Allah Inde, Allah Sikunde, Allah Hikunde, Allah Akunda, Allah Ashkunda, Allah Asunda, Allah Khanba, Allah Asfira Fijan Allah, Mafi al-Birairullah, Doi Muhammad Sallallah Railah.

Yeah.

I'm not sure.

Man with the five.

What's up, bro?

Comrade Kid with the five.

What's going on, brother?

Steven Sang with the five.

What's going on?

Welcome, brothers and sisters.

Welcome.

We got some shit to talk about today.

I didn't stream yesterday.

I've been absent.

I've been busy cooking in the kitchen.

But a lot of things have transpired in the past few days in the midst of the uptick in energy that the federal fucking government has detected as a consequence of the announcement of the infrared renaissance.

Look with your own eyes.

Don't tell me I'm a cult leader telling you shit.

You've all seen it with your own eyes.

The past few days, a massive, massive surge in attacks against the American Communist Party.

A massive set of attacks.

A massive wave of attacks against our movement and our cause.

When I said what?

Every time I've declared war on these kufr, metaphysical war on these kufr, every single time I have attached the revolutionary cause of communism.

With the cause of God.

Every time I've made that connection, every time I have given way and given expression to a monotheistic revolutionary outlook, the kaffir, the pagans, the Satanists, something inside of them gets activated.

Something ticks these fucking demons off and it's out with them.

They come after us, they attack us with such a bitterness, such an enmity.

No one has ever seen it before.

Not a single one of these ML LARPers received their enmity.

Not a single one of these people who confine themselves to one of these cookie cutter.

Divisions of ideological labor, I'm an amau, I'm a Maoist, I'm a Haujaist, I'm a Democratic Socialist You're all in your little fucking gay boxes where you fucking belong.

But when we declare this is the cause of Allah, when we declare this is the one cause

When we cut across the divides, when we cut across these fake barriers, when we level their towers of Babylon.

The Kufar, the demons, they come out of the fucking woodwork.

Rabid, frothing at the mouth with such hatred, such malice, such enmity.

And what are their weapons against us?

What is the one weapon they've always had to use against us?

Lies.

They're a bunch of liars.

They fake, they defame, they fabricate, they deceive.

And their message to the world is simple: they can, and so they will.

Because they can lie, because they have the power to lie about us, they will lie about us.

That's their message.

Well, guess what?

In the real world, I want to be clear about something.

In the real world, there's not a single time in the history of human civilization.

Where any group, any organization of human beings has tolerated outright lies and defamation and slander.

Not a single time.

We have laws supposedly to protect our rights.

So if come w someone comes and opens fire with a machine gun to gun us down and kill us.

Supposedly, we're protected by the state.

And this way, things don't escalate into a violent gang war, right?

Well, it's the same thing when it comes to fabricating reality, distorting reality with lies.

What will we do except legally respond?

What can we do?

They say, oh, you're a snitch.

You're working with the state.

Okay, what if we handled this outside of the state?

You would call the police on us.

If we handled this in the way it's been handled for thousands of years of human civilization, when you make shit up and attribute it to people or groups and slander and lie about them, just outright lie about them, how do they retaliate historically?

Tell me, what happens?

What happens when an organized group is being lied about?

What happens when a tribe gets lied about?

A family gets lied about.

Tell me what happens historically when there's no law and order.

If we respond to you in that way, you would be okay with it?

You wouldn't go and immediately run to the American state to protect you?

Okay, you would, you fucking bitch.

So, in the same fucking way, we're going to use every method at our disposal legally to respond and deal with your fucking lies, you sick, disgusting, depraved fuck.

You have an empty, empty heart, empty worldview.

Your life is full of emptiness.

It's worthlessness.

You're a maggot.

You're a cockroach.

All you can do is spread filth, spread lies, because it's a reflection.

Your whole life is a fucking lie.

Johnny, what's up?

There's not a single day that goes by for these people.

They're not lying to themselves fundamentally about what they are.

They are liars.

Their existence is lies.

They have nothing but lies against the American Communist Party.

And why?

Think about it very simply.

Is there a single organization you've ever experienced in your entire life have you ever witnessed such a mystery?

Of how do we unite?

You unite all of these people against us.

They're all so united against us.

Midnight, what's up?

I'll explain things to you very, very simply and very, very clearly.

Why is the entire American left united against us?

You can go ahead and clip this one because this is going to be.

Concise and simple, right?

Why is it that the entirety of the American left is united against us?

Oh sos, what's up?

How do we manage to unite the entire American left against us?

They seem to have no common principles.

They seem to not agree on anything positively.

They seem to not have any common consensus on just about fucking anything.

Not even when it comes to their identity politics, by the way.

So, why are they all unified when it comes to us?

Why is that?

Rabbi, what's up?

Well, I'll tell you exactly fucking why.

Notice how they're so excited, they're so mobilized right now.

Yeah, we're gonna take on the ACP.

Yeah, the ACP is over, party.

We're gonna destroy the ACP.

Woohoo!

It's like they're experiencing a revolution.

Oh my god, yeah, guys, we're all gonna destroy the ACP.

It's so happy.

But zoom out and think about what's fucking going on.

You're calling yourself a communist.

You're calling yourself fucking left-wing.

What are you fucking happy and excited about?

Is there any expression of your principles and your values finding victory anywhere in this country?

Don't fucking tell me you're happy about the DSA shit because 50% of these fucking people claim to also oppose the DSA.

So why does attacking the ACP, why does that, there's somebody who posted a fake doctored screenshot.

Ayo, what's up?

Because the friends of this disgusting degenerate who initially slandered us, they're saying, well, if we don't slander ACP, they can't sue all of us.

Yes, we fucking can, you retard.

Of course, we're going to do it one at a time.

Of course, the pressure, the attention.

The litigation is going to be focused.

You're not going to protect that person from the legal process we have available to us legally by our rights.

The same way, because that's the only way we can handle it.

Because if we tried to handle it a different way, you would call the police, right?

So we're legal, we're lawful.

You would try to weaponize the state against us if we enforce justice on our own terms.

So we will find recourse in the justice of the U.S.

state.

Simple as that.

But in any case, this idea that we're gonna take the pressure off this one person because they have all these friends doing it, no.

We're gonna see to through it with this one person and they will have to deal with the consequences.

They will.

It's not s oh, they think, Oh, I'm just gonna have to delete my no, no, no, no, that's not how it works actually.

These are material damages you're doing against the American Communist Party.

We're pursuing recompense for the material damages you're inflicting on us, right?

That's just how it works.

So it's one by one.

We will go one by one if we have to.

And anyone who has a pro every anyone who says, Oh, but this is bourgeois, this is this or that okay, but if we j if we took it in our own hands, you would actually petition the bourgeois state to protect you, would you not?

So that's the that's how it works then.

If we took this into our own hands,

Because there's not a single period of human civilization where you can lie.

I'm not talking about share an opinion, I'm not talking about criticize, I'm talking about misrepresent and spread deception and lies.

There's not a single period in the history of humanity where that wasn't considered an affront that demands consequences.

You may not understand this, but that's how the fucking world works.

For example, even just talking shit in this way, I'm going to tell you something in Eurasia, America, because Americans don't fucking understand this.

The only time Americans ever understood this was in the history of gang violence.

You know, when a gang would talk shit about another gang, they would go and get fucking massacred, right?

Okay, the police swept all that up, and now we live under this system of total control.

But in the old world, the way it fucking works, I don't even fucking care where you go.

This is true in the history of Europe.

This is true in the Middle East.

It's true in Turkey.

I'm sure it's true in Asia, Korea, and Japan.

You lie about people.

You commit and knowingly commit an injustice against them.

They will fucking find you and beat the living shit out of you, or they'll kill you and stab you to death.

That's how it works in the old world.

This is the only place where people have no fucking idea of the consequences of words.

So we have remedies available to us that are only legal.

That's the only way you can deal with it and you can handle it.

That's why.

Defamation is a relevant category for civil pro you know, civil litigation in the first place.

But if you go oh, that's some bitch shit or whatever okay, go go to fucking any other country in the other side of the world and see how people respond when you fucking go and lie about them.

Lie about their organizations, their parties.

They don't just go, oh, we just say whatever we want.

That's not how the fucking world works, Bucko, you fucking retard.

In any case, if it was any one of these other people, how much would they victimize themselves?

Oh, the outrage, the outrage.

So nothing is gonna change.

I promise you, nothing's gonna change.

But back to the point, and this is the part you can clip.

Why are all these disgusting degenerates unified against us?

What actually binds them and unifies them together against us?

It's very simple.

The American left doesn't have a common authority.

It has no common principles.

It has no common organization and has no common authority.

They are slaves and prostitutes of the Democratic Party, or they are individualistic nihilists.

There's no temple, there's no fortress, there's no center that unites them.

There's no set of principles that they all agree upon, that they all come together upon and say, This is what it means to be part of this tribe, right?

Nothing positively unites them.

They are fundamentally impotent when it comes to confronting the bourgeoisie in the American state.

But you want to know what they can do?

They can kill themselves.

They're good at killing themselves.

They're good at attacking themselves.

They're good at snuffing out.

See, you see, they have a war against the one, right?

Which they represent as the US Government.

But they themselves have no unity.

They themselves have no oneness.

They themselves have no authority.

They themselves have no ummah.

They themselves have no mujahideen.

They themselves have no common faith.

No common vision.

No common army.

No common organization.

No common set of laws and principles and beliefs.

No common movement, no common anything.

There's no oneness.

So when the one emerges, that's the ACP.

When the red mujahideen emerges, one center of authority, one communist party, one revolutionary struggle, one movement, when that emerges and comes to be, they direct all their energies, all their forces, all their attention to destroying it.

Why?

Because they're pagans, they're polytheists.

They don't believe in a common authority.

They don't believe in a common movement.

They don't believe in a common revolutionary struggle.

They want the only unity, the only authority to be the U.S.

government and nothing else.

And they will disparately protest and they will disparately bitch and whine and complain.

But if anyone dares try to fucking do something about it and build an authority from scratch, they must be destroyed.

And this is the only victories the so-called American left is capable of.

Destroying, destroying anyone who takes up the banner of the cause, crushing them, destroying them, snuffing not.

And they celebrate how powerful we are.

We've all come together.

If only you could be so enthusiastic, if only you could be so fanatically enthusiastic and excited about defeating the right wing, about defeating the regime, about defeating the bourgeoisie.

If only you could be so excited, so ramped up with so much energy.

Woohoo!

If only you could have that.

They're literally out here.

They call us fucking crazy, they're literally

They're so energetic and so excited about this.

Let's say ACP is gone.

What's left?

They're happy they've destroyed any semblance, any semblance of unity or hope.

Because for them, there can be nothing.

There has to be a blank space.

And it's not a blank space.

What is it?

It's Satan.

Satan of the nihil.

Satan of the nothingness.

That's Satan.

Nothingness.

There can't be a center.

There can't be an authority.

There can't be anyone who emerges and rises up and says, From here, on this rock, we're going to build our church.

On this rock, we're going to build our party.

On this basis, we're going to go forward.

Anyone who fucking does that has to be destroyed.

And what's the closest thing that they'll tolerate and accept?

The fucking DSA!

Which is not an authority, it's a loose affiliation of caucuses and well, we we agree to have no common authority, we agree to have no center, we agree to have and they're prostitutes and slaves of the Democratic Party.

May they be cursed, may their descendants be cursed, may their ancestors be cursed.

They have a big polycule called the DSA with no center, no authority, no common commitment, no common belief at all.

It's a pagan polytheistic orgy of pagans, they have their different gods.

I'm part of the the this caucus, I'm part of the Ball caucus, I'm part of the fucking

The Ishtar caucus.

I'm part of the Jupiter caucus.

I'm going to hear go make sacrifices to the Moloch caucus.

This is the Mammon Caucus.

They have all these fucking idols that they worship.

And it's an implicit framework of paganism.

Paganism.

Polytheism.

They're all cover.

They have no central belief.

They have no central commitment.

They have no notion of what is universal, what is absolute, what is true.

They're a bunch of disgusting, filthy shaitan.

They're pagan intersectionality.

They're pagan DSA.

And it's pagan polytheistic organization.

It's pagan polytheistic caucuses.

No commitment at all to the one.

No commitment at all to the one and only truth.

Nothing.

Amila with the ten.

So, this is the truth.

This is why they hate us and they attack us.

They're a bunch of pagan polytheistic scum.

Who hate to see a monotheism emerge?

The monotheism of Marx.

Yes, Marx.

Let me explain something.

I saw that fucking subhuman retard Redditor, the potato guy, who I actually fucking hate.

He's in the DSA.

I hate this disgusting fuck.

I actually do hate them.

I talked about how Enver Hoja was just giving form to his repressed religious unconscious Bektashi Shia Sufism through different words and language.

And he's like, and he quote tweeted it.

And he's like, there's nobody who's more atheist than Enver Hoja in history.

And it got like a thousand likes.

And then I realized something.

You are not human.

You can't synthesize information.

You have no dynamic relationship to the signifiers and the various webs of association that underlie them to even have the ability to think about.

Maybe the words don't actually fucking matter.

Maybe religion is deeper than just confession.

Maybe, in fact, you can be a Muslim while proclaiming yourself to be the most atheistic person in the world.

Maybe the way that you're an atheist actually reveals a deeper religious unconscious architecture that you were just never fucking aware of because you reduced religion to a set of fucking platitudes and superficial fucking empirical beliefs about the nature of the world.

Absolutely.

And Verhojo was not a fucking atheist in practice.

He absolutely believed in the very structure of his self-proclaimed atheism, some kind of absolute ultimate reality.

And all that has ever meant in the history of the world is God.

God never meant that I believe there's some random man in the sky.

All God meant to refer to.

Was the absolute, the absolute, the indivisible, the ultimate, the ultimate reality, the absolute reality, the ultimate cause, the ultimate source of meaning.

There is no necessary metaphysical implication of that.

It doesn't mean, oh, God is some supernatural thing, or oh, God is a that's not what the word historically, nobody was using it with such a degree of precision, they were using it to describe.

Something

That today takes the form of an unconscious structure because people have forgotten what the words fucking meant.

As though the Bible, as though the religious belief

Historically, it was as skin deep and superficial as oh, I believe in miracles, I believe in random sh just random shit happening in the fabric of reality that's supernatural.

That's not what fucking religion was.

Religion was a way you have to go back to Feuerbach, you have to actually go back to Marx himself because these new atheist retards have no fucking idea or understanding of what religion actually fucking means.

