VICTORY | LEBANON | MASSIVE DEBATES | MORE 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

Br-D-G-D-G-D-D-D-A-D-D-A-D-D-D. Roolers and runs

UriLas and runs

Right or die in this bitch

All our ups in the bitch

We ride, we ride, we ride, we ride, we ride

Gorillas and sons

Ops on the run

Ride or die in this bitch

All our ups in the bitch We ride we ride we ride we ride we ride go to the

sun

run

right or die in this bitch all the ass in the bitch

all our ups in the bitch we ride we why we why we why gorilla tell the suns

on the run right or die in this bitch All are up silly bitch

We ride

We ride We ride Oh, it's in the suns

Ops on the one

Right or die in this bitch

All our ox in the ditch we why we why we why we why we why

corillars and sons

ups on the run

right or die in this bitch all our ups in the dish We are, we why We why We why We are We are Sign sign, sign, sign, sign, sign. Sign.

The relevant

Sun T.

Hops on the one.

Right or die in this bitch, all the in the ditch we wry we why we why we why we why

gorillas and sons off on the run right or die in this bitch

All our ops in the bitch

We wry, we why, we why, we why, we why

We why, we why

We whi and Dorellas and Sons Dorellas and sons

Hops on the run

Ride or die in this bitch

All the hops in the ditch

We ride, we whey, we why, we why, we why, we why. Why? Why? Why? Why? gorillas and sun and sun and

the

mhm I'm M.

M.

M. The DSA is Zionist, ATP is communist, Yalla March red has bullah, AOTO, the DSA is Zionist ACP is communists

Yalla March red has ballah

The Zordang got the call

The DSA is Zionist

ACP is communist

Yalla march red has vola

AOSI Fokov

The DSA is Zionist

ACP is communist

Yellow March red has belonged

Sonal kiss the world I'm a lot of The D.S.A. Zionist. AC.D. is communist. Yalla match when has bowled.

The EO.C. Faginian. The D.S.A. is Zionist. ACP. is communist. A.C. is communist. Yalla march with Hesbollah. So I got the call.

The DSA is Zionist. ACP is communists. Yalla march with Hesbollah. AOC Fagos. The DSA is Zionist,

ACP is communists,

Yalla large for Hezbollah

Saurang is the wall. I'm The PSA is Zionist

ACP is communist

Yolo March red has Bola

Zora Zora and got the call

The SESA is Zionist

ACP is communist

Yolo March Red Hesbola Yolobos

Red Hat

Ballas

Hey Osi Falko I'm I'm I'm The DSA is Zionist, ACD is Communists, Yellow Marchmen, Hatsmole,

Z.

The DSA is Zionist

ACB is communists

Yalla

match

Red has fallen

AOC FACO

FACO CFA

FACO

FACO CIS

is a c CUMONIS A.O.C. FACA is d.S. A.C. is Canyx. Canyx is Canyx.

Yolamac.

Y'amac is

Bloc.

So on got the call.

The D.S.A. is

aianist.

A.C. is a.k.m.

Myt.

Red hat bull, Y'allamatch Red Hatsball

A.O.C.

So, you're still

a lot.

You see if you're The idea is

Say is Zayi and see you

is coming

I'm not alone

Red House

Ballu-O

So Rang is the war The War No. Oh. Oh. And so and I don't know any other than we're going to be able to be.

I don't know. and the I'm going to

I'm

and

I'm and you know

and

I'm nothing

I'm

No I don't know. I'm going to go. I'm going to get a

that I'm going to

be more a lot of it.

And so and the I'm not

I'm

a

I'm

a

I'm I'm I'm

I'm not

the other

I'm I'm I'm I'm Steven Steven 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?

How is everybody doing?

I hope everyone's having a wonderful night.

I have OCD Anyway guys

What's up

We have a lot to talk about

And we have a lot to cover

And stuff

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

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 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 uh touching base with everyone i want to uh 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 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 so yeah, there's just a lot, a lot of ground

we have to cover, okay? A lot of horrible things happen

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 ANCAP 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, uh, 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 catch me in this real contradiction, so to speak, that I'm going to 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 in fact that people can in fact make choices, right? So he was expecting like

an easy layup or something. And then I just, I 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,

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, they 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, you know, 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, I, 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 there are a bunch of pedophiles and rapists and what have you, and they're coping because 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 going to besiege the fortress.

