VICTORY | LEBANON | MASSIVE DEBATES | MORE

Saint, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you, man.

With the five, what's going on, bro?

What's going on, everybody?

What's up, everybody?

What's up, everybody?

How is everybody doing?

How is everybody doing?

I hope everyone's having a wonderful night.

O C D.

Anyway guys, um

What's up?

We have a lot to talk about and we have a lot to cover.

And stuff I have I have stuff I would like to expand about as well.

Also, we're going to be doing the TikTok stuff, so don't worry, that's coming.

And tonight's stream is going to be quite good.

Actually, quite good.

So first of all, I want to address some things.

I have not streamed on Kick in like a week, actually one week, seven days.

I was on YouTube.

I'm sure you guys know that.

We're going to talk about that in a second.

I also didn't stream yesterday because by the time I was available to stream, it was too late.

So here we are.

We're going to be streaming tomorrow as well.

Okay.

And then there's s the big surprises coming up.

This weekend, there's a big surprise.

Who loves surprises?

There's a big surprise coming up.

I can't tell you about it right now.

Okay, so touching base with everyone, I want to also mention that we missed covering some stuff because of the debate that was on Sunday, which I kind of want to talk a little bit more about.

Very funny, interesting encounter, you know, but.

In general, you know, it's it's an opportunity to expand upon a lot of things I think some people might not have full clarification about theoretically and philosophically and you know, dare I say things that just people are not necessarily super necessarily interested in, but fucking need to understand and have a good comprehension of to be a good Marxist, okay?

And uh so yeah, there's just a lot a lot of ground we have to cover, okay?

Uh a lot of horrible things happened in Lebanon while I was away.

And there's a so-called ceasefire going on.

Who knows how long that's going to hold?

We're going to talk about that.

We're going to get into the details about it for certain.

Okay, so let's talk about the debate.

Very interesting.

I think, so what happened is there's this guy named.

Water, something Zulu, something whatever.

Just kind of an irrelevant nobody.

Not that it matters.

I'll debate anyone, right?

Very adamant and insisted that I would like, you know, I should debate them or whatever, right?

They had this like following of libertarian and cap fans who were making it seem like I was avoiding them.

CJ, what's up, right?

So we basically had that.

Then I did not really prepare for the debate.

I kind of just started thinking that day more about the ECP and those kind of things.

You know, because he said he wants to debate about capitalism, right?

So the burden is still on him to actually present exactly what he wants to talk about or debate me on.

So I think he had this strategy that he was going to like catch me in this.

Real contradiction, so to speak, that I'm gonna like somehow completely show that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to like the basic comprehension of what it means to be a communist and whether I thought about how that's compatible with the basic observation and fact that people can, in fact, make choices, right?

So, he was expecting like an easy layup or something, and then I just could have put him on the defensive and turned it around against him, but I was just having so much fun.

I was just like, okay, yeah, keep asking me these questions, like as if I haven't thought of this shit before, right?

And then he just couldn't keep up.

With the debate.

His fans really overcorrected when it came to the outcome.

They interestingly made a lot of like homosexual diddy remarks, which is to be expected in that kind of community, not judging or whatever.

But they do have this kind of rape fixation.

It's probably why they're like, you know, probably in large part on sex offender lists and so on.

They're a bunch of degenerates.

Anyway, look, people can say whatever they want on the internet.

You know, God help anyone if I run into them in real life, starts talking that way.

Nobody's ever in my life talked that way in real life, right?

But they're a bunch of pedophiles and rapists and what have you.

And they're coping because.

Uh I caught him in a fatal contradiction multiple times throughout that debate.

I didn't even push.

I was not pushing at all.

I was here in my fortress.

Some pissant came and claimed they were gonna besiege the fortress and I let them basically, you know, uh s you know

Slip up on a puddle of their own piss face flat on the floor and basically like eat their own shit.

I barely did anything, right?

And uh they're coping to this day and they're they're they they yeah.

It's pretty sad.

I mean at no point in the debate did he even get to the point of talking about capitalism or socialism or something.

Pretty sure he thought from the Jay Dyer debate that I wasn't willing to debate.

sophisticated philosophical concepts and stuff.

Or that I don't somehow have like a rigorously developed worldview with respect to the question of what is will, what is choice, you know, what is materialism, and so on and so on.

It's just kind of like a bad path to go down, right?

And it's just overall, you know, the whole point of like the note-taking and this, I didn't even know they do that, right?

The whole point of it was they thought they were going to catch me into like something I couldn't answer.

They thought they were going to like stump me on something I could not actually like address.

And they just fucking failed.

Like, they thought they were going to like catch like some really glaring, big inconsistency that just didn't exist because I actually knew what I was talking about.

And again, I have an extremely rigorous and comprehensive understanding of the relationship between free will and determinism.

And it's such a sad, mistaken topic to challenge me on because I actually wrote in Red America.

I don't know if you've read my article about this, but I wrote about what is the relationship between will and determination in Red America.

I've had multiple streams where I talk about the meaning of morality, you know, a materialist understanding of the moral, moral authority, cosmism, all this kind of stuff, right?

So it's like, why challenge me on something that I already am very comfortable talking about and have talked about a lot before, right?

And I think their fans confused the stupidity of their inability to track my actual point, my presentation of my worldview, so to speak.

The reason you got fucked in the debate, you British piece of shit, you British rapist pedophile, whatever the fuck you are, is because square one is being able to understand my position.

You kept asking me about my position.

You failed to understand it.

You can't refute something.

You lack the cognitive capacity to keep up with and understand, right?

So you attempted to challenge me and failed, right?

And that's all that really happened.

He attempted to challenge me, failed, and then stumbled upon all these glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in their own line of inquiry, which I think at the end they realized how badly they fucked up, and that's why they crashed out.

Like they said toward the end, they're like, no, I never mentioned free will.

I never, and then somebody posted a clip of them mentioning it like 300 times.

And then they're like, no, no, I mean choice like colloquially, like, you know, the ability for people to make choices.

And then somebody rewind it and showed how earlier he's like, no, no, I want nothing to do with the colloquial.

You know, let's just, let's just talk about how you don't believe in Ayn Rand's idea of what a choice is, right?

Which I obviously don't agree with Ain Rand's view, retarded view of choice, right?

So it was like, but you guys need to understand, I'm going to like break down what happened and why we're even talking about this irrelevant nobody and loser, because they are part of a pretty big community, which is this like ANCAP libertarian community on the internet.

And these people do have institutional power with respect to Javier Millay.

They have Elon Musk's sympathy and his backing.

A lot of Silicon Valley types are super into it.

And that's why it's being propped up on the algorithm and the way it is.

Like if you're seeing these subhuman retards being like repeating the like old internet argument, mud pie argument, you know, Marxism can't account for how if I bake 5,000 mud pies, it has no value.

And like you see this stuff getting 20,000 likes and shit, right?

So these like libertarian ANCAP types, I kind of realized like this is un this is like potential.

We could raid them and kind of like kidnap their leaders basically and totally fucking majority of the people that get swept up in this shit easily can be converted to our pipeline, right?

So we go raid them, we kidnap their leaders, we destroy their fortresses, we could just go in and kind of fing.

You know what I mean?

We just gotta f ⁇ ing go in that shit and fucking raid them.

I didn't even know we I was kind of depressed a little bit for weeks and weeks because I'm like, man, what's the next frontier for us to conquer?

It's like, it seems like all the frontiers are closed.

It seems like there's like no one who's willing to challenge me.

These people, they're getting, they're a little uppity.

They kind of are begging to be conquered and destroyed and demolished, right?

So this should be the beginning.

of us to start thinking about like we go in here into this fucking avenue we go in here right this community that they have going on and that's an easy fucking we'll we'll get so much loot from that okay we get converts we get soldiers in our ranks and we fucking decapitate and and you know metaphorically speaking decapitate kidnap and basically destroy their influencers and their leadership and it's a fucking piss easy layup

I mean, whether it comes to the economic side of things, labor theory of value, or the philosophy of free will and determinism, whatever these people you whatever their communities hinge upon, it's an easy layup for it's actually profoundly easy, right?

I wasn't necessarily aware of how much there's this uppity community of people like that.

Not that Zulu is a big content creator, but like I kind of saw how there were other libertarian, you know, YouTubers commenting on the debate.

I saw that there were like other people actually watching it who were from like bigger backgrounds.

And I'm like, okay, there's actually like a community of people here.

We could easily go in, raid them, and loot them.

And yeah, we just kind of.

It's just free booty in a non-ditty sense, you know?

Free loot, straight up.

It's just like it would be the easiest fucking layup ever.

We just go in, take all their shit.

Uh we it's kind of like really stupid that they awakened us 'cause we didn't even know about them.

This is like the three body problem when they're like messaging tr they're fucking with trisolaris here, you know?

Like we didn't even know about you, you know?

And now that we're aware that you exist, we're very aggressively you're on our radar now, right?

And uh it's good it's easy.

So I just wanna tie I I wanna like open your eyes to the fact and I noticed it with the TikTok as well, some of these people are willing to debate.

Um a lot of these people definitely okay, underlying all like the pedophilia and disgusting, degenerate pieces of shit.

Um, these people, they're they're like uh the, how should I say, the masses that get swept up in this stuff basically do want in a secular age, they want to look for some kind of like framework where they're they can feel like they're living a life aligned with some greater purpose, just in the sense of like a consistent framework that gives structure and meaningfulness to the decisions and life that they lead and they make, right?

When it comes down to it, that's what a lot of these people want.

And um

That's uh what you have to kind of realize and even tap into a little bit when dealing with these people.

We need to show we're just morally superior.

We have a better framework.

We we give a better structure to life.

We give a better purpose.

You know, we have a greater more consistent alignment between the will and the ultimate cause of our existence, right?

Which is ultimately what we're talking about here.

These people are easy to convert.

Not their leaders.

Their leaders are a bunch of pedophiles.

But the people that are misled by them are very easy to convert over to our side.

So they preemptively start bothering us and gaining our attention like the humans got the attention of Trisolaris.

And now they're on our radar.

So we could definitely do some serious damage to them to our great benefit.

And, you know, now we can start strategizing and thinking about that.

You know, we've been dealing with the Groipers and the Fuentes people, but they are.

You know, they're not like even a unified thing.

And also, I think we've poached and gotten.

It's not it's definitely not over, but it's like there's definitely it it doesn't hurt to open more fronts for opportunity, to take and seize from these people, you know.

We have to think like the conquerors that we actually are.

We have to think our original strategy when we first started out this shit from day fucking one.

This is how we did shit, right?

So we just whip them and basically capture them and enslave them in a way, you know.

It's kind of just we're conquering, we're plundering them and we're taking them as prisoners and their leaders, you know, metaphorically executed.

Super is super easy, you know, by the way.

Super easy.

I mean, I was expecting a difficult debate.

I was expecting math.

I never like having to deal with math, right?

I was expecting math.

I was expecting like a very comprehensive deep dive into the economic calculation problem.

You know, all of the, I'm like up to speed on all like the tit for tat argument, counter-argument, you know, cycle that it's been going through.

I was expecting a debate about China's economy and its system.

I was expecting a pretty difficult debate.

And I was just delighted when he kept asking me stupid questions about how is it possible that there are alternatives with respect to, I can choose Pepsi, but there's an alternative, Coca-Cola.

How could that be within your framework?

It's like, how could it be that there are variations in the decisions and choices we can make?

First of all, isn't the fact that there are variations in the choices we can make baked in to what a choice is?

Isn't that like baked into the...

They're like, well, if you're a determinist, that somehow means every single thing you do or that is being done by you is just a mechanical expression of a singular cause.

And you are basically like an automata, like on a marionette with strings on you.

And there is no room whatsoever for like any kind of choice, right?

And it's like even the most vulgar determinist doesn't believe that, first of all.

And second of all, I was trying to very faithfully educate this retard about what the Marxist position is, which is not vulgar determinism, but it's also not this retarded notion of free will where all human acts and behavior are ex nihilo a consequence of the whims and fancies of who by the way who right

Some primordial man that just woke up one day and decided, I want to do that.

I like ice cream.

I like Pepsi.

Like, is that where our will actually comes from?

The whim?

Is will the same as whim?

Is that where it comes from?

And is the only way we can explain the variation of possible different choices people can make?

This idea that every single act, every single expression of human behavior is entirely conscious.

I want you guys to think about how retarded this guy and his community are.

They're basically insisting upon the fact that every single act, every single human act, right, is entirely 100% consciously willed.

Meaning, it's impossible to speak of a combination of unconscious and conscious factors.