They think religion is somehow some kind of relationship to uh this is at my cookie cutter.

Every single religion on earth today is kafar, it's a division of labor.

They say, I'm going to be religious on Friday if you're Muslim, I'm going to be religious on Sunday if you're Christian, but I'm going to be shaitan every other day of the week because you're living in capitalism, because you're living in a world.

Your actual real belief has nothing to do with the shit that's coming out of your fucking tongue.

You could pray five times a day, it doesn't make you Muslim.

Enver Hoxha was more of a Muslim than anyone in Saudi Arabia.

He had an active relationship and devotion to the absolute.

He may not have called it God, he may not even.

Recognized it as an intelligible in the first place.

But Enver Hoja was not an atheist.

Not in practice.

In practice, he devoted himself to something he regarded as absolute and indivisible.

And all that means is God in history.

That's all God meant in his God didn't mean all this extra shit.

When people talked about God, that's what they were talking about.

We've lost touch with our religious essence, our religiosity.

We're alienated from our religiosity.

Doesn't mean you've escaped religion.

It doesn't mean you've escaped religion.

Okay.

But why do they attack the ACP?

Why do they consider it a victory whenever they attack any organization that shows promise and independence?

Well, I'll tell you why.

Because victory for the left, for the American left, is not the seizure of power.

It's not the resurrection of authority.

It's not the building of a party, it's not the building of anything positive.

For the American left, victory consists in reproducing the dysfunction, the failure, the impotence that has defined it for the entirety of its history for the past 50, 60 years.

Why when they celebrate a fake announcement that the ACP dissolved?

Six thousand people liked that tweet, by the way.

And the furry thinks they're going to be protected and immune.

Well we'll see.

We're going one by one, as we always have.

But six thousand people were celebrating when they heard news the ACP is destroyed.

Okay, granted, half of them were pedophiles and Nazis, depraved child rape fantasy, fourteen eighty eight Groiper Nazis.

Then you had NAFO and these European, subhuman, European liberals.

But then the rest were leftists.

Well, why are they celebrating the idea of the ACP being destroyed?

Because the victory is that we're back where we started, guys, we're back, we've saved the left, we've saved your fucking hodgepodge of impotence and failure and weakness and uselessness, your messy, disgusting, degenerate, retard, slop, amalgamation and coalition of kuffar and polytheists, pagans, idol worshippers.

You've protected your fucking community, your little disgusting, fucking pagan, loose conglomeration of fucking nothing pieces, impotent pieces of shit.

Willing prostitutes, willing slaves of the bourgeoisie.

How dare any, how dare Spartacus rise up and beat his chest and proclaim, We will be emancipated, we will be free from the political establishment, we're gonna build our own army of the liberated, we're gonna build our own organization, we're gonna rise up.

How dare Spartacus do that?

No, no, no.

Spartacus should just chop his dick off and be a fucking slave eunuch.

That's what it means to truly, to truly be part of the American left.

How dare Spartacus rise up and speak up and get something going?

If these people were alive in the time of Fred Hampton, they would have killed Fred Hampton before the police did.

How dare Fred Hampton?

How dare Huey Newton?

How dare anyone stand the fuck up and stand for anything at all with any degree of seriousness or intentionality?

Why don't we just fucking admit the truth?

The attacks on the American Communist Party are a proxy.

For the repressed, unconscious anti-communism to find an outlet.

These people have cognitive dissonance.

They are anti-communist in their souls, in their unconscious.

But they will never be open and honest about it.

So when they see the American Communist Party, a real, living, serious communist organization with serious intention behind it, with serious authority behind it, willpower.

By attacking the American Communist Party, they get to freely channel their unconscious anti-communism, and that anti-communist unconscious gets to find an outlet.

All of their internalized anti-communism has to be repressed.

But when they see the American Communist Party, finally the furry this degenerate, disgusting furry who's shitting and pissing in their fursuit, finally they can have an outlet.

to channel their internal anti-communism.

And when these sick demonic pieces of shit are making templates of the party,

When they are using their disgusting, disgusting, smelly, unwashed fingers to type the fake doctored ACP thing.

Oh, yeah, I love Hitler.

I love Nazism.

I want to slaughter all these minorities.

That's their own contra points, repressed unconscious.

It's a way that they're doing this kind of thing.

Like, the way is the same way a pervert will break into a woman's house and he will try to wear her dress and he'll be like, he'll smell her clothing and all this stuff.

That's what perverts do, right?

These people have the same relationship to Nazism.

So any opportunity they can have, they will type pro-Nazi things and pro-Nazi thoughts because it's all inside of them and it's repressed.

And the only way you can find an outlet is by attacking our party.

Oh, yeah, I was just doing a parody of the ACP.

No, you were channeling and vocalizing your own repressed Nazism.

That's exactly what you were fucking doing.

You are the same thing as a depraved neo-Nazi mass shooter.

But because of social incentives, you repress it and you keep it down.

Give me a single normal, sane person who wants to type, who wants to make swastikas.

You know how they make these swastika versions of our logo who go, I love Hitler, I love white supremacy, all these things.

What normal person likes to do that?

What normal person loves to type the words pedophilia, child rape, all these?

What normal person likes to do that?

Only people who actually have repressed those thoughts internally.

You know it's the same you know how they say somebody who's always talking about how they hate gays.

Usually, that person is gay.

If you're all the time, you just won't give it a rest.

Or if transgenders, if you're all the time and you can't, you just can't let go of it.

Oh, the transgenders, I hear the transgender.

You probably are attracted to transgenders, or you are one yourself and you're repressed.

Usually, right?

But it's also the same thing when it comes to politics.

If you're so obsessed with this idea that people who are ostensibly not Nazis are Nazis, and you love making totally ironic pro-Nazi propaganda that's a parody, and you love giving expression to all this filth, it's probably because you have unconscious Nazi desires yourself.

It's probably because you yourself are actually a Nazi.

In the same way, somebody who's always talking about transgenders probably has a transgender fetish themselves.

You have a Nazi fetish because you are a Nazi.

You are the same psychologically, the architecture of your psych.

Is the same thing as a neo-Nazi mass shooter that was groomed by one of these weird cults?

You have the same mind, it's like you have the same psych.

You're just contextually put in a different social situation so that you channel it by means of a different expression.

These leftists are more anti-communist than your bog standard right-winger, even more than boomers.

These are real black shirt Hitlerians on the unconscious level.

Now, consciously speaking, are they Nazi?

No, but unconsciously, they are fascists, they are Nazis.

You see?

Chris, what's up, man?

Appreciate you.

You too, Gerald.

Have you ever seen them whipped up into a frenzy and this excited about the prospect of destroying the right wing?

Destroying the US regime, destroying Zionism?

Never.

Only about the ACP.

Why?

Because if ACP is destroyed, they're back to the square one and they enjoy being where they are square one.

They may complain about it.

They may say, oh, I hate the left.

No, it's like one of those things where they're like, you know, I hate it, but it's home.

Home may be a little dysfunctional, but I love it and it's home.

I want to burn your fucking house down, you bitch, you disgusting bitch.

I hate your home.

I hate you.

I hate your fucking polycule.

I hate your fucking community of fucking leftists who are self-contented with their fucking impotence and failure for five decades.

You self-congratulatory piece of shit celebrating your wholesome leftist popular friend against the ACP.

Who the fuck are you?

Look shoulder to shoulder.

What are you?

Zionists?

Shills?

Opportunists?

Well, maybe a little imperfect, but it's home here on Reddit.

Semmuck, I fucking hate you.

Literally burn in hell, you piece of shit.

And maybe a little dysfunctional, but it's home.

That's the psychology we're dealing with.

They know that it's all of it.

But you know, at the end of the day, what?

Where the fuck are the where?

Where?

Where is your party?

Where is your independent organization?

Where is your anything?

Okay, PSL.

There was just a fucking exodus from the PSL because I don't fucking know.

They had some fucking bullshit problem.

Just now the FRSO.

Is going through a massive split because one of their members in Florida talked to a transphobe.

I don't know who that's supposed to refer to.

Every single one of their organizations just implode and get destroyed internally.

So where is your anything?

I'm sorry to say, but you want to know what the American left is like?

It's like a fat camp with a bunch of fat 500, 600, 800 pound obese fucks in it.

Quote me here, clip me here.

The American left, it's like a fat camp with a bunch of 800 pound fat asses that are like, I know we're not doing our job and what's a fat useless fuck.

I know fat camp is supposed to be about losing weight, but at least we have each other and we love each other.

You fuck!

You're literally at fat camp!

You're literally claiming to be on the American left!

You're literally claiming to be revolutionaries, trying to fight the right wing and trying to fight the fucking regime.

You have a fucking mission and you have to lock the fuck in or get the fuck out.

No, this is not a safe space to be fucking self-congratulatory about whatever fucking identity you have and you fucking adopt it.

You're at fat camp, so lose the fucking way.

It's like the American left is Fat Camp and it's all fat asses sitting on their fucking ass being like I know Fat Camp kinda sucks and it's not doing its job.

But at least we have each other NO YOU A BUNCH OF FATASSES!

Ugh.

You are Fat Camp!

It's not enough!

With that tone, you're never gonna hate, fuck you!

I don't give a fuck, bitch.

Why is it not a crisis?

Time is passing us by.

You've been fat for fifty years.

Lennon!

Lennon, we're talking twenty years.

And Lenin is in the Kremlin in twenty years.

Four years ago was two thousand six.

Where's the fucking progress?

Twenty years ago it was two thousand six.

We had these sects proclaiming the revolution.

Fifty, sixty years ago, where the fuck is it?

This fucking dead end bullshit's not going anywhere with these American leftists.

Lenin started his book club.

20 years later, he's in the Kremlin.

Where the fuck are you in the America Advanced?

You're so fucking advanced, right?

You're so enlightened and advanced, right?

Being on the American left, what's the goal?

Is victory.

The goal is revolutionary victory.

That's what it means to be on the left.

It's not a confessional faith where we all fucking have a common identity together and we celebrate our common identity.

This circle jerk that is the American left know them by their fruits.

Fat camp.

That's what it is.

Fat camp, where there's people who have been in fat camp for 50 years and not only they didn't lose weight, they've gained weight.

A guy who's moderately a 300-pound, 250-pound fat guy went to fat camp.

50 years later, he's 25,000 pounds.

Just imagine that in your head.

25,000 pounds.

You're celebrating the ACP?

Okay, ACP is a fat guy.

I admit it.

We start as fat guys.

But okay, let's say in the past two years, we started 500-400 pounds.

We've lost 10-20 pounds.

I know it's not a lot.

I get it.

It's not a lot.

But we're reversing the trend.

Okay, we've lost 10 to 20 pounds.

You've gained 10 and 20 pounds, right?

Okay, in two years, we've lost that much weight.

Obviously, to get this, I mean, obviously, if for fat camp to work, you have to lose 300.

You have to lose 400 pounds.

I understand that.

The finish line is takeover.

The finish line is.

Is

The revolution, right?

The seizure of power, that's the finish line.

The ACP started as fat people just like the rest of fat camp.

But the ACP left the fat camp that's not working and tried to make their own fat camp.

And actually, it's going in a good direction.

They've lost five to twenty pounds or something.

And imagine the original fat camp, which is the American left, a bunch of fat asses shaking and quaking the earth.

It's an earthquake that happens.

No, you can't do that.

No, you have to stay in our fat camp and do nothing you talk about.

They're like shaking and quaking.

They're in their fucking Walmart scooters.

The whole world is shaking.

These people are so upset that we lost 10 pounds.

Come back to our fat camp.

Come back.

You can't do that.

So if we, if our fat camp gets destroyed,

If our fat camp gets destroyed,

They celebrate because they're basically confirming and congratulating themselves that they're a bunch of lazy, do-nothing fat asses who will never get anything done and they're happy.

They're happy to see that there's no hope, there's no alternative.

Why would they be happy about ACP being destroyed?

Why does that excite them?

Why does that idea excite them?

Because they're happy where they are, they're happy exactly where their fat asses are.

We are one Communist Party with one mission, one collective, one movement, one vision.

It's one

Or zero one or zero one

Or nothing.

One zero.

You can claim to be a Maoist sect, but I know you're not serious about it.

I know you're just creating a way to be happy about your self-defeating failure.

Okay, you can be some other Trotskyite bullshit.

Okay, sell newspapers.

You're creating the terms and conditions of a community that is coping with its own impotence and failure.

You are zero.

Only those, only those who have the courage, the true belief, the true fanatical belief and faith that they are.

The one, the one movement, the one ummah, the one cause, the one army, the one party, that we will be that party, that the construction

The task of building that party.

Starts now!

Are we imperfect?

Absolutely we're imperfect.

But if someone doesn't stand and say, now we will build the one, it will never, ever, ever be built.

So it's one or it's nothing.

And what they have is a bunch of nothings.

And they want to destroy us.

They want to annihilate us.

Because we have the audacity.

We have the audacity.

To be the one.

That they never had the fucking courage to be.

We are the main character, we are the protagonist, we are the center of all the attention.

They are thinking about us, we are it, it's the American Communist Party.

Holy fuck, SYJ, what the fuck is up man?

Thank you.

Appreciate the fifty.

We are the cause.

We may not be perfect,

But our path forward is solid.

We have a solid path forward.

We are lions.

Facing a multitude of hyenas.

But we are the way.

If we were not the way this conflict between the ACP and the entirety of the US political spectrum

This is fucking Warhammer, bitch, it's us against the whole fucking universe.

It's like a fucking eternal war, MTP versus EVERYBODY.

If we were not it, if we were not the center, if we were not the only fucking thing that actually mattered, that conflict would have been resolved.

It would have been over by now.

Infrared came on the scene.

2021.

We declared you hot on the discourse.

We declared gee hot on the coffer.

We declared g hot on the American leftists.

Us versus everybody.

And there's not a day that's passed by since.

Everything has been a progression and evolution of the same fucking war.

If we were a cult.

If we were a marginal cult and a sect, you wouldn't see shit.

5,000 likes bullshit spread about us, go viral all the fucking time.

There's something about the ACP.

There's something about us.

It's like a fucking worm that's burrow.

It's a worm of doubt that's burrowed in their fucking heads and it's gnawing at their brains.

It's gnawing at their skulls.

Get it out of me.

There's something that we do.

There's something about this cause that puts a spell on these fucking people.

So much pressure and cognitive dissonance.

It's a psychological war that we're waging.

Kuzadz, what's up?