And I let them basically, 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 they're coping to this day, and they're, 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 j dayder 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 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 confuse 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 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 rewinded and showed how earlier he's like, no, I want nothing to do with the colloquial.

You know, 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

Ayn Rand's view, a retarded view of choice,

right?

So it was like,

well, 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 an cap libertarian community on the

internet and these people do have institutional power with respect to

Javier Millay. They have Elon Musk's

sympathy in 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, uh, I kind of realize like this is, this is like potential. We could raid them

and kind of like kidnap their leaders basically and totally fucking majority of the people I 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

you know what I mean? We just got to go in and kind of fucking... You know what I mean?

We just got to fucking 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 as 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 get so much

loot from that, okay?

We get converts, we get

soldiers in our ranks,

and we fucking decapitate

and, you know, metaphorically speaking,

decapitate, kidnap,

and basically destroy their influencers and 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,

whatever their communities hinge upon,

it's an easy layup.

It's actually profoundly easy, right?

I wasn't necessarily aware of like 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,

I saw that there were like other people actually like 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

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 because we didn't even know about them.

This is like the three body problem when they're like messaging, they're fucking with

Tri Solaris 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 it's good.

It's easy.

So I just want to, I want to, like, open your eyes to the fact.

And I noticed it with the TikTok as well.

Some of these people are willing to debate.

A lot of these people definitely, okay, underlying

all like the pedophilia and disgusting degenerate pieces of shit,

these people,

they're like, 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 in life that they lead and they make right when it comes down to it that's what

a lot of these people want.

And

that's

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 uh 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, like, you know, bothering us and gaining our attention, like the humans got the attention of Trisolaris.

And now they're on our radar, you know, so we could definitely do some serious damage to them to our great benefit.

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

You know, we've been dealing with the Groypers 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 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

metaphorically executed.

Super easy, you know, metaphorically executed. 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 these 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 and 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 you're that is being done

you know 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

like 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-Nehalo 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 i like Pepsi, 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 in 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 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

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

In our discord partially as well, like crashing out.

Clit 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?

He's going to cope forever just like Bouncy Ben.

When Bouncy Ben was violated,

he's still coping about it to this day.

Bouncy Ben and and this guy they got fucking

smack 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, according to the vulgar fake Marxist,

I'm not a Marxist? Well, what is my view of free will and determinism? 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 their alternative? I was so, like,

confused by this retarded

question. How are there alternatives?

Because anyone who's

half-Sentian understands

that multiplicity and variation

is a given. It's like ontologically given. There's no two things in existence that are the same thing, first of all, right? 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

Mullah 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, 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 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 so if multiplicity is given then obviously our will

can be expressed uh with respect to the variations of different relative outcomes it's

absolutely possible right so um now the so now that we understand the question better

right to begin with

I want to kind of

get your

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 focus on Christianity.

We don't 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 with God's you know 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 uh thousands of years later or whatever then there's the redemption right fall. And then, okay,

thousands of years later or whatever, then there's the redemption, right? Jesus.

So Jesus is

there's a three-part arc of

this narrative, right? The beginning,

the middle part, and then the end.

Marxism is the same exact thing we begin with primitive communism. Then we have 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?

So,

that's the tri-part 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 going to

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 tri-part structure. Okay. So you have it in

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 tri-part 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

you know, uh, passion and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and

human, human kind that just began with a, 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 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 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 happen is there any is there 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, does, 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 want to 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.

I want you to think about how those things are related, you know, when i'm talking about this because it's 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 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 existsologically, 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. 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. 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 it's 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 uh observed or or affected or performed by a human

being can only be understood with respect to its relation to that story arc to 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, 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 You understand? And so that cause properly understood is a process. It's a structure, it's a, it's a, it's a, a, a process that acquires structure in what we call logos, right?

Which is the structure of being, right?

I mean, Hegel's tri-part 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 pseudo-inlectuals try to tell you, right?

But 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 going to crash out.

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

That's something very, 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.

You're, you're, basically, it's like the worst sin you've committed, right?