Everything is entirely done consciously as a willful, conscious, intentional act that was preempted by conscious thinking.

Okay, and it's like

I don't know like the makeup of my community, but like haven't you at least heard of a guy who was like high as fuck, went into a 7-Eleven and like reflexively bought Mountain Dew and didn't even like think about what he was doing?

Like don't we have kind of like reflexes?

Isn't basically to be honest 95% of people's lives and habits and routines done without thinking?

Don't most people kind of live on autopilot and just kind of like

Are caught between this like dreamlike unconscious state and a conscious thinking state where you do kind of switch between both seamlessly for sure.

But like, is everyone living a life where all the time they're like always thinking about everything that they're doing?

I feel like that's an extremely retarded, just unreasonable understanding of what human activity and behavior is.

Because they seem to make it seem like.

I was being inconsistent when I said that a given choice a person is going to make, even if it's as small as choosing between Pepsi and Coca-Cola, that there's a combination of conscious and unconscious factors that go into that.

That there's a combination of external causes and causes that come from the internal willpower.

They said, no, it either has to be entirely external, like you're a fucking robot, or it has to be entirely based on this conscious use of willpower.

But it's like even on a common sense level, that's not how human beings work.

Everyone fucking knows that it's a combination of both.

Everyone knows, even baked into the concept of willpower, there's something called willpower, right?

The notion of willpower implies that there are variations, that there is a degree to which one can have willpower.

Some people are weak-willed and some people are strong-willed.

If all human activity is a direct consequence of free will,

Then, how is it that there's variation in the degree of willpower that people show, express, have, and demonstrate?

Like, even from a fucking common sense perspective, it doesn't make sense, right?

And he's like, well, well, then you're entirely a determinist in the sense that you believe that.

This is how retarded his argument was.

He's like,

Because you're saying that, this means that I have no choice regarding the ideology that I have, and that I could not have ever been a communist.

You know, I'm a libertarian and cap because I was predetermined to be that.

And there's no use in even debating because, according to you, everything is one entirely a consequence of some external cause that you have no active relationship to.

And it's like that just does not follow from what I was saying at all, right?

I can't believe a single person is compelled by that abject fucking retard.

And I kind of feel bad for them because I actually feel like I beat them almost to death and they're like barely awake now.

Which is ironic because following the debate, the British pedophile was awake.

Until like 8 a.m.

Britain British time, meaning they were kept up all night, like coping and seething and crying.

In our Discord, partially as well, like crashing out, Clip me!

Clip me!

Clip me!

Like, holy shit, dude, you fucking lost.

Like, you set about to do something, you failed to do it, and in the process, made a fucking ass of yourself.

Right?

Um he's gonna cope forever just like Bouncy Ben.

When Bouncy Ben was violated.

Uh, he's still coping about it to this day, you know.

Bouncy Ben and this guy, they got fucking smacked.

They're like, post a clip of us of me getting destroyed, and like people post like a bunch of different clips of him like basically slipping on his own shit and eating it, and they're just pretending it doesn't exist, I guess, right.

And yeah, but honestly, it kind of does open up the opportunity for me to explore something I do find interesting, you know, and I am quite passionate about, which is what is the Marxist or what is the Haasist, since I'm a Haasist, I'm according to the vulgar fake Marxist, I'm not a Marxist.

Well, what is my view of free will and determinism, right?

What is my view of what free will is, right?

And how does that account for the variation in the decisions people can make?

In other words, you know, the question of how are there altern I was so like confused by this retarded question: how are there alternatives?

Because anyone who's half sentient understands that multiplicity and variation.

Is a given.

It's like ontologically given, okay?

There's no two things in existence that are the same thing, first of all, right?

Uh, but in any case, you know, we'll get into it.

But how does Marxism understand free will?

Right?

That's basically what we want to talk about here.

So, first of all,

The confusion, I did try to explain this during the debate, but those retards didn't understand it.

I hope this community understood it, but I'll kind of flesh it out a little more in case you didn't, right?

So, in the Marxist view, free will.

Is not the capacity to choose between alternative, um.

Between alternative outcomes, okay?

Now, can we choose between alternative outcomes?

Yes, we can, right?

But that is not what free will is from the materialist or the Marxist or the Hegelian or even the, you know, even in the view of Mula Sadra, for example, and some of the more sophisticated philosophers on the matter, right?

Free will is the alignment of our will with the ultimate cause of our existence, which is objectively the ultimate cause of our existence, right?

Now it begs the question, if free will is the alignment of our will with the ultimate cause of our existence, right?

Which is what Hegel or Marx calls insight into necessity.

And by the way, the ult, I mean that in the fullest breadth of sense.

The entire cosmic basis of our existence.

Where do we fit within the cosmos?

What premises endanger the possibility of us here and now, right?

What is the all that goes into what we are, right?

That's the cause of our existence.

So the will is insight into that.

And it's the alignment of our will with that, right?

And the question is, well

Uh w so so why is it that the alignment is a necessary precondition in the first place?

For the ultimate cause of our existence to be reflected in our activity.

In other words, why don't we just automatically and autonomously fulfill what we are immediately without mediation, right?

Just directly, right?

And by the way, this entirely this question entirely accounts for the question of also simultaneously.

Like, why can we exercise our will in ways that don't immediately fulfill the ultimate cause of our existence or reflect an awareness and knowledge and insight into the ultimate cause of our existence?

Right?

So, obviously, that by the way, multiplicity is given.

So, if multiplicity is given, then obviously our will can be expressed with respect to the variations of different relative outcomes.

It's absolutely possible, right?

So um

Now that we understand the question better, right, to begin with, I want to kind of get your cogs spinning or turning or whatever in your head to think about how Marxism or dialectics represents this problem by familiarizing yourself with how this problem is manifested elsewhere, even in like a common sense, conventional way.

Okay, let's start with religion, a heavy topic, right?

Story of Genesis.

And the Bible.

Let's just like focus on Christianity.

We're gonna talk about Islam.

So there's a beginning part where Adam and Eve are living in paradise.

Okay?

That's the beginning part.

So paradise is basically when Adam and Eve are no different than animals, and their life activity fully and completely corresponds.

with the cause of their existence seamlessly.

Like the cause of their existence being God's creation.

So it's directly and seamlessly identical with God's intentions and creation and the ultimate cause of their existence, right?

So that's like the beginning part, Genesis, right?

When they're in in paradise.

Then there's the fall.

And then, okay, thousands of years later, or whatever, then there's the redemption, right?

Jesus.

Uh so Jesus is there so there's a three-part arc of this narrative, right?

The beginning, the middle part, and then the end.

Okay.

Uh Marxism is the same exact thing.

We begin with primitive communism, then we have uh the history of private property, the family, the state, the origins of private property, the family, the state, whatever.

Private property arises, and then we have communism in the more modern sense, right?

Um

So uh that's the tripart structure that you have in Marxism.

By the way, I'm muting this subhuman fucking retard who is just a troll, has no intention of debating me at all, but just wants to derail the stream by spamming me.

Hey, you want to debate you fat piece of shit?

You fucking get in line on TikTok and wait your fucking turn.

I'm not gonna fucking pause my entire fucking stream for you, you subhuman piece of shit.

I strongly suggest if you have any feelings whatsoever that are conducive to you no longer being around, fulfill them.

Go fucking do that, please.

You fucking cockroach.

Loud, you wanted my fucking attention, now you have it, right?

You have any feeling that you no longer want to be in this world, please follow your gut instincts.

You annoying piece of shit.

In any case, we're talking about the tripart structure, okay?

So you have it in uh Christianity and then you have it in Marxism as well.

Primitive communism, the rise of private property, communism in the proper and modern sense, okay.

I remember telling you when I was a kid, you know, when you play with action figures,

How I was smart enough to understand that if the good guy just wins right away, it's kind of fucking boring.

So the good guy has to win at first, then he has to lose, and then he has to finally win in the final battle, right?

Okay, so this structure, right?

This tripart structure, we could call it a narrative structure.

It's also a given.

It's called a story arc.

A story arc.

Is there a single story that's ever been told with any degree of?

Um, you know, uh, passion and sophistication and well-reception, even in the history of humankind, that just began with a happy beginning and a happy ending.

Even children can't deal with a story like that.

Okay, a happy beginning, sorry, sorry, not a happy beginning, happy ending.

Cut, forget about what I just said, a happy beginning.

And no story arc.

So it's just a happy beginning.

And then basically, like, has there ever been a story that's basically like Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall.

And then he kept sitting there and he was happy for the rest of his life.

The end.

Like, has there ever been a story like, you know

Harry Potter was this great guy who knew all these spells and he just continued being that and lived happily ever after, right?

Has there ever been a story ever like a fictional story or even a story in general?

Even a story that you tell someone that's real that actually happened?

Is there any like material significance in terms of like, do we find stories like that worth hearing?

As human beings?

Do we even want to, even if somebody like fucking comes up to you and is like, hey, I had ice cream this morning and I was really happy.

It's like, do you want to does anyone want to fucking hear about that?

Or do you want to hear the story where the guy's like, I went to go fucking buy ice cream?

Right?

Then a homeless man came and like, you know, all this disaster ensued and then I barely escaped with my life and yeah.

Like which story do you actually fucking wanna hear?

Like instinctually, right?

Like intuitively, like what story are you more drawn to?

Right?

So.

What does it mean for there to be a story arc?

Why does there have to be a story arc?

Well, the question of why there has to be a story arc and the question of

Um why do we have free will is the same fucking thing, okay?

It's the same exact question.

And that's really what I want you to think about how those things are related, you know, when I'm talking about this.

Because we're ultimately talking about the same thing, okay?

So to begin with

The reason why there has to be an arc, the reason why there have to be alternative paths between the choosing of good and evil, for example, right?

Between the choosing of truth and falsehood, for example, between the choosing of, you know, the communist position and the false position, so to speak.

The reason there has to be variation.

Sunset, what's up, right?

Is because

The thing that is objectively real, the thing that actually exists, is not a one-sided determination.

It's not a

It's not a form, it's not an idea, it's not an ideal, it's not a one-sided empirical object of our sensibilities, it's no static thing that just self-subsists in general.

The only thing that exists is a process.

Okay, so what exists ontologically are not fixed things and determinations.

Ontologically, the only things, what it means for something to be a thing and a determination is for it to be a specific process.

Only processes exist.

Everywhere, every discrete given determination is a process.

Do you understand?

Insofar as we can call it a determination, an actual thing, all it is is a process.

It's a specific structure of being, okay?

And that structure of being, structured as a process by the way, was called in old philosophy and perhaps even in contemporary philosophy a logos, okay?

Logos is the root word of logic, okay?

But it's a logos, okay?

The basic term for the underlying structure of being.

And and it's uh at the processual level is logos, okay?

That is all there actually is.

Everything else can only be understood relative to logos, so to speak.

Okay?

Everything, every choice that anyone ever made, every form of every expression of activity, right, ever observed or affected or performed by a human being can only be understood with respect to its relation to that story arc, to that logos.

Okay?

Whether you're aware of the logos or not, whether you're aware of the kind of

Ultimate cause of your existence or not, whether you willfully choose to be ignorant of it or not, right?

It doesn't matter what you do.

Everything that you do can only be made meaningful and can only be evaluated and can only acquire significance on the basis of how it fits relative and in relation to that.

Every human being on earth, all of them, have an ultimate underlying cause of their existence.

Every single one.

Every single human being has a purpose, has a governing principle of their existence.

This governing principle, in addition to including their place and their role within history, within a society, a nation, and so on and so on, also includes the specificity of their determination.

For example, as a unique organism, as a unique biological organism, as a unique person with a unique set of experiences who is born at a specific place at a specific time in a specific context, and so on and so on.

The fundamental and ultimate cause of our existence includes all of that.

You understand?

And so

That cause, properly understood, is a process.

It's a structure.

It's a process that acquires structure in what we call logos, right?

Which is the structure of being, right?

Uh y I mean Hegel's tripart structure takes many forms and there's many variations with respect to how we can understand it, right?

And it is a tripart structure regardless of what are what pseudo intellectuals try to tell you, right?

But um

This is not a structure of thought.

I'm just really disappointed that someone thinks it's a structure of thought.

It's like

No, it's not a fucking structure of thought.

Holy fuck, I'm gonna crash out.

We're talking about the structure of being, not of thought, okay?

That's something very that that that's something we can talk about, but that's not what I'm talking about right now, okay?

Talking about the structure of material being, not of thought.

Basically, it's like the worst sin you've committed, right?

Which is the you know, it's like I'm I'm trying to explain something and you fucking say the opposite.

Right?

Like holy fuck.