Some of these people they dedicate their whole fucking lives to us for five years.

Not a day has gone five years.

Every day their whole life is about us.

Now tell me if it's possible.

Tell me if it's possible that anything can inspire that.

That's not the truth.

We are here.

We are the movement.

Yeah.

You think it's fucking crazy?

Name a single movement that deals with this much lies.

Oh, you're just being subjective.

You're just interpreting other people's opinions as lies.

No, you know, when someone takes a fucking screenshot and says ACP has announced and it's fake and it's made up, that's not an opinion, that's somebody's lying about us.

Why do you need to lie about us?

Because you're trying to deceive people who don't know any better.

You're trying to deceive people who don't agree with your fucking extreme retarded view.

That if we don't hoist the banner of the furries.

That we somehow are the worst no most people aren't like that though.

Well, most people don't hate the transgenders.

We don't hate the transgenders either.

We're just not gonna wave your fucking flags.

We have our own flag.

And I have a message.

I have a message to the LGBT leftists who are telling ACP we have to pay tribute to the LGBT movement.

We have to explicitly I have to explicitly say, you know, oh, I condemn transphobia, I'm gonna I'm gonna condemn this and that and uh and X, Y and Z.

Here's my message.

You want to hear my message?

You've got the whole order of things reversed.

If you want

If you want any minorities

Cultural minorities, for that matter.

Not ethnic minorities, cultural minorities.

If you want the recognition of the ACP, you pay tribute first.

We're not paying tribute to you.

You pay tribute to us first.

That's how it's going to fucking work.

You pay tribute to us first.

Or you at least act good faith to us first.

We owe you nothing.

Just because you have a private habit.

We don't owe you a fucking thing.

If you want to be validated and recognized by us, then give us your loyalty first.

Though that's how the order of tribute goes, because the Communist Party is supreme.

That's the order of tribute.

We don't owe anybody a fucking thing.

This is the Communist fucking party.

There's nobody, there's nobody who I don't care what their background is.

This holds true also for religious people, also for Muslims, also for Jews.

Nobody can say the ACP has to pay us tribute.

The ACP has to bow down to us and pay us tribute.

No.

You want us to be allied to you.

You pay us tribute.

The leftist LGBT movement, we're not going to pay tribute to a rainbow flag that goes on Raytheon missiles.

We don't hate people who.

Fall under that category, but sort yourselves out first before you come bitching and crying at us that we have to bow down and pay tribute to you.

Sort yourselves out first.

Sort yourselves out from all the people in your community who are Zionists, who are NAFO, who are pro-imperialists, pro-Ukraine.

Sort yourselves out and discriminate amongst yourselves between the correct line and the false line first.

That's on you to do, that's not on us, we don't owe you anything.

We don't owe anybody anything.

ACP needs to do outre no no, you need to do outreach to us.

If you want our this is how it works at the ACP.

You want our loyalty?

Give us your loyalty.

We protect our own.

We protect those who are loyal to us.

You want our loyalty?

You give us your loyalty.

First, you pay tribute, then the Khan will distribute the tribute.

Then the Khan will use the tribute to build infrastructure, build bridges, whatever the fuck.

But the order of tribute goes in one fucking direction.

Goes in one direction.

The authority doesn't pay tribute to anyone.

You pay tribute to the authority first.

That's how it fucking works.

That's the final thing I'm going to say on this issue.

They said, Oh, you you have to have everyone stop using bad words and Shut the fuck up.

Shut the fuck up.

Any everyone is responsible for themselves.

I've never seen a gorilla harass someone just because they're gay or transgender.

I've never seen that.

I've never fucking seen that.

All I've seen is people use bad words in self-defense.

After being attacked first, you get attacked.

So you're a Zionist, classic Zionist crybaby.

They fucking cry as they strike you.

They cry as the victim as they strike you, right?

They act like victim.

Oh, the ACP is trying to sue me and shit.

How did you get yourself in this mess in the first place, you fucking retard?

Well, it was just because you guys are transphobic.

Shut the fuck up.

We didn't say a fucking thing about that.

You have to go yourself and dig up shit Jackson said five fucking years ago to invent something to get fucking mad about that has no pressing contemporary significance.

In order to prove that we're so transphobic and X, Y, and Z, they have to go dig shit up.

Why are you digging shit up to hurt yourself?

Like, what are you trying to prove?

Oh, but Jackson said this four years ago.

Okay.

W would you prefer he say it now?

Nobody's saying anything now.

We're going forward.

We don't have any issue.

Why are you going out of your way to relitigate this issue?

If you think we're scared of you, we're not.

So what's your point?

You're going to bully us into bowing before you?

Shut the fuck up.

You have an issue with Jackson five years ago.

You were the one digging that shit up looking for trouble.

Not us.

But the fact that he that, so what?

So what he said this.

Don't you forgive ContraPoints, who was literally a Nazi?

Aren't you willing to forgive how many of your ranks were in Nazi discords at one point of their fucking life?

A whole lot of people on the left are former neo-Nazis, by the way.

But these are the views that you have, but you're just disguising them.

Okay, even if that was true.

Isn't that a good thing?

Even if it was true that people harbor personal private prejudices, isn't it a good thing that they don't make that into a public statement, into something a politically enforceable thing?

Doesn't everyone privately, personally, have their own real views about things that are not necessarily political or ideological, but are just their personal prejudices?

And if you're claiming you're above all prejudice and you've transcended that somehow, I don't fucking believe you.

It's just not true.

You're a liar.

You're fucking coping and being dishonest.

Everybody has politically incorrect beliefs that they hold privately.

It matters how you act.

It matters what you do about it.

If Jackson was trying to spread enmity toward those people and discrimination toward them, okay, but he's not.

So, what the fuck is your problem?

Oh, but something he said five years ago.

What is the material damage of what he said five years ago doing right now?

Tell me, what are like what material damage does that do to you right now?

'Cause it's like it sounds like you're addicted to the pain, and it's like you love bigotry.

You have a perverse relationship.

With

bigotry.

You have a perverse relationship with uh

The very things you're claiming you want to cancel, those are the things you dig up yourself and enjoy looking at and like and just want to proliferate more.

The net consequence of continuing to push that Jackson is a bigot is you're going to just normalize bigotry among a lot of people.

Is that what you want to do?

Why is Genghis Khan a communist?

Why are we like this?

Why is Genghis Khan a communist?

Why were the Mongols a force of communism?

We could talk about the tribute stuff.

We could talk about the public.

Why don't we forget about that for one second?

It's a very simple reason that the Mongols were communists.

Because in wicked and evil societies where people forget the wages of association, where they forget their interconnectedness, when they become blind and numb to the suffering of the most vulnerable people in their society, when they walk with indifference to the codes of honor, the implicit laws that are demanded by the coexistence of different people.

When people falsely elevate themselves to the status of solipsism, ignoring and neglecting the things you have in common as a society.

The immediate consequences of that are not going to be a Barney the Dinosaur singing love and happiness and fairy tales.

You're going to be punished.

You're going to meet the scourge of God.

The scourge of God will remind you the cost and the price of social existence, common existence.

You took for granted you took for granted the common existence that you share.

But the Mongols remind you of this common existence.

The Mongol horde sweeps over you.

Topples the towers of Babylon.

Everyone indiscriminately leveled princes from the highest of princes to the lowliest of beggars.

The scourge of God is a blind, reckless, ruthless force of leveling.

That is what justice is.

Justice is not intersectionality.

Justice is blind.

It's singular.

It comes over societies like a fucking tsunami, like a wave.

Five thousand feet fucking tall and it levels everything indiscriminately.

Because that is the thing you forgot about, and to be reminded of it is a very terrible, ugly thing, as all revolutions are in history.

But does that make them less necessary?

No.

The absence of communism is a state.

Of defiance and rebellion against God.

You are rebelling against the essence of creation.

Itself.

You will be punished for it.

The armies of Genghis Khan and the Mongols when they destroyed and levelled entire cities.

Did the gold of the wealthy protect them?

Did the arrogance of princes and dukes did it mean anything in those moments?

When the power of a collective overwhelmed and destroyed all hierarchies

All fortresses, all towers, they all turn to ash and dust.

Simply because of the power of a horde, a collective, organized and united like a single fist.

That, my friends, is communism, that is the revolution, not Barney the dinosaur, not AOC going out on the street dancing because of how happy she is that there's been uh uh justice for the the the micro sectional fucking bullshit identity communism, revolution is the scourge of God.

It's Genghis Khan, it's Timmer.

We live in a society where people don't give a fuck about the most vulnerable people, but what deeper injustice is reflected by the fact that society neglects its most vulnerable members and doesn't give a shit about them?

Is that a moral failing of the individual to care, to care more?

No.

It's a negligence of our duties, our obligations to God.

It's a negligence of our duties and responsibilities to a fundamental fact of our existence, our common logos,

our common existence, our common concrete unity across the division of labor.

We all depend on each other, but the thing upon which we depend is an object in common.

When you neglect that object, when you ignore it, it manifests as the most vulnerable members of your society the poor, the needy, the crippled, they're spit on, they're walked on, they're ignored, orphans, all of them.

Left to die alone with nothing, with no support.

And where is the failure?

Where is the injustice?

The injustice doesn't lie in a personal negligence of care.

The injustice lies at the sight of neglecting the fundamental wages of association itself.

That behind what we call your individual experience, there's an order.

You must pay tribute to this order.

You must pay tribute to this objective collective existence which conditions the possibility of individuals experiencing anything.

And if you stop paying tribute, if you stop paying tribute to this thing, you incur the scourge and wrath of God.

The Mongol army will come and level all of you, poor and rich alike.

You will be reminded of what it takes to live.

You must pay tribute.

Tribute is not somebody coming and saying, I want all your shit.

Tribute means you're paying tribute to the commons.

You're paying tribute to the invisible common field of existence.

This dense

Submerged foundation.

This dense social fabric of unwritten rules and laws that

You must acknowledge your dependence upon.

Without that, you have fucking nothing.

You are nothing.

Nothing to protect you.

Nothing.

To facilitate the pursuit of your individual abilities and powers.

When you lose that, you lose everything.

And it's gonna take a Genghis Khan to remem remind you.

Two things: natural disasters and Genghis Khan.

These are the two forces in history that remind people.

To be communists.

You wanna know what it means to see with infrared vision?

It's very simple.

You just have to look at all these retards, all these sects, all these befuddled, confused.

Aimless.

Kafar, that's what they are.

All these sects, all these organizations, all these groupings, all these people.

Disunited, dishevelled, impotent.

All of their definitions, all of their Anglo boxes, all of their scholastic idols.

I mean, X, Y, and Z means X, Y, and Z.

XA equals A.

I mean, atheism equals atheism.

And you get these two things are completely se this encyclopediac Reddit Anglo box worldview.

I look at all of it, I look at all these particulars.

You want to know what Islam means?

The Islam baked into the infrared vision?

I look at all these particulars and I see nothing.

Nothing at all.

I see things that need to be mowed over and flattened, flattened singularly in the pursuit of the completion of one thing, one vision, one cause, one movement.

One truth, one absolute.

All of them need to be flattened.

All of them need to give way.

That's what submission means.

Submit to the thing.

That completes itself regardless of your acknowledgement.

You can submit to this thing that completes itself, that finds self-completion in the movement of history.

You can submit to it and be at peace.

Or you can try to fight it.

You can try to disrespect it.

You can try to defy it.

And as it completes itself, it will trample over you.

And your body will be divided and mangled underfoot, like being run over by a fucking semi-truck, being caught in the fucking gears that are turning, right?

You will be mangled gruesomely, divided.

Divided internally.

You submit to communism.

One way or another.

The communism's coming, you can submit to it, or you can let it tear you to a million pieces.

That's the truth.

'Cause it's not stopping.

It's not stopping.

It's not going to stop.

The train is not gonna stop, so you'll give way to it or it's gonna run you fucking over.

Trampled under the underfoot the wheel of Dharma.

Absolutely.

That's the same thing I'm talking about.

Everything I'm talking about is a cycle of rebirth and destruction over and over and over and over again.

And you can give way to this thing.

Or you can get caught in the spindrels and get your flesh torn off, right?

Can I say

I have so many people on Instagram screaming and crying over the fact I'm using AI.

But not a single one of them can produce an argument about AI, not a single one of them.

What makes AI materially worse than all the other shit you take for granted?

Well, well, well, well, what?

Why has this become this shameless thing that we're all supposed to just implicitly acknowledge?

The class you could not see a more shameless, self-serving class interests of professional, creative, petty bourgeois.

Resentful at a technology that gives working people access to the ability to generate image creation, but removes them as a middleman.

And we're all supposed to pretend there's some universal moral imperative to reject it because it just harms them alone.

There's not even a pretension to caring about the common interests of the people anymore.

It's not even communism, it's not even proletarian.

It's just self-serving petty bourgeois.

Reactionary filth that we're all supposed to just implicitly accept and give way to and bow down to.

There's not a single argument.

I've literally tried to say, well, you're using Instagram, that also depends on AI.

Well, you're using all the social media platforms that are also using AI and data centers.

You're using AI just as much.

And even if you weren't, all the things you're saying AI is bad because of apply to all these other technologies that you fucking use.

So, what makes AI uniquely bad?

Tell me.

Because it's new?

Because these other things we're just we've inherited from the past and we have no control over, but we somehow have inability to control this new thing.

Oh, but not the new thing.

User 248, you retard.

What's your fucking problem?

I want to hear the argument from you.

In fact, I'll start a fucking TikTok right now.

Communism is Pro-AI.

That's another fucking thing I didn't even think of.

They got banned.

Fucking retard.

They deserved it.

They absolutely deserve that shit.

Actual fucking stupid retard.

Let's trigger a bunch of retards with this prompt right here.

I have a lot of these classic MLs who have a problem with my take about Genghis Khan being a communist.

You classical LARPers have done fucking nothing to witness all these deranged, retarded liberals defiling the image of Marxism-Leninism.

Where is the pure Orthodox Marxism-Leninism you claim to uphold?

I don't fucking see it anywhere.

You bet your fucking ass infrared vision is going to take this shit to another level.

It's going to make a lot of these fucking gatekeepers uncomfortable.

I don't give a fuck.

I'm a Hoxhaist.

You're a Hoxhaist?

What have you fucking done to defend Enver Hoxha from being turned into a clown by these retarded people in America?

Trying to combine Enver Hoxha and the flags of Albania and the flag.

All this like weird furry shit.

Furries are literally trying to rape the image of Enfor Hoxha in America.