Which is the, you know, it's like 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 wrong thing

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 why you know you know what i fucking hate if i'm trying to teach something why jump to a

conclusion why not just patiently sit and 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, don't 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 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. 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 ADHD it's the zoomer it's this

anyway okay so the the fallacy of asking the question of why isn't human activity or any given thing self-same

and immediately the same thing as the underlying cause so why not not, for example, a simple determinism?

Everything is just directly, you know, cause and effect, for example, right?

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, you know, 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 of the correct path so to speak right like in the same way that the the fact that people can sin within christianity is is actually evidence of the fact that they can also achieve parity, you know, 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 seems like it's, you know, 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 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, you know, in it, 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 is a process the object corresponds to a process it doesn't correspond to one reflection of the object 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 aligned 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 and the sense of Ilyankov'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 let's just think

about it in 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

emergence of man

of human being right

every other step of the way is still here.

Apes still exist.

Okay, 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. the contrary they they continue to 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

you know

if the

planetary bodies

were aligned

in a way

that has deviated

from the norm as far as like 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 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 fucking.

So, um... So, for example, 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, 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 principle governing our existence,

which is itself,

the process that has given rise to our existence

itself as a cause,

right, an active 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 a 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. 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 profits, 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, that 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 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 going to

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

deny, you know, arriving at the universal truth and universal conclusion.

That is the fundamental cause of human existence, right?

I want to be a kaffir 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 speak right and simply because 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 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 you you decided to reduce yourself

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

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

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

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 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 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

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 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 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 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. Oh. You know, Um, so...

Um,

it's like there, there are,

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 and is with respect to that right but once you follow the process along, comprehensively enough,

you can either stop at a specific part of the stage. Like, think about Marxist stageism.

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 it 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 uh 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, 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.

Do you understand?

Bugs are doing all sorts of fucking nasty heinous shit.

Okay?

And the point is it never ends.

You need to understand the Darmic religious traditions because these Hindus and these Buddhists,

they fucking understood some shit.

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 in our existence, which did not regard, you know, 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, 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 we just, okay, 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, 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 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 we're 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 is nothing extraordinary or exceptional about the fact that there's variations

in activity or that there's variations potentially possible different types of activity we are capable of committing

that there's alternatives in the activity that we 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 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 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 going to 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 accept that

you're a human fucking being? You know how much time you're going to save, how much labor you're

going to save, how much money you're going to save? To aligned with reality to be aligned with the actual

cause of your existence literally saves time in your life right it you don't have to

waste all this time to fulfill your purpose and your existence right

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, that it's about being faster.

They call me Sonic.

No, but in a sense, you know, the reduction of time wasting, the acceleration of our ability to align with the material cause of our existence by way of our world, 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

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 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 acquiesced to. I don't believe someone who claims they choose to live

in a life where 7-Eleven has, you know, 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 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 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

that

that is not where it's necessarily

decisive.

Ontologically, right? Whereas it is decisive. The choice Lenin had to face or Che Guevar,

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 you boil it down. Um... um um But, you know, the question, 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 is 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 align our insight with necessity? 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 tic-to debates if this fat-ass pussy bitch Dawes doesn't fucking show up, you are banned for life.

You understand?

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

Right? Right now, you fucking bitch, you fucking retarded bitch. You know, Thank you. me You know, Thank you. You know, Trailsani, thank you, bro. Appreciate it. Once if it fucking works now. Thank you. Okay.

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... Can you hear me? Yes? Okay. So, first of all,

uh,

third observer,

appreciate you,

bro.

Thank you so much.

By the way,

guys,

let's crab it up in here for real.

I'm just saying, no, I'm just kidding.

We'll get, we'll get there.

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

I'm fully confident.

Bill Fo, what's up?

So, uh, we're just waiting I guess where's Daws

where's the tough guy Daws?

I thought Daws was showing up

Daws 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 10.

Infrared show on TikTok.

If Does 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 username you have one chance before your

fucking permaband you ban me what. What's your fucking Discord name? You fucking subhuman retard.

Okay. We're going to see. I remember this guy was trolling last time.

And he claimed all this stuff about see. I remember this guy was trolling last time and he

claimed all this stuff

about how, you know,

he was banned or whatever, and he turned out not to be.