In any case, um

the structure of the mind's eye that reflects reality.

Dude, I would put you in jail for saying that shit.

I would literally send you to jail for saying that.

It's actual wrongthink.

Like, it's actually sinful to fucking say that.

It's so fucking wrong and way off the fucking mark, right?

You're just confusing yourself.

Don't j- Why?

You know what I fucking hate?

If I'm trying to teach something, why jump to a conclusion?

Why not just patiently sit and wait before I will try to present the conclusion to you, okay?

Don't jump the fucking gun before I can even conclude with anything because you're just going to fucking confuse yourself, right?

You're not getting it.

No, no, just calm down.

You don't get it yet.

You don't understand.

When I try to deliver the conclusion, let's see if you can understand.

For now, just follow along.

Okay.

Do not fucking jump to a conclusion.

Like, straight up.

Why do you have to jump to a conclusion?

Why do you have to pretend you know what I'm talking about already?

You don't wait for the conclusion.

Because people get anxiety when they learn something new.

They're like, I don't want to learn something new.

Something it's painful when you learn something new, right?

But I'm trying to teach you something new.

Okay.

When I deliver the conclusion, you can decide for yourself if it's new or not, right?

Until then, let's.

Let's just listen to the cult leader, right?

Let the let the cult leader deliver their fucking crazy idea and then see if you understand it, right?

I it's just the A D H D's the Zoomer.

It's this Anyway, okay.

So

The fallacy of asking the question of why isn't

human activity or any given thing selfsame and immediately the same thing as the underlying cause.

So why not a for example, a simple determinism where just everything is just directly cause and effect, for example, right?

Um

God, as he created and intended it, and then no mediation via free will, and it's just directly, you know, Adam and Eve in paradise.

Why not that?

Well, the question, in a way, is framed wrongly and based on wrong premises.

Because the premise underlying that question is a notion of being that is one-sided.

It's an understanding of what creation and existence actually entails and is, what it means for something to be a determination, which is taking one side of a determination and confusing that for the determination itself, which is the classic error of philosophy itself.

Taking, for example, a thought, which is perhaps an indispensable moment in our ability to fulfill, you know, our understanding of being and reducing being to the thought, right?

And that's an extremely common error error human beings make.

But the fact they have the ability to make that error.

in the first place, right, is also evidence of

Um

Of of of the correct path, so to speak, right?

Like, in the same way that the fact that people can sin within Christianity is actually evidence of the fact that they can also.

achieve parody, you know, with um

With the intentions behind creation, right?

With the life of a human being as intended and as commanded and willed by God, for example, right?

So it's like, when we start out the question of, you know.

Why is it just not immediately communism, for example?

Why this process of mediation?

We need to understand that we are presuming that the given thing is a one-sided determination and that the deviation from that determination is somehow an exception.

Meanwhile, the entire secret behind the religions, the entire secret behind Marxism, the entire secret behind every type of structured wisdom ever communicated in the history of mankind.

is that it it seems like it's cheap, but when you think about it, it's quite profound.

It's that the story arc is a necessary part of fulfilling what the thing is.

You know?

The reason the fall, so to speak, which is the middle part of the story arc, let's put it that way.

The reason the fall is necessary is because we don't arrive at what the thing is as it really is

Until

The thing can be regarded as a structured process.

When we regard the thing only as a moment within the process of what it and that structured process is not that it has to start out good, it has to be evil, and then it has to become good again.

That's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about.

Something is regarded in a one-sided way, devoid of actual understanding, we have with respect to it, right?

Then.

The uh negation of that

One-sidedness, which opens up Pandora's box all manner of possible determinations and so on and so on.

Only at the third part, so to speak, right, can we actually understand the thing as it actually is in its richness, in its uh you know, in its um

In i in its living essence, so to speak.

And

One of the ways to kind of acquire the key insight necessary to understand why the story arc is necessary.

In order to just produce an understanding of the object

is that the object is a process.

The object corresponds to a process.

It doesn't correspond to one reflection of the object.

It doesn't correspond to one mirror of the object, right?

The object.

Corresponds to a process.

Even if we regard the processes of having no normative significance, which would not be true for human beings, right, but even if we understand just process in a dumb kind of sense, right, nonetheless that's what an object is.

And so

With respect to the simple and everyday question of why not all of the choices we make directly align with the ultimate cause of our existence, well, again, the question is wrongly put.

Everything we do ultimately aligns with the ultimate cause of our existence.

It's just that we don't necessarily have an understanding of that fact.

And moreover,

What does it mean for human beings to have free will?

All it means is that the human being specifically and uniquely is burdened with the task of retracing the genesis of the cosmos.

We are burdened with the fact of facing all that culminates in what we are.

And we can dwell in any given moment of this process, which is all the alternatives mean, by the way.

Choosing a different point in the process of the creation of man

As dumb as a rock, as oblivious as an animal.

See, the cosmos, material being, with respect to the shape of man, is hierarchically structured.

Okay?

When we talk about the development of the cosmos in the sense of Ilyenkov's cosmology of the spirit.

There are different stages before we end up with man, right?

You start out with dumb, maybe some kind of quantum oscillations, particles, uh i let's just think about it in the emergent sense of the understanding of the development of the universe, right?

Nonetheless.

When all of this culminates according to the strong anthropic principle, when all this culminates in the uh emergence of man, of human being, right?

Every other step of the way.

Is still here.

Apes still exist.

K amobia still exist.

All of the things that

Are quote unquote stages in the evolution that culminate in man.

do not disappear with the emergence of man.

On the contrary, they

They continue to assert their existence.

They continue to be an indispensable part of the architecture of the cosmos, the human cosmos, so to speak.

Right?

Single-celled organisms and so on and so on.

It's like not only do they still exist, they are an indispensable background for our existence, even in ways we don't fully understand.

We still depend on dumb, comparatively dumb ecosystems.

We depend on the cosmos.

Are you kidding?

If the earth

Was rotating at a slightly different speed, we would all fucking die right away.

If the planetary bodies were aligned in a way that has deviated from the norm, as far as the gravitational architecture of the solar system is concerned, we'd all be fucked.

We'd just fucking die.

So.

Why am I telling you this?

Why am I talking about this?

Because all the variation in our choices

Uh amounts to

When it comes to the ability to kind of make wrong choices or to willfully be ignorant or willfully deny the truth, willfully deny the cause of our existence, willfully uh or even unintentionally be evil or bad,

All that is is retreading the

Retreading by way of the will

The material causes of our existence in a one-sided way.

Okay?

Jesus fuck.

So, um

So for example, um

We have an underlying cause of our existence, which includes the entire logos that inheres in the development of cosmos that culminates in us, the telos, right?

And the development of history corresponds to human beings acquiring insight.

into that.

Right?

So for example, we it's not that we become more independent from nature, it's that by acquiring insight into the laws governing nature,

We don't simply observe them as a static and neutral observer.

We participate in the effectuation of these laws so far as they are conducive to our existence.

insight into the laws of nature,

Entails a type of mastery that allows us to participate.

In the laws of nature.

To

In our very practice

Affect these laws.

Not affect them in the sense of change them.

I mean more like to.

Apply these laws.

That's the word I'm looking for.

We have the ability to apply the laws of nature, right?

Practically.

And so, um

Yeah, like effectuate, for example.

So, that we have the ability to effectuate and apply the laws of nature means that.

The process is the real cause and the real thing.

Irrespective of whatever stage of development we are along the path of comprehending this.

That the the the principle governing our existence, which is itself the process that has given rise to our existence itself.

As a cause, right?

An active cause.

That is the driving force behind all human history, all mankind, and all the life of every single individual, even, I would go as far as to say, right?

But that doesn't mean it exerts its causality, so to speak, in a one-sided manner.

Because the thing that is causing is not a one-sided determination.

It's something we can only understand.

Through and by way our will.

Does our will create it?

No, our will has no creative ability.

I insist upon that.

The human will has no creative ability.

But the will is a necessary device to give way.

To the cause.

And the arbitrary ability to choose whatever starting point or part of this process you want to choose doesn't change the fact that once you make a choice and once you suffer the consequences of that choice and once you internalize any kind of structured relationship between the choices you make and their consequences in a way that is based in a way of life that is shared with others, you are going to stumble upon the esoteric secret, so to speak.

Universally shared across all human history by all sages, by all prophets, whatever you want.

If you follow it to its conclusion, if you follow the relationship between your choices and their consequences to their conclusion, and you do this comprehensively and consistently enough, you're going to arrive at the exact same insight.

The singular insight, by the way.

Uh, that all you know, that is the kind of esoteric riddle of all history solved, the true singular universal cause of all existence.

But you, that you have the arbitrary ability to start wherever you want.

And let's say you want to fucking start being a furry, and you want to fucking, you know, let's say you just want to kill yourself or something.

I mean, you can start anywhere you want, but if

You if you continue to take the process to its conclusion, you will end up the same fucking place.

It doesn't matter where you start.

It doesn't matter how you start.

It doesn't matter in what form you start.

If you take the thing to its conclusion, you're gonna end up in the same fucking place.

The difference will probably be the amount of time it takes you to get there.

But it's an unavoidable conclusion.

Even if you say, you know what, just because I have free will, I want to deny.

I want to deny arriving at the universal truth and universal conclusion that is the fundamental cause of human existence, right?

I want to be a kuffr willfully and deny it just because I have free will, just because I can, right?

That's fine.

So you can die upon that hill, so to speak, right?

And simply, because you want to prove you have the willpower to resist the inevitable conclusion, right, deny it.

Okay.

But when you do that as an individual, right?

First of all,

The burden then lies upon you to communicate that decision to others.

Should others respect your decision?

Because if you continue being part of a society and demanding certain obligations and rights from other people that you live with, you're going to have to reckon with the fact that the principles that govern a society itself are not compatible with your one-sided choice, right?

When you make the choice of I just want to do what I want to do because I can, you are conveying, yes, you can do that, but.

The thing that you're doing objectively communicates and expresses a failure to actually understand how the fucking world works.

That's not how the world works.

The world doesn't work of I can just do whatever I want because I can.

The world works on the basis of necessity.

Any child can understand that, by the way, right?

So you can make that choice, but it won't scale up.

However, here's the thing.

Insofar as you continue living in a specific society, in a specific mode of production, and in a specific juncture and epoch within history, you depend on the fact that society doesn't do that.

If all people within society simultaneously said, I'm going to do this just because I can, for the sake of proving my will, and I refuse to give structure to my will and rationality to it, right?

Guess what?

There would be no possibility of a unified division of labor, and everyone would just fucking die.

And what would we as mankind prove to God that we just kill ourselves?

Because you can also just kill yourself too.

But let's say you have the choice to kill yourself.

What does that prove?

What did you do?

Did you express the power of your free will?

No.

You expressed the cosmic principle that it is possible for living organisms to die.

You decided to reduce yourself.

to one moment within the cosmos's development and stop there.

I'm going to cut off the vital supply of biological you know the biological substrate upon which man depends or or and so on and so on.

I'm going to cut that part of part of it off.

Uh, you can do that for certain because our will has the ability to reflect every part of the cosmos that culminates in us, but what our will doesn't have the ability to do is determine the hierarchical logic, the logos, behind how all of those things relate to each other, so you can choose.

Any part of the fundamental cause of your material existence, any part of it.

But

You're only expressing a free will when it is decisively aligned with that cause.

And that's the point I'm trying to make the whole fucking time.

You know?

Your will

Is capable of reflecting any part of the process, the material cosmic process that gives rise to mankind.

Your will can reflect any part of that.

Your will can reflect any part of history, any part of what has been established as possible for human beings, and any part of the material, the singular material cause that is an integral unity that is responsible for our existence.

And the reason there's alternatives and variations is because there's multiplicity in that in the first place.

There is still a multiplicity of, for example, hierarchy within the cosmos.

There are a multiplicity of physical things.

There's a multiplicity of.

Determinations and events and possibilities and so on and so on.

That's just a fucking given, right?

You can go in any kind of circle you want to go in, so to speak.

You can start at any point you want, but when you start moving forward.

You're going to end up fulfilling the shape of a circle, and there's nothing you could do to avoid that.

You can start at any point on the circle you want, but the minute you start going forward, you will fulfill the shape of a circle.

Now, if you stop here and you don't fulfill the entire shape, you start and you stop somewhere, right?

Um, the shape you're in is still that of a circle, right?

You're just not fulfilling it by way of your will.

But it's still the cause of your existence.

It's still the cause of your ability to have gotten as far as you did in the first place.

Even if it's only, let's say, one-fifth of the circumference of the circle, right?

The only reason you were able to get as far as you did on that one-fifth is because you're on the shape of a circle, right?