Where's your outrage against that?

But I call Enver Hoja

A

Basically, a Sufi Muslim in practice, which he was.

Oh, this is ridiculous.

Shut the fuck up, bitch.

You're a fucking LARPer.

You've done nothing to make this outlook and this vision and this worldview something fresh, 21st century, and fucking relevant now.

You're a historical society LARPer.

You belong to a historical reenactment society, and you're a LARPer.

Historical reenactor.

Whoa, no, you're reenacting history.

Fuck you.

I'm living in it now.

You know, infrared was always so controversial because of this, by the way.

We used to trigger all these fucking people, these gatekeepers, who considered themselves the preeminent authorities on classical Marxism, Leninism, Orthodox.

But there's no, it doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist anywhere.

And anyone who wants to maintain it.

The purity, you get called a fascist.

So no one recognizes it exists.

The syncretic.

Experiments of infrared, the communism is Islam, Genghis Khan, all that kind of stuff.

That's the only way.

It's either going to be communism is Islam, or I should say, it's either going to be Marxism is Islam, or Marxism is furries.

You choose.

And for those of you that want to say, well, why don't we just say Marxism is Christianity?

Okay, I have a response for that too.

I'll tell you exactly why.

Uh before I do that I have to fucking realize that I froze.

Ah, one sec.

Alright, anyway, we have a debate topic.

I'm just setting up.

Alright, anyway, it's set up.

The reason that doesn't work is because

Look.

Islamic eschatology talks about the return of Jesus, right?

Do you know why Islamic eschatology talks about the return of Jesus?

Because Islam itself is a tradition that has always acknowledged Jesus was missing.

Jesus was missing.

In Islam itself, Jesus is, in a sense, he's missing.

The Muslim world was created on an implicit basis and understanding of the fact that on earth Jesus is missing.

Now let's look at the entire development of the Western world, okay?

The whole history is a history of alienation from Jesus, if you think about it.

I'm not going to go over it.

You have to read Hegel.

The whole Western world is a history of the alienation from Jesus, right?

Okay, but somehow Jesus does come back.

How does Jesus come back?

Through Marxism, through communism.

The communist movement is the return of Jesus Christ.

So when Islam anticipated the return of Jesus on earth, that was in a way anticipating the writing of the Communist Manifesto in 1848.

And the rise of the Communist movement in the West, and the whole arc of history that we call the history of the West.

He never left us, okay, but you are not paying attention.

In the world, Jesus was manifestly being neglected.

Jesus was being ignored.

You think in the Western world they were upholding Jesus?

No.

In the Muslim world, were they upholding Jesus?

No, they weren't.

Jesus teaches mercy.

Jesus teaches the universal mercy for mankind, right?

Forgiveness of mankind.

Well, the Muslim world was pretty brutal and harsh throughout its whole history.

Jesus was missing.

The Western world, Jesus was missing.

You could say Jesus was always there the whole time.

Okay, sure, but manifestly in the world, materially, Jesus wasn't there.

So in Islam,

Anticipated, why did Islam say the Messiah Jesus is going to come back?

Why don't they say Muhammad's going to come back?

Why don't they say the last prophet of Islam is going to come back?

They say Jesus will return to this earth.

Because Islam always acknowledged that the true message of Christianity was forgotten.

Real Christianity was forgotten on earth.

Islam acknowledged that.

Real Christianity was acknowledged.

Sorry, it was ignored.

It was forgotten.

Michael Hudson proves it, right?

So.

Of course communism is Christian, but you can just say communism is Jesus.

That's the truth.

Communism is Christ's, it's the Holy Spirit.

That's Jesus Christ's message on earth.

That's literally the return of Jesus, right?

There's nothing on earth more worthy of Jesus Christ than communism.

Nothing.

How can you be worthy of Jesus Christ outside of communism?

How can we say that we are

That we live in a world

With Jesus, if it's not communism, how can this disgusting, accursed

Filthy empire of lies be worthy of Jesus.

Of course it's not.

So the idea that Jesus will come back, which both Christianity and Islam acknowledge.

Well, Islam also upholds that and says Jesus will return in the end of times.

But I see the return of Jesus as the return as the rise of communism in the form of Marxism in the West.

But what meta-historical or theological or metaphysical framework makes it even possible to understand this arc of history, right?

Um

Well you need something coherent and singular and unified.

And when people say this oh this isn't adapted to America's condition, then why does America have a bunch of Unitarian sects that just emerge spontaneously?

American Unitarian Christianity is literally something indigenous to America.

For why?

Why does America spontaneously create these Unitarian impulses and currents?

Because Islam doesn't exist in the Middle East.

It doesn't exist in the Muslim world.

What they have in the Muslim world, the so-called Muslim world, is a series of habits and conventions.

That are borrowed from culture.

There's no Islam.

They have habits.

They're praying five times a day.

They're doing, they're going through the motions of a religion.

But belief in their hearts is gone.

What about Iran?

Iran but Iran is also emerging on the basis of a modern revolutionary tradition.

You know, Iran proving what's up.

The truth is, a key part of the Iranian Islamic Revolution were.

Educated intelligentsia that were

That were, I wouldn't say Americanized, but they were familiar, intimately familiar with both America and Europe.

And without them there would not have been an I uh Iranian revolution.

And so

I believe that real Islam will emerge in this land, America.

The United States of America.

E pluribus unum out of the many one.

Right.

What about Yemen?

Well look, I here's something I believe.

I don't think you can have real Islam.

You need to think dialectically, okay?

The Yemeni people, their their courageousness.

Of course, yes, you said they're real Muslims, of course.

But real Islam, think about Islam as a world historical.

Truth.

How does that come to fruition?

Now of course it's come to fruition in the the courage, the bravery of Yemenis, of Iranians, Lebanese, whatever, but there's a central contradiction that makes the axis of resistance unable to achieve final victory, which is coming from the belly of the beast, the United States of America.

So all of world history has to resolve here.

In America.

This is the belly of the beast.

This is the center of the entire global empire.

Everything of consequence will happen here.

Whether even in a destructive or a constructive sense.

But in any case, world history has not taken its leave.

From America, not yet at least.

Okay, we have uh on the TikTok I can't believe this we have uh people

Who are queuing up?

Yes, communism is pro a.

I saw on Instagram a lot of people did not have this were not agreeable to this and and uh I want to see what the what the issue is.

Go ahead, Leon.

How you doing?

Uh terribly.

Terrible.

Yeah.

What happened, man?

Well, there's a lot of Enver Hoja followers who are denying the fact that Enver Hoja was a Muslim Sufi, a Tashi Sufi Muslim.

And it brought me sadness because it's just self-evidently true.

Yeah.

Can you elaborate on that, if I may ask you?

Yeah, sure.

So if you read Feuerbach and you read Marx, you understand that religion is not simply at the surface level, skin deep level of confessional beliefs about X, Y, and Z empirically about the world.

Religion is a fundamental structure at the heart of the human unconscious.

And it's understood as a type of alienation for sure.

But even in an alienated form, that is still the form the human essence takes insofar as private property is the prevailing principle of society.

Given that private property on a worldwide scale had not been eliminated, I'm talking about from a classical Marxist perspective.

I'm justifying this.

Given that it had not been eliminated at any point in the past century, even if you confessionally claim to be an atheist, you have not freed yourself from religious alienation or religion.

And therefore, even the form your atheism takes is going to be defined by the...

No, you're not.

You believe in something based on your unconscious, religious unconscious.

Everyone has a religious, unconscious architecture.

That's true.

And Enver Hoxha was coming from a Shia Bhaktashi Sufi family and upbringing.

And he had that ancestral memory that defined the very expression of Marxism-Leninism.

For him, he did refer to Marxism-Leninism as an absolute in the same way a Sufi would, right?

An ascetic Sufi who denounces and renounces the world in the name of the supreme moral principle, the supreme absolute.

Now, Hoxha called it something different.

He called it something.

He was a different word.

But religion doesn't lie at the level of the words that you use.

It's the structure, it's the pattern, it's the logos behind it, right?

So Enver Hoxha was actually a Muslim.

Yeah, no, he actually grew up.

He had a bit of a Turkish ancestry, of course.

But he came from a Muslim Shia background.

Yeah, I know.

But then when he grew up more, he started being an atheist.

He didn't really believe in God that much.

No, no, no.

He started claiming to be an atheist.

It doesn't mean you're actually an atheist.

Just because you claim X, Y, and Z doesn't mean you've actually undergone a shift at the level of the religious unconscious.

There's something called a religious unconscious.

It's the structuration of how you find meaning in the world, how that's structured.

You can claim to be an atheist and still structure the meaningfulness of the world in a Jewish, Christian, or Muslim way.

Enver Hoxha structures the meaningfulness of existence and in the world until he's dead in an Islamic, specifically Bektashi, Sufi, Shia way.

Yeah.

Got it.

Yeah, it was really nice meeting you, you know.

We had a very great conversation.

But can I say one more thing, though?

So you know Jojo is a Muslim?

Was like no no no his whole life he was a Muslim while in power.

Like the entire time?

Okay.

What is religion?

Let's begin there.

Since you want to be a Marxist, I would imagine you claim to be an anti-revisionist, Marxist-Leninist, right?

So we're not going to be able to revise Marx's views on religion.

According to Marx, what is religion?

Dude, I gotta go asleep, though.

Like, I wish I wished.

According to Sheikh Karl Marx, what is religion?

How does he define what religion is?

Does Sheikh Karl Marx say religion is a set of arbitrary beliefs you have about the world positively, and that religion just means that you believe in some supernatural thing and that's what it is?

How does Marx, Sheikh Karl Marx, if you want to be an anti-revisionist, then let us not revise Sheikh Karl Marx's views?

If we want to be an anti-revisionist, then let us not revise the meaning of what religion is within the framework of Marxism, beginning at the very inception of what we call the materialist method, which Marx develops in contradistinction to Vorbach.

Sheikh Karl Marx says, when the fuck was Karl Marx a sheikh?

He absolutely was a sheikh.

He was a Sufi sheikh.

Really?

Yes.

Can you tell me about it?

He was called the Moor throughout his entire life.

He was called the Moor.

Second of all, when he visited Algeria, he said that the Algerians, that their culture, they're all already equal.

They don't even need to deal with the nonsense they have in Europe.

They need to just have their ready for their revolution.

He said, everyone here is equal.

Everyone here treats each other with dignity.

Nobody cares about their hierarchies or anything like that.

And he admired, he was so shocked that the Algerians didn't care.

They said, you know, a rich man walks into the cafe, he's the same thing as a poor guy.

They're all wearing raggedy clothes.

Nobody cares.

He said they're ripened and ready for the revolution.

Mhm.

Yeah.

Um can you elaborate why he went to Algeria if I may ask?

He went there because he was sick and he needed recovery.

Really?

Yes.

But what type what type of illness did you have?

I don't exactly remember, but I remember he went there, shaved his beard, and he wanted to regrow his beard from scratch as a way to show he's become he's awakened to his Islamic roots.

I'm not trying to break character.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely.

There's no character.

Marks was a Sufi sheikh, and that's the end of the story.

That's so true.

Like, what type of haircut did he take?

Doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter, but I want to know.

It would have been pretty cool to know.

Well, too bad.

You're not going to.

So what did you want to come and talk about here?

But can I say one thing, though?

What?

Guess what?

What?

Checking, but.

So you acknowledge that uh Enver Hoxha was in fact a Sufi Muslim.

Cheers.

He was one.

No, his whole life he was because when he cut off relations with China, that's a classic Shia martyrdom thing where they say, Albania may be thrown to hell, but so be it.

It's like he was channeling Hussein's energy when he refused to submit.

Absolutely.

That's what Hoxha was doing.

How else do you explain the governing logic behind his policy?

He said Albania will not submit.

It will retain the anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist line, which can be a stand-in.

It doesn't matter, materially speaking.

That's just a different word.

You can say it's for the sake of a confessional religious doctrine, but the unconscious religious structure in practice has the same effect.

Albania is isolated on the global stage, all by itself.

And when Hoxha dies, everything is gone because he wouldn't budge.

Classical Shia martyrdom.

Everything was gone, man.

Fuck.

When he died, yeah, everything just disappeared, basically.

Yeah, everything.

We had like a very huge downgrade, to be honest with you.

That is pretty true.

So Hoxha was a Bektashi Sufi, and that's a fact.

If Hoxha realized he was a Bektashi Sufi, Albania could have been preserved.

Albania could have linked up with Iran after 1979, which Hoxha was actually quasi-sympathetic with.

Albania could have been a center of Islamic revolutionary renaissance in the entire region, correctly teaching people how Marxism-Leninism culminates in the rebirth of Islam.

And Albania would have survived.

It wouldn't have been isolated.

But Hoxha, because he didn't awaken to the final truth, he was confined to languish in an unconscious of Islam instead of the real one, the conscious one.

Yeah.

So I'm correct.

Does it sound correct?

I'm absolutely correct.

It's absolutely correct.

You absolutely do.

I'm absolutely correct.

Yeah.

What's so funny?

What about this?

Can you rationally object to?

What about this is rationally objectable?

Objectionable?

What did you ask me?

What about this is rationally objectionable from the perspective of orthodox anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism?

Tell me.

Dude, I generally do not have the time for that.

You don't have anything to say because you know it's the truth.

Yeah, you're telling the truth, man.

You have nothing to say.

You have no response.

You have no argument.

You have nothing.

You won the argument, man.

You had nothing to say.

What else can we conclude?

What can I say, dude?

What can I say?

No, man.

I can have to say.

I accept your surrender.

Truly, I accept your surrender.

Anyway, let's uh see what else.

Go ahead.

Nothing.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Hold on one second.

What?

Uh, I can hear now.

Um, I wanted to ask: as you as a communist, what's your opinion on race?

What do you mean?

What am I what is my opinion on race?

Like, do you think it's like a biological thing?

Do you think it's a sort of a construct?

uh race is a uh it's a nebulous idea race actually it's not really an ethnic ethnically specific thing i mean it means nothing people share characteristics appearance wise over a long period of time of the separation between people a lot of people will cluster together and appear similar but there are noticeable differences among them I would even say that, for example, you could say that racially the white American and the British British people are both white, part of the Caucasian race, and even they can share ancestry.

But the British people look different than Americans, even WASP Americans.

Because when you fall under the sway of a diverging principle, from a Lysenkoist perspective, it physically alters.

It means it's not the Darwinist process of natural selection and survival that determines people's racial appearance.