So we're going to actually see

if he's telling the truth, right?

We're going to see.

And then, yeah.

Here we go. Bands.

Let's see.

He claims his name is what?

Boss Daws, 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

person claiming they want to debate me you better make up a tic-t-tah person with that name. So this is this 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 permaband forever. Go make a

TikTok account if you want.

And you make sure it's your screen name.

Okay, now we're here.

Okay, we're on TikTok.

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

They just got destroyed, and I want to destroy more of them.

Go ahead, Big Chud.

What's up, Haas?

A long time, no C.

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

Okay, well, this guy is the one who is saying bad words, right? To get me restricted? Yeah, it was the guy, right? Yeah, that's him.

There's some guy named...

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.

Mantu, what's up?

He disconnected. Hello to more 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 humanities based on mutual recognition 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.

Yeah, 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? 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 I destroyed, when I, like, defeated him multiple times, several times,

and, you know, got a boost from it?

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

Okay. Why are you a K 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 head. Yo, hello?

You have a weird

ass profile picture. I feel like he's going to say

like a bad word.

Um,

oh, you're not a destiny fan? Oh, no you're just like uh oh you're just like defending destiny and

you're not a fan no no way no way i think that that makes you something worse, whatever that is.

Okay, why don't you request and explain 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 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

CBOSA member? They will never debate me.

Elias, go ahead.

Hi, hello.

Thank you for letting me up.

So,

genuinely, what makes you

are you Marxists or a Leninist?

Yeah.

What type of

army are you

the one that embraces

the communist

reality

grounded in what

like the economical

system

the economical system the economical system? religious, economic, artistic, scientific, psychological. Hold on. I'm not done yet.

Esoteric, philosophical, racial. I'm literally my racist communism. I am red.

Historical.

What other divisions of labor do exist in the human being?

You know, pharmaceutical, geographical, geological, geological, biological, biological, scientific, technological, technological, astronomical, astronomical, astronomical, astronomical, chemicalchemical chemical chemical physical

physiological

quantum intangible

quantum intangible all right

quantum

I'm not done yet

I didn't say I was done

recreational recreational recreational athletic recreational I'm not done yet. I didn't say I was done. No, like, recreational.

Recreational,

Athletical.

Every fiber of my being is red and is communist.

See,

communism rejects the divide of the division of labor as ontologically

worthy of dignity

in and of itself

communism unites the entire

division of labor into one

reality

everything everything all right you into one reality. Everything.

Everything.

All right.

You're full bulleted

to come, right?

I got it.

So

how could you

defend communism?

Let's say, for example, let's take during mow's regime in china

right like that's a good because that's a good one because he did do some good things but at the

same time basically everything he did was good, basically.

Besides promote, you know, his wife and stuff, you know, the gang of fortune of...

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 that was a mistake you know so basically pretty much everything he did

was you know good

all right cool

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, I fully support that as well.

But Mao didn't do that.

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

You're talking about with the D.D.

I think they need to build it again, actually.

You think they need to build it again?

You build the wall?

Just keep everybody inside.

And yeah.

Now they actually have a, they have a functional.

You want to know the beauty of the Berlin Wall.

Do you want to know why it was the most,

one of the most beautiful, greatest things that was ever created?

Do you want to know?

Oh, that's one.

Yeah, let me go ahead.

Go ahead.

It was one of the most moral, beautiful, artistically pure,

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, you know, maintain a modern society, you know. And they were being

bribed with the brain drain. So it was a dictatorship of the

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,

you know, I'm a brainy guy. Okay, you don't, you shouldn't have the freedom to just do what you want.

You, because you, 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 wears, put them to work and, 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 Daulat, you know, the Timurid Davlet. 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

when it basically kidnapped

military officers and made them work.

I mean, that was, you know,

some attribute that to Trotsky

I don't like Trotsky

so a communist society

is only

functionalable

through slingbring

at first so your idea

of is a proper communist country or at first. So your idea of the proper

communist country or a communist state or a communist

world would be a technocratic

No, no, no, no. 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 presidents. 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... Educated 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 we, you know, 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 Cuba.

No, they're holding.