So

This is what I'm trying to communicate and what I'm trying to say, with respect to the question of free will and determinism.

Um so

It's like there, there are in um a choice is really the initiation into a process, right?

First of all, every choice is an initiation.

Now, you can you can start anywhere with respect to that, right?

But once you follow the process along comprehensively enough, you can either stop at a specific part of the stages stage.

So, like, think about Marxist stagism.

You can start wherever you want.

You start at feudalism, slave society, whatever, but there's two things you can't do.

You can't change the stages hierarchically, and you can't change the outcome, right?

So, in any structured process of initiation, which you have in Sufi, esoteric circles, you have in Freemasonry, whatever you want, it's like you can start wherever you want, however you fancy it in your head.

You can't change the logic underlying the hierarchically structured stages, and you can't change the outcome.

So, this is the understanding of free will we need to have.

You can go right now with a shotgun and literally shoot your ball sack off, but you're not proving anything with respect to the cosmos because what you have done is no different.

It's absolutely ontologically the same thing.

As a retarded chicken running around and falling into a volcano.

Do you know how much shit happens?

People don't understand the might of the cosmos, okay?

Every fucking millisecond there's a fucking cockroach somewhere getting raped.

No, there's millions of them.

There's they're just writhing around.

There's ants and all these disgusting bugs underground right now, killed, raped, dying over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And it never fucking stops.

It's just happening.

So if you decide to take a shotgun and shoot your fucking balls off, you think you're making us you think you're like demonstrating some extraordinary ability ontologically?

No, you're fucking not.

Shit that's getting blown up and destroyed and whatever, nothing about that is exceptional in the universe.

It's always happening all the fucking time, right?

We have the ability to be responsive to the ultimate material cause of our existence, which is the entire cosmos itself.

But we don't get to choose how it's structured.

We don't get to choose what the outcome is.

Understand?

Um

Bugs are doing all sorts of fucking nasty highness shit.

Okay?

And the point is, it never ends.

You need to understand the dharmic religious traditions because these Hindus and these Buddhists, they fucking understood some shit.

Okay, they understood some crazy ass shit.

When they understood, for example, the notion of reincarnation is very, very deep and profound.

Okay?

Because they had a hierarchical understanding of the cosmos and our existence.

Which

did not regard, you know, uh lower things, so to speak, as simply inferior.

They're just different stages along the same path, you know?

And where you fit with respect to those stages

Um that's the decisive significance of your free will.

Forget about biological organisms.

Do you know beneath the plates what's going on on the fucking planet?

Like, shit be happening.

Do you understand?

Can I, can we just start with premise one?

Shit be happening.

Shit be happening.

Action.

Should not be understood as the exception.

Action is the norm.

We are born, we are born, we emerge in this world as actors.

Activity is the norm.

The fallacy of the free will versus determinism debate is that it regards will as the exception, that we need a cause behind our will in the first place, whether that cause is external or whether that cause is the will itself.

But the reality is that activity is ontologically primary everywhere.

Activity, the alignment of our acts with some principle is what is given.

The first human beings, the first thing they had was the stars.

That's the first, the first thing they had was the alignment between what they were doing and the stars above.

They did, you don't start out doing nothing and then I want to, I need a cause to do something.

I need a purpose to fucking get out of bed.

No.

First human beings were doing shit because shit be happening.

Can we just like frame that?

Shit be happening.

Activity is the primary.

Activity is ontologically primary, first of all, okay?

There's nothing extraordinary or exceptional about the fact that there's variations in activity, or that there's variations of potentially possible different types of activity we are capable of committing, that there's alternatives in the activity.

that we uh perform okay

There's nothing exceptional about that.

The

The process by which we um

We act in alignment with our thoughts is one moment of a process.

Now, it seems like there's unlimited potential within that one moment that I can think of anything and act according to that, right?

No, because in the third part of the process, you see that there's structure, there's structure that absolutely limits the possibility of what that can be by virtue of its embeddedness or its relationship to the fundamental material cause of our existence.

So we begin here, right?

And we say, okay, I have this mind, I can think of anything I want, and therefore I'm capable of doing anything at all.

That's not fucking true.

Because the minute you commit to something, you reveal the actual laws underlying your existence, regardless of what you choose.

If you choose to be a dinosaur,

You're gonna have to run up upon the limitations of what is structurally and materially necessary to perpetuate this illusion in your head.

And at this point, the superiority of Marxism is simply about avoiding time wasting.

Literally, like instead of having to continue to perpetuate this costly illusion in your head that you're a dinosaur by constantly laboring for materials to buy dinosaur costumes and it's so wasteful and it's whatever, why don't you actually just free yourself from that illusion?

And

Except that you're a human fucking being.

You know how much time you're gonna save, how much labor you're gonna save, how much money you're gonna save?

To be aligned with reality, to be aligned with the actual cause of your existence, literally saves time in your life.

Right?

You don't have to waste all this time to fulfill your purpose and your existence.

It's as simple as China can build high-speed rail and save time to get from point A to point fucking B.

Meanwhile, we're here wasting our lives at a fucking hospital, fucking insurance is.

You know how much fucking time we're wasting?

In the limited life that we have, we're wasting time.

Maybe there's a truth to Landian acceleration in that sense.

It's about being faster.

They call me Sonic.

And in no, but in a sense, you know.

The reduction of time wasting

Um

The acceleration of our ability to align with the material cause of our existence by way of our will, to fulfill the cosmic order, which is the ultimate moral imperative, the ultimate moral task given to mankind, right?

To do that faster, more effectively, more profoundly.

More comprehensively, right?

Isn't that

A normative standard?

But then, simultaneously, there's another aspect of this argument or this position that I want to present, which is that.

which is should be a given, the overwhelming majority of the consequences of our choices are inadvertent and not decided by us.

And yet we live with those qu consequences and we dwell within those consequences.

And that's not necessarily

That doesn't mean those consequences shape us and determine us one sidedly, as though we are not active participants.

But they do shape us and they do determine us.

Absolutely they fucking do.

I mean, on some level, we as a society

Inadvertently, because of our activity, produce a structure and a field of determinations which we yes passively acquiesce to.

I don't believe someone who claims they choose to live in a life where 7-Eleven has the range of Mountain Dew products that it does.

No, you don't.

You don't even think about that fucking shit.

You just go to 7-Eleven, you fucking buy what's on the wall.

That's it.

You don't think about all these fucking questions about how we as a society structure and shape the world that we fucking live in.

Because 99% of how we do that is inadvertent.

But you know what?

Marxism is not about.

subordinating the inadvertent consequences of our will to our conscious will.

It's about making harmonious our consciousness with the unconscious.

It's about accepting the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious unintended consequences

as a rational structure, as the logos in the first place, right?

Accepting that it's rational that there's inadvertent consequences, that those consequences in relation to the conscious input form a cosmos, right?

So

Uh that's the point when it comes to Marxism.

It's not subordinating everything to consciousness, so to speak.

So when I say for example that free will is only when we align the will with the ultimate cause of our existence, that doesn't mean mundane decisions or forms of activity are evil from the Marxist perspective.

You know, when people in the are dancing and singing and doing mundane things, everyday things, that doesn't mean those things are devoid of moral significance or any moral quality.

I'm just trying to say that.

Um

That is not where it's necessarily decisive.

Ontologically, right?

Whereas it is decisive.

The the choice Lenin had to face or Che Guevara, whoever you want, that is a decisive choice, right?

With respect to the fundamental and ultimate cause of our existence.

And I think that's just kind of common sense, you know, when when it you boil it down.

Um

But you know, the que again, let's circle back to the original question.

Why the need to make choices in the first place?

You know, why the need to be confronted with the possibility of one thing versus like why is that there in the first place?

And again, that question rests upon the false premise that inactivity is primary.

But if we understand activity as primary, we then can see.

That

The attainment of the alignment that I'm talking about.

Though, in some sense, it's a choice, right?

Is the thing we should regard as inevitable?

Not because it's going to happen without our activity, but because our activity is an inevitable feature of the cosmos itself.

That we are ontologically inevitable and necessary for the cosmos and for creation and the story of creation, so to speak, itself.

And that's already baked in, by the way, in the strong anthropic principle.

Inactivity is not our norm.

Activity is our norm.

So the question that falls upon us is not about what justifies our activity, what underlies our activity even.

It's that how can the activity that we're already embedded within

reflect or conform to its real cause?

And how can we acquire insight into that cause, and therefore align

Freedom with necessity.

How can we acquire, how can we align our insight with necessity, right?

That our insight is not automatically aligned with necessity doesn't mean it's not inevitably going to be.

Just because something requires our active participation doesn't make it any less inevitable.

Because you can waste as much time as you want, but you can't change the telos that's guiding every fucking decision you make.

Why?

Because the consequences of those decisions give them structure and place them within a hierarchy of cosmos and give them order and logic and ultimately give them rationality, regardless of what they are, right?

Okay Dawes, so here's what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna get right into TikTok debates.

If this fucking fat ass pussy bitch Dawes doesn't fucking show up, you are banned for life.

You understand?

So we're gonna get into the TikTok debates right now.

Right now you fucking bitch.

You fucking retarded bitch.

Trail Sandy, thank you, bro.

Appreciate it.

Once if it fucking works now.

Okay.

Whi what the fuck is wrong with my mic?

This is fucking crazy.

Holy shit, third observer, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

This is fucking insanity.

This is actually insane.

How about now?

We're good?

Can you fucking hear me, yes or no?

Can you hear me?

Yes?

Okay.

Um so first of all, uh

Third Observer, appreciate you, bro.

Thank you so much.

By the way, guys.

Let's grab it up in here for real.

Um, I'm just saying, I'm just no, it's just kidding.

We'll get there, we'll get past our 1,000 goal in no time.

I'm fully confident, Phil Foe.

What's up?

So uh

We're just waiting, I guess.

Where's Dawes?

Uh where's the tough guy Dawes?

I thought Dawes was showing up.

I thought Dawes was showing up.

Dawes seemed like they were going to show up, right?

What happened to them?

What happened to Dawes?

What happened to Dawes does on TikTok?

You absolute fucking subhuman fucking retard.

You absolute retard.

Amila with the ten.

Infrared show on TikTok.

If Dawes does doesn't fucking request you don't have TikTok,

Kill yourself, how about that?

Go fucking join the Discord then.

Join the fucking Discord, you fat piece of shit.

And if you say that you're tell us your Discord and username, you have one chance before you're fucking perma banned.

You banned me, what's your fucking Discord name, you fucking subhuman retard?

Okay.

We're gonna see.

I remember this guy was trolling last time and uh he claimed all this stuff about how uh you know he was banned or whatever and he turned out not to be.

So we're gonna actually see if he's telling the truth, right?

We're gonna see.

And then uh yeah.

Here we go, bands.

Let's see.

His he claims his name is what?

Boss Dawes, right?

Boss.

There's not a single band person who's named Boss Dawes.

Not a single fucking person.

Okay?

So there's not a single person.

There's not a single person with that name.

So this is this uh person claiming they want to debate me.

You better make up a TikTok account right now if that's what you want to do.

Because

He's just trolling, that's okay.

You're perma banned forever.

Go make a TikTok account if you want and you make the make sure it's your screen name.

Okay now we're here.

Uh okay, we're on TikTok.

Okay, so I just destroyed one of the leaders of the Libertarians.

They just got destroyed and uh I wanna destroy more of them.

Go ahead, big Chud.

What's up, Haas?

Long time no see.

I was just watching one of your chats with Nick Fuentez and Destiny.

Okay, well, this guy is the one who was saying bad words, right?

To get me restricted.

Yeah, it was the guy, right?

Yeah, that's him.

Uh there's some guy named uh

Leaky Zulu?

And he tried to debate me and he just fell and ate his own poop.

He slipped on his own poop and ate it.

And now he's like crying about it forever.

Completely conquered and destroyed for all time.

I barely even tried.

Why do I never talk about class struggle?

You're not human.

I don't know why you're talking to me.

Man too, what's up?

He d he disconnected.

Hello to Moore Hobbit.

You know, you know you're a Redditor.

Did you know that or no?

Like, do you know you're actually like a cringe Redditor?

No, no, no, like, what are you?

And I'm trying to picture you in real life.

And, like,

Not human, that's all I could say, you're not human.

You actually copy and paste this unironic Redditor stuff.

And it's like, how are you human?

A destiny fan?

An actual in the wild, a real one?

A real Destiny fan?

You're not human.

There's nothing about you that's sentient, or like I can't recognize.

You know, human humanity is based on mutual recognition.

I can't recognize you.