It's actually a Lysenkoist mechanism that's downstream from the social principles that they adopt.

So Americans started to diverge from British people in terms of their looks and their appearance, even WASP Americans, because Americans started to live under a principle that was radically distinct from the principle that governs the British Isles.

And as such, they took on a different appearance.

It's just like...

There was a racial, new racial genesis that happens.

If you take two people from the same race and you put them on separate islands, on one island, you have correct Islam, communism, Marxism.

On the other island, you have furries in charge.

After just about a few generations, the people who originally looked identical, you're going to see observable physical differences among them.

And that's lysenkoism.

Yeah.

That's based on Lysenkoism.

I didn't know that.

Are you Muslim?

Yes.

Are you Russian?

Are you like Chechnyan or something like that?

No, I'm a Tartarian.

What's that?

That's a new race that's emerged in America recently.

Well, I'm just 'cause I'm going on Twitter and like, I don't know why, but I'm on like a far right thing.

It's like I'm just asking questions 'cause like

People talk about things like IQ and things like that.

I'm just asking.

Tartarians?

Yes.

Isn't that like a fake place that people tell us?

No, it's a real place, but it exists in the future.

Wait, are you one are you one of those like troll communists and you're really just like a member of the Tartarian race?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um

The uh the

You have is there is what about this confuses you?

Sounds like you're confused.

You're kind of trolling right now.

I'm not trolling.

What about this confusing?

So Tartar you're seriously Tartarian was a troll.

I'll explain it.

Absolutely.

I'm Tartarian.

How do you feel about do you when back to the race thing, do you think race is a thing that uh promotes that gives value to a certain person?

There's either Tartarians or non-Tartarians, and the non-Tartarians will all become they will lose their humanity and they will become something else because they've fallen under the sway of revisionism, anti-communism and uh furryism and uh gaming and all this filth anime.

I guess so.

Yes, exactly.

So it makes sense to you.

Like, if you're one of these disgusting anti-communists, you're one of these disgusting people who hate the ACP, your descendants will not look human in a few generations.

You're going to be pigs and apes.

But if you're a Tartarian and you're part of the Tartarian tribe, you fall under the sway and the principle of real anti-revisionist, Islamic American, Tartarian Marxism-Leninism, aka you know, Islam for short, then your descendants will be an upright people.

Yo, you're confusing me so much.

Why?

Because it sounds like you're being an ironic, like not.

I'm not ironic.

What about what I'm saying is ironic?

Tell me.

I mean, I mean, of course, you're going to continue trolling, but of course you're trolling.

Look at my face.

Yeah.

Do you see me smiling or laughing?

No.

Absolutely, this is very serious.

I thought Marxist Leninism was anti-religion.

So is real Islam.

What is wait, what?

How's real Islamic?

Because the category of religion in the Western modern context was based on a specific division of labor wherein the religious essence was isolated from the material world, and therefore an incompleteness of being is implied by the religiosity and religious belief, because it is isolated from other aspects of being.

But Islam refers to the deeper integrity of being, so that there is not a distinction between the secular and the sacred, which is at the foundation of the so-called civilization.

Therefore, you cannot simply reduce Islam to being one religion among many others, because religiosity itself implies something that is distinct from the secular world of material relationships, forces of production, relations of production and habits, cultures, and ways of life.

If there's a singular absolute truth, and if there's a singular and absolute faith that's based in the singular absolute universal truth of all of being, then such a category of distinction called religion would not be of a material significance whatsoever in essentially defining the nature of that worldview.

Yeah.

Um

Dead.

I'm taking the shit right now.

That's disgusting.

You need to not do that.

That was not a response, by the way.

Accept your surrender, though.

Okay, uh F Farah, go ahead.

Uh hello.

Yes.

I saw your tweet and I wasn't here for the beginning of the live, so I just wanted to ask how you think Marxism is is on.

How is he not?

I mean, because there are parts of Marxism which to be able to hold, you would have to compromise some of your Islamic metaphysics.

Like what?

Like you can't be a materialist.

Yes, you can.

Islam is materialist.

It's 100% materialist.

Since when?

You believe in jinn?

You believe in angels?

You believe in...

You believe in metaphysical forces that are not.

And Muslims and Islam regards jinn and angels and all these other things not to be ideals that are floating somewhere, but actually real things that allow the believer to relate to the fundamental order of the cosmos.

They are referring to different aspects of the order of the material cosmos.

Material just means essential.

The materiality of something is the deeper reality behind something.

The formatic level, the ideal level, is a transgression of Greco-Roman pederastic philosophy, which Islam doesn't recognize.

Now, there's some Islamic philosophers that dabbled in the Greek stuff, but that was never part of their religion.

The people in the desert didn't care about that.

So the faith is materialistic.

When you're talking about jinns and you're talking about angels and all these things that are beyond empiricism, that's just an acknowledgement of material principles that are not empirically tangible.

But Marxism also recognizes material principles that are not empirically tangible.

For example, communism is not an empirically tangible thing.

Classes are not empirically tangible.

A mode of production, a modality of production, is not empirically tangible.

There's not a single measurable thing you can put in front of you and say, this is a mode of production, this is a class, and so on and so on.

You can only define things on the basis of their relationships, their modalities, the patterns of how they reproduce themselves, and so on and so on.

So Islam already acknowledges in its materialism, sorry, Marxism, Marxist materialism is not empiricism.

Marxist materialism acknowledges and recognizes structuring and governing principles behind the material world.

And Islam gives expression to similar principles, but with different language and in a different way.

But that doesn't mean it's at odds with materialism at all.

How can you fully hold that God is uh responsible for everything that happens in the universe, and then also fully hold that the material conditions are r responsible for anything that happens?

No.

Marxism regards one material being.

So, there is one material being, and within this one material totality of being, this one material universe, there are material laws that govern the universe, right?

That govern the development of the cosmos.

So, the category of the totality and the concrete within Marxism, if you take it at a universal or ontological level, implies God, actually.

They didn't have a word for God because God was assumed to be an unreal abstraction of thought because Marx, coming from the Feuerbachian school and the young Hegelian school, was working backward from philosophy.

Philosophy is beginning with the Platonic concept or the ideal, which is a receptacle of an unreal form.

That's what form basically means for Plato: something unreal that doesn't actually exist anywhere.

It's not real, but it's like belongs to a transcendent realm, right?

That can only be accessed by way of the intellect and by way of pure thought.

And for Hegel, everything was downstream from that.

So, when Feuerbach understood that Hegelianism was just an alienated version of Christianity, when Marx was drawing from that, in his appraisal of religion, he was initially working with the scheme that religion was just empiricism.

Materialism is a rejection of the formatic understanding of being, that being is a form, okay, that can only be accessed by means of one specific type of activity, thought, right?

So, the idea that thinking and being are the same, which I believe is from the Parmenides, from Plato, that is basically the fundamental purport of idealism, in a sense.

The notion that the absolute and the ultimate being is some kind of thought.

And the notion that the various distinctions and intelligibles and determinations with being are themselves concepts or reflections of concepts or correspond to concepts.

And the Marxist view, the materialist view rejects that.

Materialism regards reality as actually the thing that's fundamental and primary, and ideation and thinking as secondary or reflective, right?

But with respect to the question of an absolute being, it's not a question of whether the being is unreal or real, but whether it's absolute being.

So, does Marxism presuppose the necessity of an absolute being?

Absolutely.

If there's a material integrity of the cosmos, if there's a material integrity of something that we call a universe, that means there has to be a fundamental principle of existence and reality.

Okay, well, historically, that principle was just called God.

That's what God refers to.

God did not refer to a man in the sky who is wearing a robe, fiddling around doing X, Y, and Z.

God is referring to the ultimate reality.

If whether that reality is material or ideal,

Is not the question, but actually, religion is materialist because religion is actually the thing that asserts that reality is material.

When philosophers try to say that that reality is an ideal reality, they're trying to make it accessible by means of the philosophical intellect, which culminates in a type of atheism that says man can become God or be equal to God.

And Hegel actually kind of reproduced this because Hegel talks about this idea of absolute knowledge.

Well, absolute knowledge means that man through his thinking acquires parity and equality with the thinking and mind of God, in a way, right?

But materialism is the thing that says, no, you can never actually achieve parity by way of the intellect or thinking with the absolute integrity of material being.

It's always going to be something more fundamental than anything that can be reflected by thought.

So by nature, Marxist materialism rejects shirk, it rejects idolatry, it rejects the idea that the material integrity of being can ever find fruition and satisfaction in any given determination, right?

It says the whole thing in its integrity, in its totality, right, can never find full fulfillment.

In a single determination, in a single thing.

And therefore, any idol of existence, existence can't be reduced to it.

It's always something more.

So, this is dialectical materialism.

So, I just need to ask here: first of all, like, supposing that you said it's true, why specifically does it have to be the Islamic God?

Second of all,

Why specifically does that have to be the Islamic God?

Because only the Islamic God because only the Islamic God because communism is the same thing as monotheism.

Communism is about the more fundamo fundamental reality that conditions the division of labor.

Polytheism states that each of the various divisions of uh labor

Exist unto themselves, right?

Polytheism, for example, the worship of various different gods and deities, that's a reflection of the division of labor.

So that's why, in, for example, polytheistic religions like Hinduism, you have a caste society because they reify and they turn the castes into these absolute, unchangeable categories.

Because it doesn't have a notion of a single reality we all share in common and before which we are all equal, right?

So monotheism and communism are the same thing.

But Marx's materialism is specifically monotheist because it recognizes one ultimate reality, one ultimate material reality.

And the isthmus, which is what the Islamic mystical Sufi philosophers called it,

Or Insan al-Kamil, right, is man.

For Marx, that is man.

Man is the fundamental point of reference before which all thinking must refer to an ultimate and fundamental absolute single reality.

Marx's materialism is bounded up in his humanism of one universal man, one universal human reality.

But within the scheme of this it's very necessary to Marxism, but what?

I mean, okay.

I said I don't feel like this is very necessary to Marxism.

Why not?

No, no, but think about think about it.

No, no, no, but think about it.

Of course it's necessary.

Where have the Marxists been the past fifty years?

Where?

Where's the revolution happening right now?

You tell me.

Think about it.

Who are the real revolutionaries today, right now?

What do you mean?

Like, you guys in Hezbollah and, like, those guys?

Yes, they are.

I mean, am I wrong?

Who else is it?

Tell me.

Who else?

Where are they?

The last time there was a Marxist revolutionary was Che Guevara was like the last Marxist revolutionary.

Where?

Because Hezbollah and these guys are defending their territory.

Okay.

But if we look at what they're actually doing when their territory isn't being threatened, they're killing Sunni kids in Syria.

So they're not really the Marxist revolutionaries.

But that's just propaganda.

But this isn't though like It's just propaganda, I hate to tell you, but it's propaganda.

And also, what they were doing in Syria was precisely defending their territory.

It's a long-term strategic understanding of the defense of the region, defense of the supply chains that make the resistance possible in the first place.

When Syria fell, the ability to defend.

Not just the land of Lebanon, but everyone being able to defend their land from Israeli aggression, became severely limited.

So what they were doing in Syria was they were trying to preserve the integrity of that state and its territory so that it could continue having a seminal, fundamental strategic role in the facilitation of resistance.

But in any case, there are plenty of things that are wanting of being defending, right?

What about our human dignity?

What about our human rights in some sense?

What about our ability to have some kind of existence in the first place?

We can't resist.

the global forces of the bourgeoisie.

Marxists have failed.

They failed to defend humanity from the global bourgeoisie for the past fifty or so years.

They failed.

So where are the real revolutionaries in the world today?

Well I just need to know like why does it have to be the Islamic God and not some deistic God?

And like why do we have to say that the people who are the revolutionaries today take it that they're revolutionaries?

Why do they have to be because when we evaluate because we can invent the deistic God right now we can we can invent and say okay it's some kind of deism.

But then we would have to evaluate the question okay is there any kind of history whatsoever from this point all the way to the eternity of history?

Is there any kind of tradition that might have beaten us to the chase?

What is the actual content of Islam historically?

What did it actually mean to the masses and masses of men?

I mean, you can say deism, but there are logical consequences of deism when it comes to our understanding of being or our ontology, our understanding of justice, of right and wrong, okay?

Our understanding of how we respond to world history.

So if you were a deist in the deserts of Arabia in this you know, the the eighth or seventh century,

You probably, your arc of history would not look that different from what Islam actually became.

And throughout all of history, this is a tradition that has absorbed these various different cycles.

What Islam is a specific thing.

I mean, for me, it may be specific, but it's not arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary.

There's a rationale behind the content of Islam that is historically has its own theology, like you said.

But what is the the okay?

But what is the theology based in?

Like, what's the content of the theology?

The content of theology is ultimately, but that all of that is downstream from a universalistic ontology and all the consequences of what it means to draw out a universalistic ontology.

I mean, I just no, like Islam is very specific.

It's much more specific than that.

It goes to the same thing.

Islam does not say we have to worship camels.

It doesn't say we have to worship sandals.

It doesn't say we have to worship sand.

It doesn't say oh, this specific thing just arbitrarily we have to No, there's a rhyme and reason behind everything.

There's an exoteric and then there's an esoteric meaning behind everything.

Oh, right.

And that is true for Islam.

And it's a really specific thing.

Like, you can't take the supposed deistic God who will make your almost entire beliefs.

By the way, it's impossible it could be a deistic God of philosophy because that's a philosophical proposition.

That's not an actual material relationship.

If there's something called a material absolute, right?

Absolute material integrity of being, then the history of the relationship to that being necessarily has to come before us in some kind of way.

To say we just now have clarity with respect to what it is implies that we've discovered it by means of philosophy and by means of thought, which is an absurdity.

That means it's a philosophical proposition, not actually an authentic revelation or authentic relationship to material being by means of revelation.

You're the one here who's logically deducing a God, so I'm saying I'm logically pointing out the obvious fact that Marxism is Islam.

That's all I'm doing.

I'm just pointing out the obvious by means of logic.

Actually, my meme goes viral all the time because everyone in their hearts intuitively knows it's true, but they lack the logical ability to justify why it's true.

And I mean, how can most people, if Marxism was not Islam, nobody would get affected by the meme that Marxism is Islam.

The fact that it commands so much attention and interest from people shows to me that people know it's true deep down, but they lack the ability by means of consciousness and logic to justify why that is.

You don't think it's a little absurd to say that Islam's Dahlia is a kenfir?

There's many absurd things you can say.

None of them go viral, though, do they?