Our whole society depends on critical knowledge and the skills that are gate kept and reserved only by institutions that teach people disgusting filthy values that they bundle. It's like a bundled package deal. Like, imagine if you had a plumber, need your toilet fixed and so you invite the plumber right

the plumber says okay i'll come and i'll fix your toilet all right uh 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 you be able to do that to your refrigerator, you know?

I didn't quite guess. You don't understand it? No, I don't quite guess

You don't understand it?

No, that was

That makes no fucking sense to me at all

Well, you need your toilet to be fixed

But it's like a package deal

And he's like basically saying, okay, you know, your toilet's going to be fixed, but it's like a package deal.

And he's like basically saying, okay, you know, your toilet's going to be fixed and whatever,

but I'm going to 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.

You'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 a freedom of choice to choose, whatever.

We have, like, we have freedom.

I'm not American myself.

I don't live in America.

Oh, you just chill for the...

You're just like a slave of the empire,

and you chill for it, even though it gives you the rights.

Well, the empire is pretty chill compared to the...

To the opposite, you know?

No, it's...

What are you talking about? The opposite is literally the story of history continuing.

Well, no.

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

You see, for example,

during the Berlin War and or

the Berlin Wall, perfect example.

America was fighting

out different ways through a

capitalistic society and a capitalistic

economical network to ship

as much food as supplies over to the communistic economical network to ship as much food as supplies

over to the

communistic side

because they were

actually starving

and dying

it only

accounted for

4% of the

total production

and it was

not correct either

and all

in 85%

yes it is.

I can give you the statistics.

85% of Len Lees came after the decisive battles that already turned the tide of the war, the battle of Moscow, the battle.

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

And this is during the Berlin War, uh, Berlin War, uh, Berlin War, uh, wall times.

Okay. So, where the, uh, where the, uh, where the red army was the, you know, um, even if

that was made from Soviet Russia into more in modern day Russia.

Even if, even if, even if the Americans gave them all this food, which I really don't believe they gave them 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 remember,

you know, it's pretty bad what happened in Pearl Harbor. But besides Hawaii u sa was not affected by the war they they like russia was totally

destroyed the uh so what didn't it wouldn't it be what it 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

why did that mean capitalism is superior you see the how all right let's just like i'm going

back to the example of the burling wall right the people there were trapped inside they were forced

to stay there by the

Soviet Union the communist

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 lucrativerative and the only reason for the martial plan wasn't even because of the superiority of the capitalist system for two reasons one american industrialization started a lot sooner than russias 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 So if America takes its

surpluses and dumps them in

Europe, then West

Germany's going to be more

economically

advantageous.

Just because the U.S. 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 did.

Well, I can give you an example.

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

Great Britain knows this entire existence

to the Marshall Plan after the war.

What do you think Great Brin 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?

Still doesn't change the 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?

If you go and look, if you go and look and ask like Chinese 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.

So what is this?

Leon Trotsky.

Why was the Soviet Union

communist and not China?

Soviet Union had markets. Soviet Union had markets.

Soviet Union had money.

China's not communist anymore.

They moved away from communism.

Why? 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

communists as 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 was a bunch of reforms they did. We could talk about

the reforms. Yeah, exactly. The main thing,

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

Which only happened because they 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 autarchy

which is very hard but some only

communist states ever been able to do it

and simultaneously compete with societies

that are part of globally integrated supply chains

that are inter-crague,

all the resources and wealth of the world.

You have any idea how crazy that is?

First of all, to maintain autarchy

itself fucking crazy, right?

Like, super hard to do. But 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 wealth and markets. No.

No.

Communism eventually is going

to take the whole

world.

Every corner,

even Sentinel Island.

Even North Central Island

will be communist.

Bro, you're going to have

to wipe out those islands. There's a living north central island. No, you're going to have to wipe out those islands

that'll live in North Central Island for that to happen.

We'll send one communist

there.

You'll be eaten. You know they're cannibalistic

on North Central Island, right?

They eat people.

We'll put

like someone who blends in

with them and pretends to be one of them

and uh...

Well, they would still eat

they eat each other too.

No, no. Well, he'll survive. This guy, trust me

I already, we'll do it. All right? The whole world

will be communist eventually

i mean i respect the um the dream it's not a dream it's it's it's not realistic right

it's actually super realistic so if you're gonna 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 Source. Yeah, sure.