I don't see a human being in you.

I'm not, you think I'm being hyperbolic, and I'm not.

I have no way of relating to your humanity.

And maybe that's sad, and maybe that's a bad thing.

But I just don't see you as human.

And I'm sorry if you are a human and I can't see it.

You know, I just can't.

CPUSA is way better than the ACP.

Yes, the CPUSA which issues joint statements with the Communist Party of Israel to condemn Iran while it is fighting an existential war against the most powerful empire on earth is better than the ACP.

Is that what you mean to claim, or are you just trolling?

That debate will forever haunt you.

What do you mean?

Like all the money and clout that I got from winning it and stuff?

Like, what are you talking about?

You mean like when I destroyed when I like defeated him multiple times, several times and you know got got a boost from it?

I mean like what what what what is haunting me exactly?

Why are you a commie?

Because uh

Because the alternative is being like a Destiny fan, which is really just in the wild.

That's crazy.

Back up, go ahead.

Yo, hello?

Uh you have a weird ass profile picture.

I feel like he's gonna say like a bad word.

Um

Oh, you're not a Destiny fan?

Oh no, no way.

You're just like uh

Oh, you're just like defending destiny and you're not a fan.

No p no way.

No way.

I think that that makes you something worse, whatever that is.

Okay, why don't you request and explain what what I was wrong about?

Let's talk about that.

No, no, explain how I was wrong.

Explain what I said or did that was wrong.

I'll give you that opportunity.

Just go ahead and request and explain what I was wrong about.

Have you debated CBSA member?

They will never debate me.

Elias, go ahead.

Hi, hello.

Thank you for letting me up.

So, uh, genuinely, what makes you a Marxist are you a Marxist or a Leninist or yeah, like

Which why what type of garnie are you?

Uh the one that embraces the communist reality.

Uh grounded in what?

Like the economical system?

The economical system.

Yeah, 'cause you you have cultural communism at the same time.

It's not only the good the economic.

I'm a cultural, religious, economic, artistic, scientific, uh, uh, psychological.

Um, um, um, um, hold on, I'm not done yet.

Uh, uh um esoteric, philosophical, um, racial.

I'm literally my race is communism.

I am red.

Uh uh historical.

Um what other divisions of labor are do exist in the human being?

Uh you know you know pharmaceutical, geographical, geological, biological.

You know, um scientific.

Scientific, uh, you know, technological.

Astronomical, astrological, alchemical,

Chemical, physical,

Physiological quantum intangible.

All right, I mean, quantum.

Hold on, I'm not done yet.

I didn't say I was done.

No, like, actually, recreational conversation about it.

Recreational, athletical.

Every fiber of my being is read and is communist.

Every see, communism rejects the divide of the division of labor, you know, as ontologically worthy of dignity in and of itself.

Communism unites the entire division of labor into one reality.

Everything.

Everything.

All right, your full fool bullet idea comes, right?

Yeah, I got it.

So.

How could you defend communism?

Let's say for example, let's take during Mao's regime in China, right?

Is it like

That's a good 'cause that's a good one, 'cause he did do some good things, but at the same time basically everything he did was good, basically.

Besides promote uh, you know, his wife and stuff, you know, the gang of four shouldn't have but he that was retro only retrospectively he could he know that was a mistake, you know?

So basically pretty much everything he did was, you know, good.

All right, cool.

Do you see you agree with um you know building a wall to keep the people inside as well, right?

Although Mao did not do that, I fully support that as well.

But Mao didn't do that.

Yeah, no, I'm talking about China in general and Mao's regime.

You're talking about with the DD.

I think they need to build it again, actually.

You think they need to build it again, rebuild the wall, just keep everybody inside?

And yeah, now they actually have a functionality.

You want to know the beauty of the Berlin Wall?

Do you want to know why it was one of the most beautiful, greatest things that was ever created?

Do you want to know?

That's born.

Yeah, go ahead.

Go ahead.

It was one of the most moral, beautiful, artistically pure, even at every level of human, just one of the greatest things ever made.

Because in the DDR, there was a bunch of people wearing glasses who had critical skills that were necessary to maintain a modern society.

And they were being bribed with the brain drain.

So it was a dictatorship of the communists over the people who wore glasses, denying them free will, denying them free choice.

They had to stay in and work for the communist state.

Basically, I fully support that because intellectuals should not be free.

They should absolutely be subordinated to a higher purpose.

Because if you're going to sit on your bum all day and I'm a brainy guy, okay, you shouldn't have the freedom to just do what you want.

Unless you want to have the freedom to do it, why don't you pick up a shovel and work, right?

If they want to sit here and be glasses wearers, put them to work and attach them to a purpose, even if forcefully.

And there's a lot of precedent for this in history.

For example, Tamerlane, he would kidnap artisans and scientists and philosophers and astrologers.

He would just kidnap them and take them and put them in Samarkand and make them work for the great Daulette, you know, the Timurid Daulette.

And I support doing the same thing for a time, only insofar as we need them until we can replace them by educating our own people.

And then also the Red Army did this, you know, when it basically kidnapped military officers and made them work.

I mean, that was, you know, some attribute that to Trotsky.

You're saying that...

I don't like Trotsky.

So a communist society is only functional through slavery at first.

So your idea of a proper communist country or a communist state or a communist world would be a technocratic.

They should be quickly replaced with good people who are brought up and educated through new institutions.

But insofar as they are necessary to keep the power plants running, we keep them, we subordinate them, and then once we can replace them, we kick them sky high.

All right.

Because they're inherently disloyal and they have bourgeois prejudices and biases.

Wait, so you're saying that by educating people and making them highly educated in order for your educating people that are brought up according to the values of better institutions that reflect better values and better principles, rather than these people that are brought up and raised on bourgeois filth.

You know, we're being held hostage.

You know, if some guy, if these people have critical expertise on running a nuclear power plant and they happen to be brought up on Epsteinian values in their institutions, well, they're holding us hostage because we need the power plants to keep running.

So we keep them there in place.

We bring up a new generation of people raised on better principles who have the same technical skills and knowledge.

And then those people can replace the Epsteinian victim academics, you know, intelligentsia.

And they can retire whatever they want, but they won't be needed.

So they're holding us hostage.

So it's only fair we hold them hostage.

How are they holding you hostage?

You're free to leave to, you know, Cuba.

No, they're holding our whole society depends on critical, you know, knowledge and skills that are gatekept and reserved only by institutions that teach people disgusting, filthy values that they bundle.

It's like a bundled package, package deal.

Like, imagine if you had a plumber, you need your toilet fixed, and you so you invite the plumber, right?

The plumber says, Okay, I'll come and I'll fix your toilet, all right, as long as you allow me to take a shit in your fridge.

It's like a package deal.

It's like it's not fair.

You do need your toilet fixed, but why should he be able to do that to your refrigerator?

You know?

I I didn't cad quite catch that.

You don't understand it?

No, I tha that was um that makes no fucking sense to me at all.

Well, you need the pl you need your toilet to be fixed, but it's like a packaged deal and he's like basically saying, Okay, you know, your toilet's gonna be fixed and whatever, but I'm gonna kill your dog.

Not fair.

It's just like not fair, right?

So that's what you're saying.

That's what I'm saying, the so-called scientific elite are doing to us.

They have some critical knowledge and stuff, but they're packaging it in with all this other filth that we didn't sign up for.

And by the way, they're not even the best.

We're not even saying they're the best.

You might have not signed up for the society, but it is the society that giving you the freedom of choice to choose whatever.

I we have like we have freedom.

I'm not American myself.

I don't live in America.

Oh, you just shill for the you're just like a slave of the empire and you shill for it, even though it gives you well the empire is pretty chill compared to the to the opposite, you know.

No, it's it's the dope.

What are you talking about?

The opposite is literally h the story of history continuing.

Well, no.

If you look at the history of communism, you see it never it's actually never worked.

You see, for example, during the Berlin War uh and nor the Berlin Wall, perfect example.

America was finding out different ways through their capitalistic society and a capitalistic economical network to ship as much food and supplies over to the communistic side because they were actually starving.

It only accounted for four percent of the total production.

And it was not correct either.

And all in 85%, yes, it is 85% of Lend-Lease came after the decisive battles that already turned the tide of the war.

The Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the War.

Yeah, but we're talking about after the war, right?

And this is during the Berlin War, Berlin War Wall times, where the Red Army was the, you know, even if that was more modern-day Russia.

Even if the Americans gave them all this food, which I'm, you know, I really don't believe they gave him that much.

But even if they did, I'd say they did, right, after the war.

Wouldn't that be what a good ally does?

Because last time I checked, America, besides Hawaii.

Which, by the way, it was mainly military stuff that got destroyed.

I don't actually know if that's true, but I don't I don't remember, you know.

It's pretty bad what happened in Pearl Harbor, but

Besides Hawaii, the USA was not affected by the war.

Russia was totally destroyed.

Yeah.

So wouldn't it wouldn't it be wouldn't helping these wouldn't helping victims of the most destructive war ever be like the logical thing to do if you're like still their ally?

Well, yeah, you would help, of course.

But here, the problem was that the Soviet Union didn't want to be able to do it.

How does that mean capitalism is sweeping in?

You see, the how?

All right, let's just like, I'm going back to the example of the Berlin Wall, right?

The people there were trapped inside.

They were forced to stay there by the Soviet Union.

The communist all right, I'm in a musical mood, so I'm going to sing to you my response, okay?

I'm in a musical mood.

The only reason the Berlin Wall had to be made, and the only reason there was a brain drain in the first place, is only because the Marshall Plan made economic opportunity more lucrative.

And the only reason for the Marshall Plan wasn't even because of the superiority of the capitalist system for two reasons.

One, American industrialization started a lot sooner than Russia's.

Then it had all this capital and wealth that was from investments from Europe.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was embargoed by the world and it started in conditions that were much, much more backward and it had to catch up.

But even if we scratch that and ignore all of those factors, we still have the glaring and obvious fact that USSR was totally bombed and destroyed in the war and America was unaffected.

So if America takes its surpluses and dumps them in Europe, then West Germany is going to be more economically advantageous just because the US was not affected by the war that Russia was.

And guess what?

That has nothing to do with systems.

As a matter of fact, if a capitalist country was destroyed and devastated in the same way the USSR was, it would not have been able to maintain the same degree of political unity and stability and cohesion or bounce back as rapidly as Russia.

Well, I can give you an example.

We can say, for example, Great Britain, Great Britain was bombed to shred by Germany, right?

Germany owes its entire existence to the Marshall Plan after the war.

What do you think Great Britain didn't get a piece of the pie and wasn't rebuilt also by America?

You think they did it themselves?

That was what I was going to build on further on.

That just further proves why capitalism.

America.

No, it doesn't.

It proves that America has an ocean between it and Europe, which is, by the way, why America funded the rebuilding of Europe twice.

One after World War I, one after World War II, all because it had an ocean between it and all the trouble going on in Europe.

It has nothing to do with America having a superior system.

It has everything to do with America having an ocean between it and the most destructive conflicts in the 20th century.

It still doesn't take a fact that communism has been beaten by capitalism every single time throughout history.

Oh, except literally right now when China is lapping the world.

Well, China is not communist.

Oh, yeah, China's not communist, right?

So, why is China not communist?

If you go and look and ask like Japanese people, yeah, sure, they still have communist values.

At the end of the day, they live in a pseudo-communist, capitalistic society where they joined the international market.

Okay, so what are you?

What is this, Leon Trotsky?

Why was the Soviet Union communist and not China?

Soviet Union had markets.

Soviet Union had China's not communist anymore.

They moved away from communists.

Why?

Because the Soviet Union had markets.

Because it was terrible.

Soviet Union had, to a relative degree, quote-unquote private enterprise.

That was not the same as state enterprise.

They had prices.

They had stores.

They had markets.

What's so wrong with China decentralizing?

And suddenly that makes them a qualitatively different system.

Why is it that you acknowledge 20th century socialist countries as communist that no longer exist?

But why is it so hard to acknowledge China in the same China is just as communist as it's ever been, even under Mao?

Because even under Mao, markets existed, commodities existed, prices existed.

The only thing that was different is that China was allowed to trade with the world.

And then, also, yeah, there were a bunch of reforms they did.

We could talk about the reforms.

Yeah, exactly.

The main communism.

The main thing, the main thing is that China was allowed to trade with the world, okay?

Which only happened because they'd made a deal with America.

Main thing is they're allowed to trade with the world.

Now, did they make internal reforms?

Yeah, but those internal reforms would have meant nothing without the ability to trade with the world, right?

And then, moreover, it's inevitable, even if the DPRK right now is allowed to trade with the world, they would surpass America right now.