Yeah.

I mean, okay, but that doesn't really mean anything, and also why would Marxism be Islam when Islam is like objectively like so reactionary?

How is Islam reactionary?

You know, the patriarchal views and um views on home.

So p polytheism is polytheism is progressive then?

No.

What is progressive?

Show me what's progressive then.

I'm saying you could just not hold the belief about God in the first place.

What's where's the progressive atheism in the world?

Or you could just not subscribe to the world.

So where is the progress?

Where's the progress that the atheists have given us in the past fifty years?

Where is it?

What do you mean by that?

Where are the progressive revolutionary atheists?

Where are they?

Well I'm not really talking to you about his whoever's saying China, no, they're not revolutionary.

So no, you can't say China.

China's not revolutionary.

They ended the revolution after Mao.

Now they've embarked on their own path, which I respect, but it's not revolutionary.

So, where are these progressive because to be progressive is to be revolutionary, right?

You can say that there's no other progressive alternative, but that doesn't make Islam progressive.

So, no, but saying something is reactionary implies there's something progressive, right?

Where's the progressive thing?

Oh well, there doesn't necessarily need to be a progressive religious belief.

So he's saying convenient time for you to start for you to stop supporting China.

That's nothing to do with China had its revolution.

China's not sitting here saying it's offering the world a revolutionary path.

China is saying we've had our own revolutionary path.

Now we're in our Confucian society.

We see no need to start a world revolution or something.

And we're just going our own way.

That's fine.

That's well within their right.

But I don't live in China.

I live in America.

So if we don't live in China, we can't import China's model, and the Chinese themselves don't tell us to import their model, by the way.

Anyway, continue.

No, I'm like asking you a question.

Like, do you do you not think that Islam is reactionary?

Of course it's not reactionary.

Wow.

Because to say Islam is reactionary implies that the polytheism it mer it emerged against was progressive, which is ridiculous.

No, not necessarily the polytheism.

So what is it reactionary with respect to?

With respect to what?

So let's talk about Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s.

All ideas proposed in the history of humanity.

What ideas?

All of the progressive ideas that came from the Middle East came from Islam.

For example, in mathematics, that was all within Islam.

Oh, you know, Abhi Sana in his time was called a Kafir.

Okay, so was Jesus and his followers.

They were called atheists.

Yes, they were.

The first Christians were called atheists by the Romans.

Actually, Muslims were called atheists too.

It was said that they worshiped nothingness because they didn't worship idols.

So it was said they worshiped nothingness by their enemies.

But Abi San lived in a Muslim society.

That's the difference.

Okay, so what?

Why is it a given?

I'm saying the most thinkers, they were called.

So was he channeling polytheism?

What was he channeling that was somehow outside of Islam?

Islamic societies that you're talking about persecuted Shia, they persecuted Sufis, they persecuted all manner of revolutionaries who were still working within the framework of Islam.

But where were the revolutionaries who were outside of Islam?

That's my question.

What is this question?

I mean, all of the revolutionaries were called Catholic.

They were called that, but did they themselves see themselves as outside of Islam?

Well you could very well say that they're not going to protect themselves.

Even according to le no.

Even according to legalism I'll explain why that's a no.

But even according to the legalism, how how is a Muslim defined?

You tell me.

You just say you're a Muslim.

You take the Shahada, you take the Shahada, and you confess you're a Muslim.

No, I'm Muslim.

What?

I'm Muslim.

I'm a Muslim.

Yeah, but anyone who says that is considered a Muslim in the Muslim framework.

No, not necessarily.

I mean, the prophet says you can do things that take you out of the fold of Islam.

To be a Muslim is to declare your faith as a Muslim.

That's how you become a Muslim.

No, but we know from the Hadith that there are things you can do that take you out of the fold of Islam.

We know from the Quran as well.

The renunciation of belief.

So I can be I can be a Muslim who doesn't pray my five times a day.

Yes, you can be a Muslim who doesn't follow any Muslim rules.

Yes, you can.

You can be a Muslim who does not follow any you can absolutely be a Muslim who doesn't follow any of the rules.

Well if you can do anything and be a Muslim then yeah sure you can say that Marxism is Islam, but it wouldn't be Islam that's true to the Quran and the Hadoop.

Hold on, hold on, you're talking about two different things.

You're talking about Islam as a legalistic tradition, which no, not all Muslim sects have even agreed upon.

And yet you can't say that they're outside of Islam versus Islam as it actually materially was historically.

For example, various Sufi traditions that emerged from the time of Revelation up to this point had very different views about the so-called five pillars of Islam.

They have very different interpretations about the nature of the legalisms.

And they still regarded themselves as within the Islamic tradition.

And there's no other tradition that can locate them within it.

According to who?

Who's making the rules?

Saudi Arabia?

Tell me who makes the rules.

No, the truth.

The sick truth is that the people who made the rules were the people who had power.

They were the people who had the monopoly on violence.

That's it.

They made the rules.

Who defines what it really is and what it isn't?

So you're saying the rules of your religion were made up by the people who had power.

I mean, this is not...

Does this sound okay to you to say?

Yes, it does.

Because you know why?

Because Islam, when we use this word Islam, we're talking about a fundamental type of belief.

Which is supposed to be a pure relationship between the individual and God, the absolute, right?

So anyway, absolutely.

Islam is a relationship between the individual and God.

No, it's much more than that.

I mean, how can you say that when there's Sharia law?

Because human beings can interpret it however they want to interpret it.

So you don't believe in Sharia?

I don't believe in what?

Sharia.

Communism is Sharia.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 was Sharia.

So you do believe in Sharia?

The true Sharia, yes.

Okay, so how can you say that God's uh command can be imposed on another and then say that it's the uh the relation between the individual because make because making making reference because the authority of Islam does not come from uh hiding behind the skirt of conventions and habits.

The authority of Islam comes from the struggle, the jihad, right?

for a concrete relationship between justice, injustice, oppressor, oppressed, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

In Islam, everything that is true belongs to Allah, right?

Now, there's two ways of looking at religion.

You see, the true way to look at religion is not here are the set of rules and bullet points from Microsoft PowerPoint.

It's not an Excel sheet, okay?

The way to look at a religion is: what fundamental relationship do I have to the very logos, the very fundamental rationale behind all of these different interpretive traditions that came about in the first place?

What active living faith doesn't say, oh, this is the rule, that's it.

Active living faith says, here's the fundamental relationship I have to the absolute for which X, Y, and Z law and rule is actually rational and necessary.

Okay.

Like how does how does this relate?

I mean I asked you how like you can believe in imposing Sharia on other people and then also believe that uh what is sharia what does sharia mean?

Go ahead, translate it.

The divine command of Allah translate the etymology.

What is sharia?

Means law.

Translate it.

Find the etymology.

Just Google it.

Google the etymology of Sharia.

I speak Arabic.

So give me the etymology of Sharia.

What do you mean?

It means look up etymology of Sharia.

Yeah, can hold on, can we go back to something these days?

No, the etymology of Sharia.

Give me the etymology of Sharia.

What answer do you want me to give?

Just look up Etymology of Sharia.

And read it out to you?

Yes.

Okay.

Give me a second.

It says, Sharia is the body of divine religious law in Islam that serves as the etymology.

The etymology.

I said etymology.

E-T-Y-Y.

I know how to spell etymology.

So read out the etymology of Sharia.

It comes from Arabic, translating literally to the path leading to the water.

There we go.

The pathway to water.

Why is the law of God?

Why does the etymology referring to the law of God mean the pathway to water?

Why is that?

Do you know?

You tell me.

Because in the Islamic ontology, okay, you have the relationship between the fire, okay, the earth.

Fire is the extreme of the air, right?

Because you have the deadly scorching fire in the desert that comes from hot air, right?

When it burns.

In the framework of Islam, water is a dialectical mediation of these two ontological principles, right?

Which is the way of fire being in reference to the kind of intangible, the spiritual realm, right?

And earth being the grounded material world.

Water is the dialectical sublation of both.

And so the way to water

Is the same thing as dialectical materialism?

A law based on the principle of dialectical materialism.

Absolutely the truth.

Dialectical materialism is at the foundation of Sharia.

Sharia means dialectical materialism.

That's all it means.

No, what does it mean?

Absolutely.

You can't handle the truth.

You can say whatever you want.

You can't say that.

No, this is not true.

This is the truth.

You understand what I mean when I say Sharia.

I mean, no, no, no.

Why should I care, though?

I understand what you're trying to say.

I'm asking why I should care.

Because you believe in this, you believe in an Islamic way of governing.

What does it mean to believe?

Sho know them by their fruits.

What is the content of belief?

That there's some sheikh somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

I have to listen to what he says 'cause he has a lot of fucking money.

Because the Saudis have money and they can build madrasas across the world and standardize Islam as they see fit.

Why should I have to listen to anyone because they have money or they have power?

What is truth?

Truth comes from the heart.

Belief comes from the heart.

It doesn't come from anywhere else but the heart.

No, it comes from the head, actually.

Okay, if you were among the companions, the first people among the Prophet, what could incentivize you to follow the Prophet?

That's the Islam that I care about.

That He had miracles and He had His proof.

What were the miracles of the Prophet?

You don't think that the Quran is a linguistic miracle?

You don't think that split?

No, no.

The Prophet, because He brought justice on earth, because His virtues were evident and shown His miracles.

The the the miracles of the Prophet were not the primary motivation for why people became followers of the prophet.

Yes, it is.

He wasn't a magician.

No, he wasn't a magician.

He wasn't a sorcerer.

But they were accusing him of it because you would listen to the Quran and you'd realize how much of a miracle it is.

Yes, the written, yes, the meaning bounded up in the revelation was the miracle.

The fact he could articulate the fundamental meaningfulness of the world to people was the miracle.

It wasn't based in theatrics and magic.

Okay, I still don't like why did we get here?

Why why didn't you answer my question?

Why like okay, I'll take away the word sharia if it bothers you.

Um how can we say that there is an Islamic way of government when um you're saying that it's an individual relation between God and uh the individual?

Because the purpose of Islam is not for an authority to come here and say this is the religion and

The only someone can claim the authority of Islam, but the authority has to be proven by the living works, by the living virtue, by the living proof that what you're doing aligns with what people know in their heart to be true.

versus false.

Just versus wicked.

What are you saying?

And the only way people can verify that is what's within their hearts and the personal relationship they have to God, nothing else.

This is not materialist.

I'm so sorry to say that.

The only way people could verify the truth of the prophet's words was that it aligned with what they knew in their hearts but had repressed for so long.

This is the word.

The words of the prophet.

The words of the prophet opened up the relationship the individual has to God.

A relationship that had been obscured, had been fogged with ignorance and confusion.

His words miraculously for people opened up this relationship and clarified it.

That's why the pre-Islamic world is called Jahaliyya, right?

If I'm saying it right.

Yeah.

Okay, like, how are you saying words like wicked and new in their hearts and good?

And you're saying you're a materialist.

Because materialism is not nihilism.

Materialism absolutely comprehends that the morality of divine command and that's it.

That the moral.

Even as a Muslim, even no, hold on.

Even as a Muslim, there is divine command and that's it.

There's no good in evil.

No, you're reading.

You're assuming Islam is a Talmudic faith.

It's not a Talmudic faith.

It's just a book of laws.

No, that's a Talmudic interpretation.

No, this is the Ash'ari interpretation, actually.

It can be anything.

You can call it whatever you want.

It's not the living faith.

It's a dead letter of the text, and that's it.

That's not the Islamic way.

If it sufficed to just follow the dead letter, you just follow Talmud.

That's it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, I mean, like, this is a recognized interpretation within scholars.

And why should I care about the recognized interpretation?

You're just deferring to other people's authority.

Why should I care about their authority?

Tell me why.

I'm saying, like, what I'm saying isn't necessarily authentic.

You're channeling authorities, you're channeling conventions, you're channeling habits, but you're not explaining why they are.

And you can refer to the hadith, and you'll find that there is no Quran is not a book of laws, primarily.

Okay, it's not some legalistic code.

The Quran is.

channels the truth in a very indirect way.

In a very brilliant way, in a way that you can't just look at it exoterically.

The whole point is it needs to be interpreted with esotericism.

That's why the Sufis were correct.

Listen, man, like I feel like

you you're just not really reconciling it.

I mean, you're saying like as long as Marxism you or Marxism is Islam, whatever, you're not reconciling it.

I don't need to reconcile that which is self evidently the same thing.

It's not though.

I mean, you've said a bunch of things.

First of all, which can't be backed up.

Uh, second of all, which are just illogical.

Why is what's illogical?

The lack of symmetry or parity between Marxism and Saudi Arabia?

Why should I care about Saudi clerics funded by oil money?

Why should I care about it?

You keep saying Saudi Arabia.

Who am I to bow to?

Who do you want me to bow to?

This guy with a beard who says he's the khalalah?

Why do I care?

Why should I care about it?

What are you talking about?

Tell me.

Okay, pretend I'm a non-Muslim.

Pretend I'm a non-Muslim.

Convince me.

Why should I be a Muslim?

And you know what these Muslims will do?

No, no, you know what?

But you know what these Muslims will do?

I'll tell you why the Islam is dead in the hearts of 99% of people who call themselves Muslims.

If I'm a non-Muslim and I say, convince me why I should be a Muslim, you know what they'll say?

They'll say, okay, because in the Quran, it predicted Isaac Newton and it predicted Einstein's discoveries.

And if you read the amount of times that it says the word gravity, it actually predicted the quantum formulas.

And it's like trying to create superstition.

And it's trying to convince people that Islam is true because of a superstitious thing that it somehow accounts for a Steve Jobs iPhone.

They'll say, you should be a Muslim because actually the Quran has the blueprints of the iPhone before Steve Jobs.

You see, they can never convince a non-Muslim to be a Muslim because it's true.

They have to resort to modern science, which everyone believes is true because we all use computers and we all need modern medicine and we all depend upon modern scientific knowledge.

So, what they'll do is leverage modern scientific knowledge and say, Oh, but in order, but the Quran is the thing that miraculously predicted all of this.

They don't refer to the authority of the living faith, they don't refer to the authority of Allah, they refer to the authority of Dr.

Fauci.

So you tell me, you convince me.

What?

You convince me to become a Muslim if I'm not a Muslim.

ACP.us.

ACP.us know them by their fruits.

The cause we're fighting for is a just cause.

The cause we're fighting for is a virtuous cause.

Hold on, because this is really what we're doing.

There's a struggle.

Listen, the real living faith.