Hold on.

I'll give it to you.

This is a second.

I want to know what the source is.

Because it sounds like bullshit

You got a great voice

I want to know the sources

Nah, nah, na, nah, that's the same

Because it's not in Marxism

Just the moment

I had to turn on my computer 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 sources. I asked if you wanted to source

directly. So wait a nowhere

in Marxism does it say

aspiring toward a society that is

entirely autarkic and in no way is integrated with the global productive forces and supply chains.

It's just nowhere.

Yeah. all right well goodbye

all right uh

everyone if okay now if All right.

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.

But everyone should, like, boost this TikTok stream and, like, just share it with everyone

you know, you know, just boost 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 tic talk but i'm talking about the excess persons here.

Soviet Union 2.0, what's going on?

What's going on, as?

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

What's got?

This what?

American bullshit movement. Okay. man what you got this what american bolshevik movement okay let's build it that's what we we

are already doing that are you working with the rca the c p u s a dsa the ds a p sl what are you

working with uh 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 got to think about it.

Okay, I just thought about it.

I want you to listen to this.

Hold on. it and I want you to listen to this. Oh, and I can't play this actually.

I actually can't play that.

Sorry.

I would get flagged.

All right.

Anyway, uh, yeah, look, the Bolsheviks were bolshevich they weren't

mensheviks they weren't uh

what's the ACP's roles

in the American Revolution

you guys are going to be the vanguard or what?

Yeah.

All right.

I'm down with it.

We are the Bolshevik.

Bolshevik what's what's the way we're going to 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 solid core principle then we just win the masses

and then we can ignore the ferries i was going to say i see the trots out there always fucking

doing the parades and shit they they actually don't even have more members than us they

they uh are very spectacle oriented even more than us. They have a lot of

flags and whatever, but they, they've been around for decades. They're not going to do anything.

So the RCA and all that shit is just, what is it? Someone tell me

which one,

is it the ISO,

which one?

There are 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, you know,

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, warehouses burning down all these fucking you know i mt

yeah people around i mean i seen the guys did the fucking jeffrey epstein thing

where you guys went to the desert and shot it i mean people were saying i was

performative but i get the message overall.

But we just need more. We're doing a lot, okay? We do. We go to... We need more that

energy. I agree.

But, uh, look, we will, 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 i'm can i tell you the truth can i tell you the truth

let's say i was in Nevada just recently, right?

And I, I was, I linked up with our ACP Nevada people.

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, like, yo, message them

and just see if we could like,

pull up and just talk friendly in a friendly way, you know, 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, now, you're a bunch of

bigots.

Right, right, excuse me. and then they go, now you're a bunch of bigots. Right.

Right.

It's used to me the ACP fucking tagline

with every single left of its 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's, it's, it's, it's it it comes down to doing what needs to be done.

Um, and people don't like that.

You're ruffle feathers.

Um, but.

And, and, and, and, you know, by the way, um, the problem is not the majority.

Okay.

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 victimized himself.

It's like the ADL on us.

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 for so people

just say okay screw ACP

then I see I see the

ACP guys going to warehouses

and taking notes from Lenin

trying to learn about what people said

you know the warehouse floor

and it's really about capturing that

working class.

Um,

vibe.

And like I said,

in the beginning of my goal here.

Let's drop it up with a 20.

Yo,

what's up,

man?

Um,

yeah.

I appreciate the message,

you know.

Uh,

but, yeah, we're getting to it.

Um.

Okay, who wants to?

R.C.

Australia's Danny. What's up, bro? uh... uh... r c australistani

what's up bro appreciate you What?

What?

Are you going to be an adult?

Are you going to be an adult? Thank you. So, I'm going to be able to be. And so

I'm going to sit there?

You're just going to sit there?

So if you don't have any points

you're just gonna

you don't have any points

you're just gonna

if I say the N-word will you do it too

if I see the N-word will you do it too

here let's see

TikTok will restrict the stream okay the N-word will you do it too? Hey, 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 got to move over.

Okay.

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

Is that cool?

On what?

Ink Wells.

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

I remember you.

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

Oh, so's. What's up, bro?

Let's keep, 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,

you know, 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 it 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 in any way.