Do you genuinely think that?

If the DPRK, all the sanctions are gone?

Absolutely.

Well, wouldn't a communist state be self-sufficient?

Is there a single modern society in the world that can maintain simultaneously maintain autarky, which is very hard, but some only Communist States have ever been able to do it.

And simultaneously compete with societies that are part of globally integrated supply chains that are interconnected, all the resources and wealth of the world.

You have any idea how crazy that is?

First of all, to maintain autarky is itself fucking crazy, right?

Like super hard to do.

But to simultaneously do that,

And compete with societies that have unlimited access to all global resources and wealth and markets.

Uh no, no, communism

Eventually he's gonna take the whole world.

Every corner even Sentinel Island.

Even North Sentinel Island will be communist.

Yeah, bro, you're gonna have to wipe out those islanders that live in North Central Island.

That's happening.

We'll send one communist

There he'll be eaten.

You know they're cannibalistic on North Central Island, right?

They eat people.

We'll put someone who blends in with them and pretends to be one of them.

Bro, they would still eat.

They eat each other too.

Well, he'll survive.

This guy, trust me, I already will do it.

All right.

The whole world will be communist eventually.

I respect the dream.

It's not a dream.

It's not realistic, right?

It's actually super realistic.

So if you're going to follow the original idea of, let's say, Marxism, right, or communism in general, it's a self-sufficient country which is 100% reliable on itself and its own resources.

Source?

Yeah, sure.

Hold on.

I'll give it to you.

Just a second.

I wanna know what the source is Cause it sounds like bullshit You got a great voice I wanna know the source is just the same 'cause it's not in Marxism.

Uh still more win.

Go ahead and turn on my computer.

Um

Um you want an AI overview or you want an actual I want to know the sources.

I know you can show me without AI.

I want to know what the source is.

I asked if you wanted the source directly nowhere in Marxism does it aspiring toward a society that is entirely autarkic and in no way is integrated with the global productive forces and supply chains.

Okay, it's just nowhere.

All right.

Well goodbye.

Alright, uh

Everyone, if okay, now if you're you don't most of the people here are not from my community because we are somewhere else right now, uh, but everyone should like boost this TikTok stream and like just share it with everyone you know, you know, just boost it.

Not I'm not talking to you green people, I'm not talking to the gorillas.

Our cult is quarantined safe from TikTok, but I'm talking about the

Excess persons here.

Soviet Union 2.0, what's going on?

What's going on, Az.

Let's talk about this American Bolshevik movement, man.

This what?

American Bolshevik movement.

Okay.

Let's build it.

That's what we were already doing that.

Are you working with the RCA, the CPUSA, the DSA, the PSL?

What are you working with?

Can I tell you my answer?

Yeah, I'm here.

All right.

Give me a second.

I know you guys are split from CPUSA.

No, I gotta think about it.

Because, okay, I just thought about it, and I want you to walk through it.

Oh.

I can't play this actually.

Fuck.

I actually can't play that.

Sorry, I would get flagged.

All right, anyway, yeah, look, the Bolsheviks were Bolshevik, they weren't Mensheviks, they weren't what's the ACP.

What's the ACP's roles in the American Revolution?

You guys gonna be the Vanguard or what?

Yeah, all right, I'm down with it.

We are the Bolshevik, Bolshevik.

What's the way we're gonna unite the left here?

We don't need to unite them, we just need to rally the masses.

We just need to have a solid core principle, and we have to have the discipline, solid core principle.

Then we just win the masses, and then we can ignore the furries.

I was gonna say, I see the trots out there always fucking doing the protection.

Don't worry about that.

They actually don't even have more members than us.

They are very spectacle-oriented, even more than us.

They have a lot of flags and whatever, but they've been around for decades.

They're not gonna do anything.

So, the RCA and all that shit is around.

Yeah, RCA is what is it?

Someone tell me which one is it?

The ISO, which one?

They're a re-formulation of something, some British nonsense that's existed for decades, and it's nothing new.

All right, I move in a lot of leftist spaces, a lot of talk right now about left unity, fucking vanguardism, adventurism, all this bullshit's going on, all these warehouses burning down, all these fucking you know IMT, that's what it is.

Yeah, people around.

I mean, I've seen you guys did the fucking Jeffrey Epstein thing where you guys went to the desert and shot it.

I mean, people were saying that was performative, but I get the message overall.

But we just need a lot, okay?

We do, we go to we need more of that energy.

I agree, but uh

Look, we we'll we'll we'll uh unite with anyone who's willing to unite with us and willing to do the things that we do in any capacity.

It's just that, um

You know, look, can I tell you the truth?

Can I tell you the truth?

Let's say I was in Nevada just recently, right?

And uh, I was uh I linked up with our ACP and Isaac added 10 to the war chest.

Isaac, what's up, man?

Appreciate you, brother.

So, anyway, I was in Nevada and I saw, you know, I was linking, I linked up with our ACP people.

I saw that the DSA ML caucus was doing some event, right?

So, yo, message them and just see if we could, like, pull up and just talk friendly in a friendly way.

No debates, nothing.

Just like share our experience, just like, you know, just in real life.

And I say, don't worry, we're not going to publicize it, so you won't get canceled.

And then they go, No, you're a bunch of bigots.

Right.

And I'm like, fucking tagline with every single leftist organization so far.

Yeah, and it's like, okay, well, you know, I'm not a bigot, but you know, if this is how you're going to treat me, even though I'm reaching out my hand and, you know, maybe I should be.

I'm just kidding.

But anyway.

But you know what I'm saying?

It's like I'm the chill guy, and this is the response I get.

Yeah, it comes down to doing what needs to be done.

And people don't like that.

You ruffle feathers.

Yeah, and by the way, the problem is not the majority.

Most PSL people really like us.

But let's say PSL wanted to do an event with us, there'd be one mentally ill person.

who had stomped their feet and caused drama,

and be really loud and like victimize themselves.

Like the ADL, honestly.

It's like the ADL.

It'd be one fat person who does this and ruins it for everyone.

And then say, okay, we have to stay away from ACP because this cry bully is just making a big deal and ruining it.

So it's always what happens.

There's always just one or two people who just freak out and it's not worth dealing with them.

So people just say, okay, screw ACP then.

I see the ACP guys going to warehouses and taking notes from Lenin, trying to learn about what people said, you know, on the warehouse floor.

And it's really about capturing that working class vibe.

And like I said, let's crap it up with a 20.

Yo, what's up, man?

Yeah.

I appreciate the message, you know.

But yeah, we're getting to it.

Um

Okay, who wants to?

Uh uh R C Australa Stanny, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you.

Hello?

Hello?

Look at what?

Mm-hmm.

Are you going to be an adult?

Are you going to be an adult?

It's just gonna sit there?

You just gonna sit there?

So you don't have any points, you're just gonna mobile.

No, you don't have any points.

You're just gonna.

If I say the N-word, will you do it too?

If I say the N-word, will you do it too?

Here, let's see.

TikTok will restrict the stream.

Anyway, that's all they had to contribute, I guess.

God's low.

Is this guy good?

Are you a good person?

Yes, I'm a great person.

Okay, great.

We both love Stalin.

Okay, hold on.

I gotta move over.

Okay.

So we didn't get to get into it last time, but let me tell you my claim on Inkwells.

Is that cool?

On what?

Inkwells.

No, no, I don't want to talk about this.

Oh, I remember you.

That's why I asked, because I remember you.

Osos, what's up bro?

Let's keep crabbing it up, y'all.

So, as you said previously.

Oh, you already came on.

Yeah, I know, but you dropped me before I even got to get to your own to the source.

Okay, get to the source.

Well, so I went through your political program for the ACP, the American Communist Party, right?

Whereas, turns out a 100% communist country, which you wanted for America and the whole world, right, would be defined as a stateless, classless, no money, or no private equity or ownership anyway.

Just run it through ChatGPT a few more times.

No, it's not ChatGPT.

I am literally been a communist for 15 years.

You don't think I heard this before?

This is from your own program.

No, okay, where does our program say moneyless, classless, stateless acp.us, where you have more information?

You also have the declaration, constitution, and your own party ledger.

Okay?

Where do where do we say the Reddit so you say

The Declaration, right?

History has shown repeatedly that the rebases of the Communist Party lies not only in its ideas, doctrines, or its program, but the United States.

It's kind of the part where we say what you said.

Listen, you know why I don't like that definition, moneyless, stateless?

Because it doesn't tell you anything.

Can I give you a better definition of communism if you have to describe it societally?

It's where the principle prevails of from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

It's literally as simple as that.

I mean, that's how they idea is that, like, okay, socialism is going to be from each according to their ability to each according to their ability, right?

And then communism is when it's from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

You know what that means?

That means communism is a final cosmic alignment between the inputs and outputs of production.

That what people do.

Uh, that the symmetry between what they're putting in and contributing to society versus what they're taking out of it is perfectly aligned.

Not in the sense of socialism where it's formally aligned based on formal inputs, but that there's an actual harmony between what people actually need from society and what they contribute to it, right?

So, that's like the most basic definition of communism.

If I put a gun to my head, I would say that's the definition, you know.

Dark NRG, what's up?

Let's crab it up, everybody.

Let's drop the 20s.

Uh

I wanna play my music, I'm an artist.

I'm an artist and TikTok likes to censor me.

Can I can I share you my share with you my music?

Uh there's some music I have that's allowed.

Actually

Some of the music I have is allowed.

This one is so good.

Sorry.

Alright, we have someone requesting.

Yeah.

Yo, I'm fucking ACP, and um, I'm like trying to reach out to these like fucking student groups, and they're all Trotskyists, right?

And it's like, can I even fucking convince people to give up on fucking Trotsky?

Because it's just like creates such a nihilistic bro.

She, why don't we keep this internal, first of all?

You can just literally just message me and ask me, or ask anyone else.

Second of all, um.

How much time should you spend I just just debate libertarians, bro.

Go debate the young students for liberty and just like make a name for yourself just debating.

Just be the debate guy and win.

Like l hit the books and win the debates.

That's all you gotta do.

Honestly, isn't that all you have to do?

Just hit the books and debate the ops.

Don't worry about Trotsky people.

It's just like assuming these are the only people that would rally to our side, and we don't have to do that.

We don't.

Uh it's my honest question, you know?

I have a lot of guys, you know, I have a good song that's kind of like serious.

It's not like fun.

No, it's a beautiful song, actually.

I have a really good song I like.

It's about a revolutionary song from Russia, but I remixed it.

I actually think it sounds so good.

I want to share it with you guys.

The song is so beautiful.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

Rawan muladais tikmoimo la hi.

You know who you are, that means.

Ginada, dinada, dinada, maya.

Say spanska.

An old place bunski with a chili pig

Bashol viva.

All right, before we tear up, it's just such a good song.

Uh, does this person?

No, this is got to be like a funny troll.

Everyone knows Zulu got destroyed, dude.

It's like a universal consensus.

Even his own audience was like, dude, you literally crashed out, couldn't keep track of the debate, constantly contradicted yourself.

You just did not do a good job, right?

Uh, Zulu is done.

I've conquered him and his entire community, and I didn't even try.

That's really sad.

You know, leaky Zulu is destroyed, he is broken, he is mentally violated forever.

Even like I tracked all his gibbering and I kept track mentally of how he contradicts himself.

This guy had notes on the screen, couldn't even keep track of his own line of inquiry.

I mentally stared at the camera, kept track of everything.

He goes, no, no, I'm not talking about free will.

I said, you're not talking about free will.

Isn't your understanding?

Didn't you say throughout the entire time that you're asserting that free will is rooted only in the fact that there are alternative choices between Pepsi and Coke or whatever?

And he's like, no, no, I never mentioned free will.

Meanwhile, the entire time he's talking about free will, he goes, No, how's I mean, do you deny choices in the colloquial sense?

I said, Of course not.

And I said, But why are you talking about the colloquial when you said you didn't want to talk about the colloquial?

You rewind thirty minutes.

I don't want to talk about the colloquial.

It's like I kept track of every line of argumentation and inquiry he was on in my head, right?

This guy wanted to make a name of himself, challenge.

He thought he was.

Oh, I'm gonna defeat Haas.

Sorry, buddy, there's a reason people are scared to debate me.

Better luck next time.

Meanwhile, Bouncy Ben is another victim of mine.

Bouncy Ben?

Someone mentioned Bouncy Ben here.

Bouncy Ben.

you know this estrogenic

Uh, if you can call him a male, I don't want to assume his pronouns.

I don't know if he's male.

How would I know?

He's an extremely estrogenic metrosexual man, if you can say man.