Real living faith.

The authority of faith comes from the struggle of the now, nothing else.

The authority of the faith comes from the struggle in the here and the now.

There's a struggle here and the now based on right and wrong, justice and injustice, truth and falsehood in the now.

Whoever fights for this comprehensively, consistently.

That's all that matters.

So you're saying if a specific people fight for, you know, the liberation of other people, those are the people that we should follow?

I mean, if they do it with genuine faith in their heart.

How am I supposed to measure that?

This is e-measured.

You're supposed to measure it by their works.

Measure it by their works.

Know them by their works.

Know them by their fruits.

Why do all the enemies of the ACP have to lie about us like they lied about the Prophet?

Like they lied about the family of the Prophet?

Why do they have to lie about us?

Why can't they just tell the why can't they just present us as we are as the truth?

Why do they have to fabricate X, Y, and Z about us?

Because in our living existence as a movement and as a party,

There is something about us that is authoritative and compelling to people, and the only way our enemies can deny us is by twisting what we are, turning us into something that we're not.

Okay, um it was a pleasure talking to you.

I'll probably get back sometime later, but I'm gonna go now.

ACP.us if you wanna find true Islam.

ACP.us.

True Islam, not in the mosque.

ACP.us is where the real Islam is.

T P L, go ahead.

Yeah.

So, uh I've been following you on Jackson since like twenty twenty two.

So I've I've I've seen a lot of your work and all of that.

You're Iraqi and Lebanese, aren't you, Shiite?

No.

Oh, well, um I saw Jackson, like Lebanon and everything.

I'm Lebanese.

Um so uh y I've been listening to the debate about Islam and what not.

So you believe the Koran is the literal word of God?

Yes.

So you know in the Qur'an it says to follow the Prophet.

And like in his his actions and his words are holy.

So you know that's been collected by

The Islamic civilization for like 150 to 300 years after his death and compiled into a hadith and fiqh.

And why do the Sunnis and Shias disagree about it?

The Sunnis and Shi'at disagreed on succession, not legalism until later.

Yes, but um that was established as that was established as part of the even like Shiism, it's like the Ismailis in Egypt, which were ruled by their own North African uh institutional basis and Al-Azhar compared to the Safavids in Persia which uh had synchron syncreticism with the with the Zoroastrian faith.

Actually the Ismailis were the Zoroastrian syncreticists more.

more because they were a combination of Persian uh Zoroastrian exiles and North African tribes.

The Persians went to North Africa, raised a guerrilla army in the Sahel or not the Sahel, the Sahara

Uh Tunisia.

Tunisia and uh Libya and whatever.

And then they came to Egypt, conquered Egypt with that army and they instituted a religion, a neoplatonic form of Islam that was heavily syncreticized with Zoroastrianism and Persian mystical traditions that were themselves combined with the Greek and Hellenistic lineages.

Yeah, but uh the original Shiites, like during the time of the Rashidun and Ali and Hussein, they were not really theologically incompatible with everybody else.

Is that correct?

We don't know what the uniform theology was.

We just have records of what people said it was.

There there th someone changed something, altered something.

That di that fact is evident in the very distinction between Shia and Sunni.

I mean, that's like the specific question of whether the Prophet had written a letter about appointing Ali as his successor or whether one of the Sahaba had it.

But if we're talking about something more lenient about whether or not, for example, the Umayyads and then later the Abbasids, whether they tampered with the legalistic tradition and therefore the direct and specific quotations of Islam fundamentally from the Prophet and the Ahadith, then at what point can we start would we not start questioning the Quran?

The point of the Quran is you're supposed to read it.

It's not supposed to be waved over people's head and said, you know, what I'm asking you is like it's not a gun you wave at people.

It's something you're supposed to read.

Yeah, so like.

So if it's if there's a single verse in the Quran that you don't find compelling authentically on the basis of faith you have in your heart, then you either don't understand it or the book is not for you.

Yeah.

But the authority, the authority didn't come from nowhere.

The authority has to come from some kind of living faith.

It has to come from somewhere.

The authority didn't come from nowhere.

It came from somewhere.

So if you want to say, well, I want to be in conformity with the community, the Islamic community has been destroyed.

It's been destroyed.

That was the point I was making.

So just deferring, just deferring to want to conform to people's habits and cultures is not a justification for the Islamic faith today.

It's called Sunnah wa-Jama'a.

You know what Jama'ah means?

Go ahead.

It means consensus.

It means like you're meant to rule by the consensus of the people.

No, I'm not talking about the state tradition.

I'm talking about civil society.

Like, where does your faith in Islam actually come from?

Me?

Anyone, anyone, where does it come from?

Well, uh, I don't know if I can speak for anybody else, but uh even like uh j anecdotally, a lot of people I know, they think it's like uh it's like even if uh it's just a question of uh whether

They're going to literally wake up to judgment day or nothingness, so they're scared they're gonna get tortured and stuffed in hell.

I don't yeah, exactly.

That's that's a very pathetic, faithless thing.

That's like saying, You know, I'm scared I'm gonna go to jail or I'm scared I'm gonna be killed or something.

It's just kind of cowardly.

I don't see that as a credible source of faith in the authentic sense of the word.

Faith doesn't mean, well, I'm scared of this bad thing that's gonna happen to me.

You know what?

You remind me of you remind me of the Christians who say that because in Islam heaven is described as having all these nice and fancy things for Muslims, and then the Christians will call it like Islam is vain and it's not a problem.

There are some, yeah, but you know what?

For the Muslims who are pious and virtuous because they want to bang virgins in heaven, those people are perverts and they have nothing to do with faith.

And I agree with the Christians if those people exist.

No, even like the original Islam describes heaven and paradise in such a way, not because it's trying to incentivize people to be good people, but it's trying to say all of these splendors and immediate temporal self-gain in this world you can think of.

The ultimate consequences of being righteous and following a righteous path in this world.

Just imagine the ultimate reward you can think of on earth.

It's so much bigger than all of that, so much more infinite, so much greater than that.

So it's a the the sublime of paradise within Islam is not meant to make you excited that you're gonna go to uh four seasons when you die.

I was specifically thinking about like uh when uh I don't I don't remember it was like uh a horse rider or like uh w a cavalry type guy in Arabia back in the day of the Prophet and he was talking about uh are you gonna be able to ride horses in uh in uh paradise because uh they're a fan of the tradition and they did their whole life and they like doing it so he told them yeah you're gonna be able to ride the best and biggest horses in in paradise with the fastest absolute fastest capabilities the eternal

Yeah, but like the question is that even irregardless of the question of like the virgins being being vain, it's like you can think that even that is being vain.

And the prophet directly said that, for example, the farmer is going to be able to live in eternity.

It's not vain, it's a way to communicate to people.

You have to understand what's the meaning.

The way the thing that's being communicated to people is that eternity surmounts everything temporal, everything that you can think of gaining here and now.

Eternity surmounts all of it.

So, if you're someone who's illiterate and you're not educated, and you're asking, is there going to be horses or X, Y, and Z in heaven?

If you're trying to communicate that heaven is the eternal,

The infinite, then you're going to say, yes, it's going to be that and more.

Not because you're there's literally you're telling people they're literally going to be riding horses someday.

The very meaningfulness and value that they're investing in riding a horse.

The rewards of heaven are greater than that.

Because heaven is the eternal and the infinite.

And how do you communicate the eternal and infinite to people?

You have to speak the language of what they know.

Yeah, but now you're just being uh you're just doing uh what's the word?

You're doing the button on the on the words of the prophet.

You're not t taking that what the words meant is the thing that we think it means.

Modern language, mod in after the modern age, language doesn't mean the same thing as it used to.

People used to if we have a manner of expression, if we say the straw that broke the camel's back, for example, are we talking about a real straw on a real camel's back?

How do you know in the language?

Things are literal enough.

Yeah, we're using so hold on.

All language has a degree of literary significance, which is not always meaning to give way to empirical propositions, the propositions about the existence of tangible, sensuous, empirical things.

So, how do you distinguish the literal from all these other kinds of literary devices?

In history, when you're talking about how people were talking 2,000 years ago, for example, when the Greeks, when you read about how the Greeks spoke about things, when Greeks were talking about Zeus and the mountains, what were they actually talking about?

You think they were actually, you think the Greeks, do you tell me, tell me, you think the Greeks actually thought that on Mount Olympus, if you climb there, you find some crazy giants or something, like God of War, the video game?

You think they actually thought that?

I mean you're you're talking about um what if these people back in the day believed X Y and Z and like you're trying to put the difference between them forget about back in the day let's go to some tribes that exist now somewhere in Africa right I remember I think there's some tribes that were retained their old traditions like in Nigeria and they believe that when they put on this costume and they do this dance they're channeling ancestral spirits and even the spirit is there like that is it right do you think they're so stupid so as to think it's not just a guy behind that costume dancing they actually literally think this supernatural thing no everyone gives way to the fundamentally intangible social principles through different literary devices and means by way of language the thing they mean to refer to is not a literal empirical tangible object

Most language, okay, Feuerbach, who's the first real atheist, comprehends that the very thing that separates man from animal is that man can talk about universals.

Man can refer to consciously comprehend intangible universals, right?

And so the way we give expression to that can be metaphorical, it can be indirect, it can be through riddles, it can be through all manner of literary devices that do not mean only a small minority in the entire literature of mankind's history before the modern age, before the age of empiricism and positivism and modern science, only a small minority of the language compiled in the traditions of mankind actually directly referred to discriminate, intelligible, separate empirical objects and propositions about these objects.

Language used to be embedded in more fundamental ontologies where everything had a deeper meaning.

Everything had a deeper meaning.

That was how people related to and had access to these social principles that gave meaningfulness to the world, right?

If you had a sterile universe of just dead things, empirical things of the senses,

You could not actually channel literature in a way to make sense of the world.

So, if we go 1,000 years from now, our version of that would be like Iron Man and the Avengers in Marvel.

And if you see anthropologists in the year 3060, they'll go back to us and they'll say, Wow, they actually believed in this guy named Iron Man and they believed in these Avengers like the Hulk.

And they, you know, they were depicting and talking about how there was a Spider-Man and X, Y, Z.

No.

It's not about that, though.

It's about what does it mean?

What meaning is being conveyed?

Why do we invest meaning in that?

Um, listen, uh, you're talking, it's like you hammered home the point of like, oh, it's like all these time differences and how back in the day they were talking with all these uh talks of uh deeper meaning and whatnot.

It's like you're practically just trying to um give us justification for the esotericism that uh you're talking about.

And the thing is, is that uh at the time of the prophet is like we're talking about uh um antiquity to medieval Arabic uh Arabian Peninsula language, it's like it's well known and how its grammar works and how it's uh how can it be well known people talk.

It's documented, it's like all these it's like Saudi Arabia ha ha they have found like these archaeological sites of writings uh uh writings of Islam from the time of the dig ups did they dig someone up to explain it to them what it meant?

I mean, y I was gonna get to it.

It's like uh it's like uh the script is the ex is the exact same as the Arabic one nowadays, except there aren't the dots and

Uh the thing is is that uh at the time of the same thing?

I was getting to it.

Because it looks the same.

It meant the same thing.

It's like the story is that when Islam got out of the Arabian Peninsula and Arabs got out of the Arabian Peninsula, the amount of people who had very high proficiency of the language decreased and it got diluted to the point that Al-Hajjaj, you know him, the Umayyad governor, added the dots to the script so that it would be more legible to see what letters are actually being put in what phrase while people the only thing that it meant was the revolution of the Prophet Muhammad, which is the same thing as Lenin and Mao's revolution.

So please go read the little red book and then you can read the Quran with clarity.

Sorry, we're going to go to the next guest.

Gabagul, go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Aw dude, hold on, my my headphones are messing up.

All right, you just came through really loud, sorry.

Um dude, I was wondering, um how how are you feeling about the debate tomorrow between the rabbit and the neolibertarian for Langist?

I don't know.

Charles, go ahead.

Hey, hey, so um I wanted to talk about some Stalin related things.

Uh I've been getting a little bit into some of the works and you know I I do recognize that the individual's actions don't necessarily affect you know philosophical geopolitical or economic works but that there were some concerns because you know people will say things like Stalin did nothing wrong and I've encountered this claim that he impregnated someone who was that's fake it was from the Epstein notebooks look it up it was made by Simon Seabag who is in the Epstein notebooks Epstein lie fabrication no basis in any proof or truth Stalin in fact did nothing wrong which is the truth he didn't commit a single crime

Okay, I need to know how to I need to have it be communism equals Islam because nobody wants to debate the AI thing.

Alright, anyway, we're gonna wrap up the TikTok.

You know, the question of whether I'm joking or not is like, or I'm trolling or not.

It's like at this point.

What if truth takes a comedic form?

Have you ever thought about that?

What if truth just takes a comedic form?

I am fundamentally trying to disrupt how people think of reality.

I'm trying to fundamentally disrupt people's preconceptions about reality.

And that much, I'm very serious.

I'm very serious.

I'm dead serious.

But sometimes the only way to do that is by also making you laugh.

And maybe by making you laugh I also I make you think.

That's what I wanna do.

I wanna make you think.

I want to give you the courage to think about shit differently by laughing about shit, right?

But either what I'm doing is the most satanic thing in the world or it's the holiest thing in the world.

I don't know.

But anyway, look, I'm either an atheist or the truest Musl I'm either the truest atheist in the world or the truest Muslim in the world.

But my heart is in the struggle, my heart is for the revolutionary struggle, my heart is for communism, my heart is for this lineage, this struggle.

I see the truth with clarity.

I see

The cope with clarity.

The Cope and others, okay?

It's very clear to me.

I don't care about labels.

I don't care.

I don't care about the labels.

I care about the resonance.

I care about the rhyme.

I don't care about the lyrics of a song.

I care about.

The music

Not the lyrics, I care about the music.

Like Enver Hoja, for example.

You say, oh, but the labels are different.

Okay, what's the difference between saying, or why is that different from saying anti-revisionism stalin?

It's like it's the same thing, but you're using a different word.

It's the same sound, it's the same resonance, but the word is different.

What's different?

It's the same.

Okay, I understand at some level the word matters, but it's like 95% of the meaning has nothing to do with the literal usage of the word.

The word is a cherry on top.

Understand the infrared understanding of language.

Words are the cherry on top.

There's all these different layers of ice cream that are there first.

And then the word you use is just a cherry on top.

But in the retarded Anglo box outlook,

The word is the whole Sunday.

That's not true.