Just run it through chat, GBT, a few more times.

No, it's not chat GPD.

That is the base

i am literally been a communist for 15 years you don't think i heard this before this is from your

own this is from your own program no okay where does our program say moneyless classless

state a cp dotus where you have more information you also have the declaration constitution and your own party ledger

okay where do we say the red? So, you say the declaration, right?

History has shown repeatedly that rebates the Communist Party lies not only in its ideas, doctors or its program, but the United Nations.

Where we say what you said, money, listen, listen you know 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 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 the the 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 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, 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, you put a gun to my head, I would say that's the

definition. You know.

Dark N.G.

What's up?

Let's crab it up, everybody.

Let's drop the 20s.

Yeah.

I want to play my music. I'm an artist.

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

Can I share with you my music?

There's some music I have that's allowed, actually.

Some of the music I have is allowed. This one is so good. I'm going to be. Oh! Oh! Oh!

The We've Ack

To care

To get a

From the

From the historical

Altura

Where the

Sol of your brabura

he

put a

death

and here

she

there's the

clear

the

intrania

transparency

of your

great

presence

the commandant I'm so tired Presence

Commandant

Che Guevara I'm so tired. I'm so tired. To get a time of the banner,

With the light of your

smile of your

sonrisa,

And here

it's the

clear the

intranial

transparency

of your

your

Presence

Commandant Chege-Gener All right, we have someone requesting.

Yo.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, I'm fucking ACP and 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 create such a nihilistic?

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

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

Second of all,

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, hit the books and win the debates.

That's all you got to 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.

That's my honest question, you know?

I have a lot of... Guys, 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...

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

I actually think it sounds so good.

I want to share it with you guys.

This song is so beautiful. Oh, heyuechal We're in chas

B'i'

And y'

Y'Blach

Pessna,

Oh,

Pessing A

Pessing

This

This This Pets

This

Aene Maud A smallahead But

Pessing uniluio

O'Donny

Zemly

Lovir my

friend

Sable in

Sederate

He P He,

He was,

Heirae

RONO RONA

Grinada

My

And

He

He said He said He said He said He said He, he's Aesnque,

This isnton

From I'm I'll I'llacques,

Harkov,

I've

Oh,

you've

started to

And I'm

I'm gonna

I'm

I'm going,

I'm

going to goivate Oh, oh, oh, I'm I've got I've I'm going I'm going I'm going I'm

Oh

Oh oh

Oh oh Oh So

To give all right right family all oh

oh oh

oh oh greenada

grandada

my

oh

he's

all

before we

tear up

it's just such a good song.

Does this part...

No, this has 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 jibbering 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.

Isn't it 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 30 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, challenged.

He thought, oh, I'm going to 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, 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 change 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 private parts?

Why is it always a furry?

That's what 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, it's like, it's the same guy, right?

I don't think it's rambly.

I think that's actually a different furry. oh is this an an

someone check their profile see if it's an ANCAP.

If this is Rambly or this is an ANCAP, who knows?

There's a Zulu.

We caught a Zulu fan.

Leaky Zulu.

Are you sad I destroyed your 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 pluck holes in my reasoning, my very comprehensive and

philosophically rigorous

understanding of the relationship

between free will and determinism from the

Marxist's perspective. Try to find

the inconsistency. Do what

Leaky Zulu could not

do. Rude 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

Leakey Zulu present us with the inconsistency. He never actually articulated what was inconsistent, right? So you should do

what Lee Kzulu 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. Because 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 dog-walked, Leaky Zulu on it.

Be a good individualist and throw Leakey

Zulu overboard, basically

admitting that I conquered, dominated, and

destroyed him, and pivot to something

else so that you

could do the honors

of winning a debate, right?

Is that what you want? Just admit don I'll, 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 you can, we can talk about ECP right now. All you have to do is address the question of Leakey Zulu and whether he not, 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 didn'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

it, 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 get, let's, 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 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 Epsteinian furry.

Texas, Tatar.

What a beautiful name, actually.

What a beautiful...

I'm loving these names, by the way.

I'm loving these usernames.

Texas Tatar, what's up?