He's a victim.

They're both victims.

They're all victims.

I conquer these people.

I.

I I changed them.

He is mentally changed forever because of the trauma I inflict on them.

Leaky Zulu is done, okay?

Bouncy Ben is done.

Forever.

And whoever wants to be next can be next.

But I change these people.

I scar them.

I change them forever.

They're not the same person before and after they deal.

With what it's like to be destroyed by me.

Isn't it crazy how someone with a furry profile picture is talking about?

Uh private parts.

Why is it always a furry?

That's what I said.

I want to know.

Why is it always a furry?

It's always a furry whose favorite topic.

Is this rambly?

Once if you're rambly, it's because if it's not rambly and it's just like furry, you people are just disposed to perversion.

It's super weird.

Okay, if you're Rambly, it's like it's the same guy, right?

I don't think it's Rambly, I think that's actually a different furry.

Mm.

Oh is this an ANCAP someone check their profile, see if it's an ANCAP.

Or it's if this is Rambly or this is an ANCAP, who knows?

There's a Zulu.

We caught a Zulu fan.

Oh, Leaky Zulu, are you sad I destroyed?

You're a petty petty chief?

Are you sad he's mentally traumatized and destroyed for the rest of his life?

Because he is.

He's not the same.

Okay, even his own audience admitted and was like, Dude, you lost.

He's done.

I have conquered him.

I have taken his soul.

He has no free will.

He has no existence.

He has no sovereignty.

For the rest of his days on this earth, he will know me as his master, and he is a slave of mine.

Don't even want him as a slave, but he's just a slave.

He has been conquered, he has been subordinated, subjugated, and there's no recovery.

You did a live stream cope.

You did a cope session.

You think that makes you look good?

You did a cope session with him and think that makes you look good?

That's adorable.

No way.

You did a live cope session when I'm not even there and coped with the trauma.

It's literally a therapy space.

You did a therapeutic cope session and think that makes you look good.

Why don't you request?

I haven't debated you yet.

Why don't you request and try to try to try to pluck holes in my reasoning, my very comprehensive and philosophically rigorous understanding of the relationship between free will and determinism from the Marxist perspective?

Try to find the inconsistency.

Do what Leaky Zulu could not do.

Root out the inconsistency if you have.

You see, his fans speculate that there was an inconsistency in my presentation.

But not at a single point in that debate could Leaky Zulu present us with the inconsistency.

He never actually articulated what was inconsistent, right?

So you should do what Leaky Zulu couldn't do.

Request right now, and I'll give you the floor to explain what was inconsistent about how I explained and presented it.

I said one word.

No, no, that's okay.

Just request and explain what was inconsistent and allow me to respond.

I'll let you explain what I got inconsistent and then I can respond to you.

Will you do that?

Because if you won't, then you're basically admitting who won in your own eyes, by the way.

'Cause I you know

You need to explain what was incoherent or inconsistent about how I explained how Marxism can actually account for simultaneously the fact that

Um historical materialism is true, and that there are alternatives and variations in the choices people can make at the individual level.

You need to explain how I didn't

Prove the harmony and reconciliation between those two facts.

Oh, you're not interested in debating me on that topic because you know I conquered, prevailed, and dogwalked Leaky Zulu on it.

Be a good individualist and throw Leaky Zulu overboard, basically admitting that I conquered, dominated, and destroyed him and pivot to something else so that you could get you could do the honors of winning a debate, right?

Is that what you want?

Just admit, don't worry about this.

You can request, and we could talk about the ACP.

All you have to do is address the question of Leaky Zulu.

And did he or did he not point out in our debate a single inconsistency in my line of argumentation?

You have to actually address because you said he won, right?

So you have to address what argument he made that was correct, just one.

Leninist, what's up bro?

What a great name, I love that name.

Let's crab it up with the 20s.

Let's go.

Let's go.

Okay, so we can talk about ECP right now.

All you have to do is address the question of Leaky Zulu and whether he could even respond to how I showed how Marxism reconciles free will and determinism.

That's all you have to do.

You sound scared right now.

You sound scared.

So before you start typing in the live chat with your cope, he doesn't even have fans.

You literally were doing a therapeutic cope stream with him.

You're like one of his friends.

You're like one of the friends he has that comforts him and consoles him.

Is there even like a fan who's defending him?

This is crazy.

Uh just just know your place.

Understand that collectivists will always put chains on you.

You will never be free.

You will never have autonomy.

You will always be in chains by collectivists under our feet where you belong.

Under our regime where you belong.

Sorry.

You will never have the autonomy and sovereignty and freedom you crave as an individual.

You won't.

Sorry.

We will always oppress you forever.

The collectivist principle will always prevail.

You throw your own friend under the bus.

How are you going to compete with collectivists who are like this?

You are literally a pinky.

We're like this, and you're a pinky.

You throw your own friend under the bus.

You literally just admitted Leaky Zulu flopped.

Because you can't even defend him.

And you need to pivot to a different argument about, which is a piss easy argument to address.

The ECP is super easy to debate.

I'll debate it right now, no problem.

Just first, let's establish what happened in the thing that you introduced yourself here with, right?

You're pinky.

Your whole ideology is pinky.

We are a fist.

We are a fist.

You are pinky.

Do you understand?

You will be broken.

This is your destiny to be broken.

By this, you understand?

There's this Epsteinian furry in my live chat on TikTok.

There's an Apsteinian furry.

Texas Tatar, what a beautiful name, actually.

What a beautiful name.

I'm loving these names, by the way.

I'm loving these usernames.

Texas Tatar, what's up?

You call you you're some kind of sectarian leftist calling us anti-communist.

Just know this, when the hour comes.

That the Epsteinian right has to be confronted, we're going to be on the vanguard fighting the anti-communists.

You're going to be in the back.

Sitting on some chair.

We're gonna be fighting.

We're gonna be the ones there because you're not built like us.

You don't promote a culture that breeds tough people.

You promote a culture of snowflakes.

Sit down where you belong.

There's a there's actually a literal furry.

You sit on a chair for seven hours a day.

Yeah, that's how I get 10,000 steps per day by sitting on a chair.

For seven hours.

Haha triggered.

Um, you know, this is literally I'm l you're you're literally providing me free content.

Why wouldn't I react to you?

It's free content.

You know what?

Someone should literally drop a ten just to prove who won when you think about it, or a five or a ten or something.

It's like I'm reacting to you, providing content, and I lose, and you somehow won by benefiting me.

Really?

Is that how it works?

Um

You know what?

I'll tell you where you might be, right?

Leninist, what's up?

I might be taking a dump per se.

Maybe when I'm taking a dump.

Sometimes it's a struggle, not gonna lie.

When I take a dump, you want to talk about sitting on my throne, sitting on my chair.

Sometimes sometimes you do want to leave.

But I'm just kidding.

I I I'm not there for a long time.

Why?

Because I'm civilized.

Why?

Because I have bidets, actually.

Because I'm a n I'm I'm civilized.

I'm not like you nasty people that are wiping for twenty years.

Uh, PJ, what's up?

You wanted to go there, you wanted to talk about sitting for a long time.

Or a beta.

Okay, guys, yeah, I just scammed you, by the way, because I said, yo, someone should.

That someone was undefined, so a bunch of people are going to do it now.

Classic Semitic scam.

Thank you guys so much.

I appreciate it.

But I don't want to scam you.

The point has been already made.

Your opinion on Chomsky, I've always hated Noam Chimpsky.

Chompsky, I've always hated that guy.

What is this guy's view?

Uh that Stalin was great and uh uh communism is completely integral to

Existing in a way that is uh worthy of man.

Go ahead, uh, whatever your name is, the alien.

X, yeah.

Okay.

Um, so here's what I've never even heard of the ACP.

If that's a some serious reverb you got going on there, but.

Um I never heard of the ACP.

Is that an actual uh political thing in in the United States?

Or is that a yeah look look it up on uh Wikipedia.

We have a Wikipedia.

Okay, so anyway uh

Rank Six Enjoyer.

Hey, I'm gonna edit A out, so it just says CP because you like child porn, you faggot nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger.

Yeah, we had an actual, it's an actual pet arrest, by the way.

Unironic, that was a pet arrest, by the way.

That was an unironic pet arrest.

Um, but they're here, and this is how these are the rules.

So, yeah, we're gonna get restricted.

The live is getting restricted, it is what it is.

I could just like restart the live.

You know what?

You know what I'm gonna do?

I'm just gonna restart the live despite them, and then how are you gonna restrict it?

Uh, turn turns out, oh wow, my access got suspended.

Live access removed.

That's crazy.

That's crazy.

My access was removed.

So I think I got banned.

Submit an appeal.

Uh.

Request another review.

I just have to request another review.

Uh, live access restricted.

I can't restart the live.

I can't.

They took away my access.

Oh no, it's gonna be restored in two days.

It's rest and it's okay, it's restored in two days.

Uh your access will be restored on april twenty fifth.

But that's so uh cringy how they did that.

Oh my god, TikTok is just so strict.

What will I ever do with the sixty viewers I had on TikTok?

What will I ever do with the sixty viewers

What will I ever do without those 60 viewers on TikTok?

Like, overwhelmingly, who are not even community members.

It's okay, guys.

We'll uh we'll get around it somehow.

I'm I I uh submitted an appeal.

I'm innocent.

It's not my fault.

What kind of degenerate pedophile piece of shit requests.

Go on X.

I'm not going on X right now.

Maybe I'll do that tomorrow for Confront the Chairman.

I'm not going to go on there right now.

I am hungry.

Also, I didn't really

It's a lot of sleep.

La na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na.

No no.

Making them put on their face is a rule.

Yeah, I'm you know, beggars can't be choosers.

I don't really have a ton of content to be doing that, guys.

Guess what?

You see, on the let me see, we are so close.

Oh my god, it's we're 25 subs away from the 1000 goal.

We'll be back in the positive.

25 away.

It's at 975 right now.

Supposedly.

Supposedly.

Yep.

See?

See?

Anyway, no, no, we'll keep the stream going a little bit.

Venetian tricks.

I'm not lying, though.

Uh

There we go, Harold.

What's up with the five, bro?

Appreciate you.

We are twenty away.

How about you gift us subs?

You're actually not wrong.

Like, honestly, that's actually on some real shit.

Honestly, I can't even argue with that.

I can't argue with it, I could just not do it out of hypocrisy.

Master Yoda, what's up?

Uh

Oh my god, Grandma Americana with the five.

I'm a greed ball.

Um it's like if I was using it personally

Uh like, you know.

I guess I would be, but it's like I'm actually genuinely saving all this up.

Or critical

Stuff.

I'm just gonna like you know what, yeah, I'm I'm I'm I'm Ayn Ray, I'm the John Galt.

What I'm what I'm gonna do with all the subs is uh finally buy a new mic, right?

I'm just gonna keep this broken mic forever and just keep saying I'm buying a new one so that I'll just keep farming subs forever.

Fuck.

Uh

Yeah.

We're almost at the goal of getting the yacht, guys.

It's all about getting this yacht.

We're almost there.

I want to say we could do an infrared event this year.

I don't want to give you guys a false hope.

Can I tell you guys what the goal is?

The goal is a few things, right?

Uh enough to publish an infrared book, not the main book, a different book, merch, and then in Dece in November or December, thinking maybe December, we do an infrared event.

That's what I'm thinking, okay?

So I'm trying to save and save and save.

And I'm not saying it hasn't been successful so far.

It has, but we want to get there.

It's going toward a mansion in the Rockies.

Um

Would it be fucked up if I say I wish?

It's like I wish I could do that, but it's literally just not on the table.

I'm not sure if I can do it.

You know how you guys are getting scammed the Patreon.

I need to do the Patreon QA.

Fuck it.

I could do that right now.

Once, if you want the Patreon QA right now.

I hope you guys have asked questions though.

Too late for that?

I don't think.

I mean, I don't.

You guys have had so much time to ask your questions.

Okay.

I don't think it's too late.

Uh I could do it right now.

I could record it right now and upload it.

As soon as I'm done, I can actually do that.

Like, I have the ability to do that, okay?

Uh fuck.

Late in the day, it's only twelve, bro, can you calm down?

Uh I you know, I know you guys have to go to sleep and shit.

Once if you just wanna go to sleep, you don't want me to do this right now.

'Cause honestly I could it can wait.

Honestly, okay, I could just go to sleep right now, you know.

There's so many twos though.

I got banned on TikTok for two days, but I'm appealing it.

That's all I could do is appeal it.

Oh, I won because I got you banned.

I snitched to Larry Ellison.

It's like, alright.

For something I didn't even do, by the way.