The word is not the whole Sunday.

The word is the cherry on top of the Sunday.

You understand?

The Anglobox says, no, the word is the whole Sunday.

No, it's fucking not.

If I if I if I say, for example, let me explain something to you.

If I tell you that this is a giraffe.

Have I committed a heinous sin if I tell you this is a giraffe?

No, because you can look at it and say, but Haz, what do you mean to communicate by calling this a giraffe?

What do you mean to communicate?

Like what am I trying to say?

Am I trying to say that this is the same thing as the four legged, long necked animal, the mammal that's called a giraffe?

Well, maybe I'm not saying that.

Maybe I'm saying something else.

But the meaning of what this is is not the word glasses.

The meaning of what, there's so many layers to the meaningfulness of what this is.

For example, it can be put on my face like this.

I can fold it in this way.

It is shaped in this way, for example.

It has this color.

It has this usage.

That's all the layers of the sundae, right?

And then the cherry on top is that we call it glasses.

We call it sunglasses.

That's the cherry on top.

The idealist understanding of language says, no, no, no, the word is the entire sundae.

No.

The word is just what we're referring.

This is the cherry on top of the sundae.

The sundae is here, okay?

You can see all the layers of the ice cream right here.

The word sunglasses is a cherry on top.

So if Enver Hoxha.

If he looks like Islam or Muslim in the structure of what he's doing, and then the cherry on top is that he's confused about what kind of Sunday he's making.

That explains why he's an atheist confessionally, why he's saying, I'm an atheist, I eat pork, all this kind of superficial rituals.

There's an unconscious religious structure that's a different Sunday.

You know, there's different layers of ice cream, and then the word is a cherry on top.

That's how it works.

So for example

It's like saying that the Saudi version of Islam is Islam.

That's like saying if you take a shit.

And pile it up and put a cherry on top of the shit.

That's the same thing as chocolate ice cream?

No, it's not.

Maybe there's a superficial resemblance somewhere there.

But that's not the same fucking thing, I'm sorry.

Saudi Arabia can lay claim and say that that's the authority on all Islam could ever mean.

Because some guy with a beard said it is.

Okay, this is the way I say so.

Okay, so why should I care?

Think about it.

Where does the authority behind a religion actually come from?

It comes from some person claiming something?

Like, you don't, you didn't have to follow Jesus.

Nobody, nobody had to follow Jesus.

Okay, they were all persuaded by his miracles.

Okay, Judas still betrayed him.

Nobody had to follow the prophet, he wasn't in charge, he wasn't like, oh, you have to.

Nobody had to do it.

Okay, so where does faith actually come from?

The Muslims of today, they're channeling Dr.

Fauci to justify their religion.

Frankly, I wanted to be the good chairman who's just neutral on religion and treats Islam like all these other religions.

I'm doing something very risky by dabbling and experimenting with matters of faith in this way.

I understand.

Trust me, I understand.

But I look at the state of the world today and I say, something's got to give.

Things can't go on as they are, something's got to give.

There's a spiritual decay.

There's a scourge of nihilism.

There's an emptiness.

How can we be just as revolutionary?

How do we restore?

This is the question.

How do you restore the revolutionary Marxism?

The only way to restore it.

We have to relitigate the question of faith.

Otherwise, where are we?

I don't think in the 21st century atheist Marxists cannot be revolutionaries in the 21st century.

There's not a single example of them being revolutionaries.

Anywhere.

The last one was Cheguevara.

So where are they?

Isn't this an interesting question?

When is the last time there have been atheist, Marxist revolutionaries?

Chairman Gonzalo?

Was it Gonzalo?

Where?

Think about it.

Even if you're an atheist, that should bother you.

You should think about that.

Why is that?

What happened to Marxism?

What happened to revolutionary Marxism?

Because atheists today seem like they're nihilists who are not willing to risk fundamental life and death struggle.

They're not, no, let me have Pap Tarts.

And then some people say, Well, in America you have to why?

Why?

Xi Jinping, he's not a revolutionary.

He doesn't have to be either, because his country doesn't need a revolution.

But Xi Jinping is not a revolutionary.

I don't like non-Chinese people trying to channel China.

Frankly, I'm going to wear a suit and be professional.

Buddy, you're not.

Before you do that, you need to go on the long march, do you not?

I'm gonna be China in America.

No, you're not.

No, because China they have the inheritance of the long march and the cultural revolution.

What do we have?

Nothing.

We have the Black Panthers.

It's the last thing we had.

Black Panthers.

Last thing we had was the Black Panthers.

Okay.

Truth is, that's the last thing we had, the Black Panthers.

And what happened to them?

They were destroyed.

Constitution is pretty cool.

Okay, I mean, we can all just be a museum.

Are we gonna be a museum?

Why'd the Black Panthers fail?

Because they had no national question.

They had the inter-communalistic understanding of the national question, which was true in some sense, but they had no.

The Rainbow Coalition Framework.

Was

The logic of the Soraites paradox.

How many grains of sand make a heap?

Okay.

How many different groups in a coalition make for a unified central authority that can sweep the nation?

Infinitely many, right?

At some point, there's an infinitesimal gap you have to cross that says, we are the authority, right?

The Black Panthers weren't interested in doing that, they just wanted to confine themselves to the black community.

But then they got isolated, and because they were isolated they were destroyed.

One plus one plus one plus one plus one can go on for infinity.

To have a one you have to say one.

There yes, it's an infinitesimal gap.

You have to cross one.

One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one for it can go on forever.

Forever.

So where's one?

If Fred this guy's trolling me.

You have to have the confidence and the audacity of the one.

You have to.

What makes you worthy?

Fuck you.

Nothing makes me worthy.

Everyone is worthy already.

So it's a matter of courage.

Do you have the courage to name this worthiness?

How's it lost to plot?

Grandma, what's up?

We c I don't think the religion thing

I want, I know.

Originally, it's like we just want to shut up about the religion thing and focus on the Strahl Staney with the 10.

What's up?

Originally it's like, you know, the religion thing, we just keep that whatever and just wage the struggle, but it's like.

I'm gonna tell you.

I'll tell you right now something.

You got to mark my words.

A lot of you might be feeling queasy and uneasy about this new direction.

And you may say Haas might have lost his fucking mind and he's gone crazy.

And this is too far.

This is the crazy, the crazy train has left the station, so to speak.

Uh

Or that song, We're going off the rails on that crazy train.

You may think that, okay?

But uh

Cannot languish and meander.

In this space of institutional

Deniability

Even if we're atheists, we have to have the same belief and conviction that sometimes you only see in religion to do what we do.

I don't care if you're an atheist, I don't care what your religion is.

But to be a communist

We need to be just as faithful as Muslims are in Iran.

And it has to be real.

That's all we have.

Without that, there's no Communism, there's no nothing.

I mean, what what what are you gonna say?

You're gonna say, Oh, it's just self-evidently gonna no.

No, I mean you have to

You have to be really about this shit, you know?

Skin in the Game

Oh, it's unhinged X, Y and Z.

It's like well

We are in such an intensely psychological era.

We have to break through this division of language, right?

This box, the Anglo Box thing.

I mean, we have to fucking destroy that.

We have to level it.

We are trapped in a prison of language.

You know who agreed with me?

David Lynch did.

He said language is a prison.

It imprisons us.

And he who is trying to liberate meaning.

From the Anglo Box, you know.

And we have to go and listen, you have to be retarded to not see this is the American spirit right here.

This is the Ama this is the avant-garde of the American tradition.

It's here.

Oh, but you're a foreigner.

I mean, you're a small-minded retard.

That's how I see it.

If you can't see how this is a continuation.

Of the American way, you must be retarded in your head.

Even this Islam stuff.

Why don't you think for two fucking seconds you retard?

During the the the the counterculture.

This is not an East Coast thing, but this is a West Coast thing.

You understand?

All these new spiritualities, this New Age stuff, they were channeling the Orient.

They were channeling Buddhism and Hinduism and all this Oriental, non-American foreign stuff.

That's baked in, because that's what America's soul is searching for.

Do you understand?

And America has never been liberated from Europe.

So, part of the war of independence from Europe is we have to be liberated from the Anglobox.

We have to be liberated from the metaphysical prison that was imposed upon us that we've inherited from Europe and adopted ourselves.

We should take the Oxford Dictionary and burn them.

Book burnings of the Oxford Dictionary.

That's what I'm talking about.

We need to burn these Anglobox, we need to burn the metaphysical prison.

Of Europe down.

So when they say no, you can't say that Hoja was a Muslim, you can't say, Hey, fuck you, bitch.

We can say it.

Because your prison is fake.

You have no understanding of the meaning behind the words.

Meaning, meaning, meaning.

What does it mean?

Oh, it means this definit no.

Burn the fucking Oxford Dictionary, bitch.

What does it mean?

What does it how did it acquire the meaning that it has?

You're telling me I can't cross lines?

And discover resonances.

And parallels and rhymes.

I have to listen to a song but I'm not allowed to notice the melody.

You can't say Genghis Khan was a communist because I just kill yourself, you fucking retard.

You're not going to make it.

I don't want to talk to you.

You're so disgusting and stupid to me.

You're such a small-headed, puny-minded retard.

I don't want to talk to you.

I don't you should not even be speaking to me.

Because you have this retarded Anglo box that says, I can't think about.

Different figures from history, different things that have happened across history, different words.

I can't discover a deeper resonance and rhyme and relationship between these things, because they're all siloed off.

They're all siloed off into these different little Anglo boxes.

I want to burn your boxes down.

I want to throw and suspend your horizon of meaning into chaos, and whatever emerges from that chaos of the real will be worthy of the thing that we call meaning.

I want to throw the English language into schizophrenia.

Into an insanity out of which, out of which will arise the true meaning.

Not the one that stole from us in the Oxford Dictionary bullshit.

You understand?

I will.

I want to level these towers of Babylon.

This is what this means.

This is what this is defined as from Reddit.

Shut the fuck up, you retarded bitch.

I genuinely have people.

I go, Marxism is Islam.

They go, but Marxism is materialist and dialectical.

I'm like, you think I didn't think of that, you fucking retard?

What am I trying to say?

Like, you didn't, you think I didn't, oh, Godfrey.

Oh, I never thought of that.

I go, Enver Hoxha, he wasn't a real atheist.

This retard subhuman Redditor, he goes, how the head to have been the most atheist?

You don't think I know that's what he's known as?

Or that's the conventionally understood thing?

Like, what, youth?

Do you think I'm just not familiar with that?

That I've never thought about it in my life?

Maybe there's a reason I'm saying what I'm saying.

Maybe I'm saying you should re-examine the meaning you attach to the words you're using and think about them differently.

I do want to suspend and throw langu.

I'm declaring war on language.

I'm absolutely declaring.

I am a Tartarian insurrectionist waging war on the English language.

American English needs to be mutilated, re-transformed into Tartarian.

It's me and it's Tung Tung Sohor.

Comrade Tung Tung Sohor are waging guerrilla war on the English language itself.

Only Haas, Tung Tung Tung Sohor.

And only him.

And David Lynch.

There's three people.

You can put us in the like the heads of Marxism-Leninism.

You put David Lynch.

No, you see what you you put Emerson.

You put Henry David Thoreau.

You put David Lynch, you put me, and Tung Tung Tung Tung Sohor.

Those are the five heads of the American War of Independence against the English language itself.

The English language as we know it, it needs to be completely

Undermined

Because it's a colonial prison where I'm doing decolonization, Tartarian decolonization.

So all these outra even mega communism, it was a type of Tartarian decolonization of the English language.

Frankly.

Isn't there a yearning in your American hearts to be free from the Anglo-Box or no?

I go to the Middle East.

They don't know what the fuck I'm talking about because those Middle Easterners, they all watch football, football, football from France, France, and Britain, and Europe and Germany, football.

They won't fucking listen to me.

They have skinny jeans on and they're listening to football.

They're watching football.

I'm talking to you, Americans.

Isn't there a yearning in your hearts to be liberated from the Anglobox?

Is there no yearning in your hearts to be free from this tyranny of the so-called English language?

Where's the American Eng the American language?

We speak American.

We speak Lynchian.

David Lynch.

He he should he should be like our Pushkin.

We should reimagine the entire structure of how we make meaningful sense of the world in the American fashion and leave Europe behind.

That's what I offer you.

I offer you this.

Burn the Oxford Dictionaries.

Wage Revolutionary War

On the gatekeepers of modern meaning itself.

You can't say that.

Hey, fuck you.

Hey, buddy, fuck you.

You can't say that.

Hey, suck my nuts.

We're going to take our leave from Europe.

You can't do no no you suck my nuts.

God bless the black Americans for taking the language to a next level.

They are also trying to decolonize the language, and they're the ones who are making all the innovations.

Black Americans make all the innovations and they're the only thing the only people who are freeing us slowly, slowly, from the so-called English language.

They call it it's African American AAVE, right, vernacular English.

It's like, well,

Okay, African American vernacular English or whatever is English 10 years before it becomes English for everybody.

Okay?

If you think about it, nobody today, nobody speaks in the Oxford way, okay?

So black people are black because they have the courage to speak the truth how it is without this retarded Oxford dictionary getting in the way.

And that's why all the innovations in the English language come from black people in America, because they're the only ones who speak American.

They're the avant-garde of the American language.

If you don't like it, go back to fucking Europe.

Because we're from scratch c because the black people they made a language from the hood, from here, from this soil, from this land.

They waged wars, they waged battles, the gang wars in Los Angeles, in Harlem.

How's it different?

From the warlord era of the Greek Dark Ages.

Tell me, what the fuck is the that's the literal fucking that's the ghetto gospel.

That's like Homeric poems that give structure, that give meaning to language itself.

The very mythical origins and foundations of American language come from the black.

Community because they're the ones who have been outside the law.

And the Black Panthers started it.

The Black Panthers were an American avant-garde movement.

And people say, Well, they were uh only for black people, not all Americans.

Listen.

Listen, let me tell you something, all right?

American black people they're the only ones

Whose ships were burned when they came here?

The ships are burned.

They came here.

As slaves?

And they were moulded and created by this land, and nothing else.

And Malcolm X, he is the one who discovered American Islam.

By the way.

So and no no more of this division and saying, Oh, but this is black people and white this isn't this is it you have nothing in common with a European white person.

If you're an American white person, you have nothing in common with European whites.

You're American, you're Tartarian or you're something else.

Not from here.

I have come from a far away, my lineage is from far away.

But you had to hear it from me.

See you guys tomorrow.

Bye bye.