Orbital with the five.

Bro, holy fuck.

Okay, you know what?

The stream will continue.

As long as you keep fucking donating to me.

I will not end it.

'Cause you earned it.

That's nine we only were nine subs away.

Alright, I'm gonna do the Patreon QA now.

Alright?

But it's the last time I did this was.

Okay.

It's it's literally been a year.

It has been a year ONE YEAR!

And it's only 23 questions.

And half of the questions are by one guy Alright, I'll do it anyway.

Uh yeah.

Give me a moment, guys.

I'm uh I'm g getting my high score in Angry Birds right now.

Uh

That's disgusting!

Jupiter, Saturn, Babylonia Scythia, Turan, Great Parthia Gilgamesh, Cyrus, Hannibal Barca,

Masters of the age, Sahib Kiron The era is calling Sahimkiron.

Jupiter, Saturn, Babylonian, Cythia, Guron, Great Parthia.

Hello, welcome to the Infrared Patreon QA.

It's been a year.

Forgive me, deeply.

I ask your forgiveness, but let's get right into it.

I'm going to call you C.

How can you reconcile eternal moral principles like honor, justice, loyalty with dialectical laws of impermanence of all things?

Um intr it's a very interesting question.

I would say that the impermanence of all things doesn't mean there isn't an underlying cosmic order and structure behind reality.

And the way in which these eternal principles, if we call them that,

Continue to reincarnate, so to speak, and manifest themselves across different forms is as a resonance.

The only real thing, according to dialectics, are resonances.

No two things are the same.

No one thing is the same with itself.

Only the resonance is real.

And for the resonance to be reproduced,

and reappear, so to speak.

is very much something that um

Already presupposes the impermanence of specific things.

I think that it's important to understand within dialectics that the impermanence of things is really the impermanence of things we can behold as objects.

This beholding aspect of raising a thing, abstracting a thing from its integral totality or unity within the cosmos.

The reason it's gonna sound cringy, but it's like the reason everything is impermanent is because it's almost like the entire universe and cosmos is like a song and the song is playing over and over again.

And so when you try to take one part of the song, you're abstracting it from the melody.

And

In a way

The melody is always the same.

Is difference and development and so on and so on possible?

Yes, but it's all part of one melody.

Super Reddit, but uh it's something I believe.

You also asked, um, in his work Political Platinism, Dugan places communism in the second thesis, fifth hypothesis.

which state the many exist and create the one.

And in an interview he attributes the Bolshevik Revolution to the ancient and modern matriarchal logos of Sibyl, which he identifies with materialism, by the way,

That suppressed the reading and rediscovery of the Apollian principle.

Uh it seems to me that communism affirms the existence of the one.

And thus is the most platonic and by extension appalling of all systems devised in the modern world.

Would you agree with this and yes is the Tartari well, I would say no, because

Uh

I reject the view that all materialism falls under the logos of Sybil.

And I think that the Logos of Sybil is actually where the limitations of Dugan's view of Logos are revealed.

I think that.

There, what's missing in this is the principle of Ahura Mazda, the Mazdian principle, you know, which I think is.

Uh pre-exists and or is precedent with respect.

It's a kind of more precedent ground before.

The Greek Apollian kind of principle of ideality, right?

Um is the material contradiction between town and country just a different form of the contradiction between coastal, felassic, land?

Yeah, these are all resonances of the same contradiction, for sure.

Ah, yes.

To put it very simply, yes.

Can you elaborate on the neo-Kantian perspective?

That says Marxism, socialism is about obligations to institutions as a question of ethics from the 113 stream.

Yeah, well, it's associated with social democracy and democratic socialism and political correctness, where basically we have to be very neurotic and mistrustful with respect to pre-institutional social forms of expression, because according to that view,

These exist outside of the institution where which is the only receptacle of morality, right?

Okay, S uh

C has many, many questions.

You've earned them though, so I'll answer all of them.

In capitalism, value, which used to be a means to an end, becomes the end for itself.

Uh and it's self expansion.

That's not quite true.

But I'll grant it for for your question.

Marx is describes how commodity capital is anxious to lose that form and return to the form of money capital, hence the frenzy of MM, which bypasses time of circulation.

But it's not anxious to lose the form.

Oh, you mean the form of mediation, let's say.

Okay.

Was modernity the cause of value breaking free to become an autonomous force?

Or was it the other way around?

I think it's not capital that broke free, it's in a sense maybe what we call logos that broke free.

Modernity very much can be defined.

I kind of like this new definition of modernity as the.

The

Um

The kind of dominion of the esoteric over the exoteric, in a way, right?

Where the esoteric breaks free of its secretive confines and finally establishes a working practical relationship with the world, right?

And so, in this way, it's like.

Uh I like to think of modernity as

The same thing as the Qizilbash, a Su an esoteric Sufi order that did finally become involved in the world and change the world in the same way that it partook in the transformation, the inner transformation of the self and the individual.

And basically, that's why, in a sense, Logos breaks three for the first time in modernity.

Because.

As a practical principle, right, it cuts across established conventions and so on and so on, and like.

Modernity represents this f like kind of m almost eschatological moment of confronting the fundamental underlying principles of our existence.

And we we lose the ability to take them for granted, right?

It's even kinda described in the Communist Manifesto.

The dead weight of convention all that disappears, you know, where it it had so much inertia and weight before.

So there's this kind of alchemical completion and fruition and fulfillment that modernity implies.

But this seems to be incorrect.

If we're in a soul small direction, why does modernity seem to have accelerated rather than decelerated?

I think I guess I already answered that question.

In the substack Brahmins of Democracy you explain how the material

In Marxist materialism is not another substance, but better translated into essential, as in an essence that is itself essential rather than formal.

This is a very dialectical understanding of materialism.

My question is: is materialism itself already dialectical?

Consistently, yes.

According to Marx and Engels, they said that.

They said across all of the history of philosophy, there's been a materialist and idealist camp.

Lenin reinforced that point.

And the materialist camp always lost to the idealist camp because it failed to be faithful to its kind of dialectical origins.

What is the point of referring to his dialectical materialism except that's the only point.

When, you know, frankly, I'd rather just refer it to uh

Something else, but that's how the word comes to be.

What's the relationship between the material cause and a tendency in materialist dialectical thought?

In on Khrushchev's Phony Communism, Mao describes how class struggle continues in early social society due to the capitalist tendency which persists.

But do tendencies persist even if their cause is eliminated?

Well, the cause is not eliminated.

The relationship between causes and tendencies

Is not that you know the cause suddenly becomes entirely eliminated, it's that part of

The cause includes that tendency.

So part of the cause that compels a socialist mode of production includes the capitalistic tendency.

But that inclusion is one of integration into a higher form of logic.

However, you know, the the the tendency so that so just like when I gave the example earlier in the stream, which you probably didn't watch, you know, uh animal existence is a tendency.

Uh that still exists even when human beings exist, right?

I'm not saying we are partially animal, I'm just saying like animals still exist, biological organisms, right?

Rather than just being a lower stage of evolution.

So we share the same cause as animals in the sense of like our cosmic causes, right?

Um

But for one tendency to definitively prevail over another reflects a new and distinct relationship to the cause.

So to speak, the cause is just communism itself, which is the riddle of history solved.

Assad, appreciate you, man.

Can you please debunk Jay Sakai in depth?

I can't do that in this medium and in this format.

But I will just say, I think Sakai is a little arbitrary when it comes to

There is no peaceful way in which.

I mean, like the the kind of reactionary right-wing argument

I don't think he can respond to it, which is okay, well, what about conquest and stuff that precedes colonialism?

you know?

Um first of all.

And then second of all uh

Sakai falsifies history to a great extent.

And then, third of all,

He doesn't understand what a nation is.

Na nations are not defined by not having differences.

Internally, would you see?

Would you say that Rousseau's general will is an early attempt to understand popular sovereignty?

Yeah, it is.

I don't and I don't know if that's a satisfactory answer, but yeah.

Word Saladin, do you think that online digital information sphere actually reveals something new about the nature?

Yeah.

Is Info more than just cynical enjoyment?

And yeah, it does reveal something new about the structure of truth that was hitherto unknown.

Yeah.

Um

For certain.

Uh now, how specifically that is is a whole can of worms that I'm not sure I'm capable of explicating right now.

Explaining?

Um

I think that for starters, the relative autonomy or the independence, I should say, of truth with respect to the various kinds of

Mediums taken on by it to express itself has been revealed, first of all.

So in other words, truth exists independ there's there's so much more of a dynamic range by which truth can take form and structure.

I know that's kind of

Vague, but the unlimited scope and scale of information and its exchange and so on across geography and so on and so on.

It's like.

Does reveal something about the phenomenal form of truth, which is that it definitely cannot be reduced to a specific phenomenal local structure or something, right?

Why?

Appreciate you, man.

How do you understand the meaning of proletariat in the strict sense?

I like the logo idea of the root word prolis, which is something defined by its ability to reproduce.

The Romans defined the proletariat as those who had nothing but their children, you know?

So proles, right?

It's kind of this prolific tendency.

Um so we we have to still think about it from that root, you know, of the producing class.

It has nothing but what it produces, you know?

Sodong.

Uh to to get to New Zealand, how much would it cost?

I mean

I don't know what the plane tickets are.

It's an interesting question.

Remember you mentioned you had written on Hegel and Islam in the age of globalism.

If we're ever hearing more about your understanding, I could return to that text and try to finish it.

But I feel like I have been talking about that a little bit more.

What should be the objective of modern sci-fi writing?

I'm not familiar too much with the writing, but I would say

The objective should be um

To convey the future effectively, you know, and to do so in a way that is revolutionary.

Not in a utopian sense, but like, you know.

Articulate the contradictions within our current society within the

context of a future already realized.

I think that's

Good way.

What do you?

This was like from a year ago.

What do you think of Prism's critique of multipolarity?

I think it was largely merited.

But there are nuances, but I don't think Prism disagrees with the nuances, you know, about how

There is a new reality that's of multipolarity.

But it but Bricks is not that, you know?

Um, do you think that the KBRF will seize power democratically, or would Russia require another revolution?

Um

I

Don't I really can't answer that question.

Um, regarding, I think the KPRF could maybe.

I don't know, actually, I mean, I d I don't there you see, I don't want to comment on the KPRF in that way because

It's really not my place.

And regarding Russia's political stability or lack thereof, it's also something I don't want to touch on in any way.

So

Uh it's kind of an awkward question.

But what I will say is that I think that

I think that the KPRF is not going anywhere, you know, and uh I think that it it will have a role to play in Russia's future, regardless of what that is.

France, what's up, man?

I'm wondering what Infrared sees as the core fundamental distinction between Prussian realist political philosophy and the Machiavellian and Hobbesian counterparts.

Interesting.

Um

I think that Carl Schmidt tries to really situate Prussian political philosophy in continuity with Hobbes.

Now, whether Hobbes is a necessary conclusion of, you know, the Klaus Witzian tradition, I don't think so.

I think the Klaus Witzian tradition is much more about.

Uh

Not so much.

I think Hobbes is very metaphysical in a sense, you know, and Prussian realist political philosophy.

is more about

a real machine, a real political a real polity, war Prussia, you know, and the nature of war in relation to the political, you know.

It's not as metaphysically loaded as Hobbes.

And his notion of the Leviathan, because it doesn't necessarily address.

I mean, Hegel, in a way, does if you include him in that.

But um

I think that Hobbes is methodologically individualist.

And the Prussian realist philosophy is not.

It recognizes somehow a principle of state that transcends singular individual wills, right?

And um

You know, um

It acknowledges it more as as something objective rather than this kind of game theoretic thing with Hobbes.

Uh regarding Machiavelli, I would have to defer to Al Thusaire and his writing on Machiavelli, which I'm not even that I don't remember a lot of it.

Um I'm not too intimately familiar with Machiavellian.

Uh writings.

But

Althuser regards them as like the origin of materialism in the modern sense itself.

Um

Of course there's profound contextual and historical differences that can be presupposed.

Alright, well that's it.

That was only nineteen minutes.

Can I not upload shit anymore?

Connect Vimeo?

The fuck?

Oh, drag it and drop it.

Okay, is that how we're fucking doing it?

It is four twenty three.

Hello, welcome to the infrared.

All right.

Okay.

So, theoretically, it should be fine if I put it here, right?

Oh, yeah, it is.

Right.

Alright.

Alright guys, uh

We almost made it to the past don't worry, we'll be back tomorrow.

And I literally am fucking so exhausted.

Bye, guys.

I'll see you guys uh tomorrow.

Okay, bye bye.

Bye-bye.