You're some kind of sectarian leftist calling as 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 going to be fighting. We're going to 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

ha ha triggered um you know this is literally i'm 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 10 just to prove who won

when you think about it or a five or a 10 or something. It's like

I'm reacting to you providing

content and I

lose and you're somehow won

by benefiting me. Really?

Is that how it works?

Um... really is that how it works um you know what i'll tell you where you might be right leninist what's up i i i might be taking a dump per cent maybe i'm for when i'm taking a dump

sometimes it's a struggle.

Not going to lie.

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

Sometimes you do want to leave.

But I'm just kidding. I'm not there for a sometimes you do want to leave.

But I'm just kidding.

I'm not there for a long time.

Why?

Because I'm civilized.

Why?

Because I have bidetes, actually.

Because I'm civilized.

I'm not like you nasty people that are wiping for 20 years PJ, what's up?

You wanted to go there, you wanted to talk

about sitting for a long time.

Or B-Tal. Okay, guys, 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.

Chomsky.

I've always hated that guy.

What is this guy's view uh that Stalin was great and uh communism is completely integral to existing in a way

that is worthy of man.

Go ahead,

whatever your name is, alien.

X, yeah.

Okay?

It's mid-emex, but...

So, here's what I...

I've never even heard of the ACP

If that's a

Some serious reverb

You guys

I don't know

But

I've never heard of the ACP

Is that an actual

Political thing in the United States?

Yeah look it up on a Wikipedia.

We have a Wikipedia.

Okay, so anyway,

uh,

Rank 6,

Enjoyer.

Hey, I'm going to edit the A-out, so it just says CP because you like child porn, you faggot.

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger.

Yeah, we had an actual, it's an actual petter-rast, by the way.

Unironic, that was a peterast, by the way.

That was an unironic peterast.

But they're here, and this is how these are the rules. So yeah, we're going to get restricted.

The live is getting restricted. It is what it is. I could just like restart the live.

You know what? You don't want to do. I'm just going to restart the live to spite them.

And then how are you going to restrict it?

It turns out, oh, wow.

My access got suspended.

Live access removed. That's crazy.

That's crazy. My access was removed. That's crazy. That's crazy.

My access was removed.

So I think I got banned.

Submit an appeal.

Request another review.

I just have to request another review i just have to request another review uh live access restrict i can't restart the

live i can't they took away my access oh no it's going to be restored in two days it's it's going to be restored in two days.

It's okay.

It's restored in two days.

Your access will be restored on April 25th.

But that's so cringy how they did that.

Oh, my God god TikTok is just

so strict

what will

I ever

do with the

60 viewers

I had

on TikTok

what will I

ever do

with the

60 viewers

what will I

ever do without those 60 viewers on TikTok, like overwhelmingly who are not even community members?

Well, it's okay, guys. We'll get around it somehow. I submit in 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? 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 get a lot of sleep. Nenna, ninnan, nannan, nannan, na, na, na, na, na, na.

Na, da-da, na, na,na-na-na-n-h. make them put on their faces rule

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.

Yep.

See? See?

Anyway, no, no. We'll keep the stream

going a little bit. Benician

tricks. I'm not

lying, though.

Uh...

There we go, Harold! What's up with the five, bro? Appreciate you.

We are 20 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.

It's like if I was using it personally, like, you know, I guess I would be, but it's like i'm actually genuinely saving all this up

for critical stuff i'm just gonna like

you know what, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm the John Galt.

What I'm gonna do with all the subs is

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... uh

uh

yeah

we're almost at the goal of getting the yacht guys it's all about getting this yacht 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?

Enough to publish an infrared book, not the main book, a different book, merch, and then 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 want to get there it's going toward a mansion

and 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

Then

Nan,

Nen,

Nann,

you know what You know how you guys are getting scammed the Patreon?

I need to do the Patreon Q&A.

Fuck it.

I could do that right now.

Once if you want the Patreon Q&A 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 to have had so much time

to ask your questions okay

I don't think

it's too late

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

I have the ability to do that. Okay? late in the day

it's only 12 bro can you calm down

uh you know

i know you guys have to go to sleep and shit

once if you just want to go to sleep you don't want me to do this right now 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 ticot for 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, all right.

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.

Because you earned it.

That's nine... We only...

We're nine subs away.

All right.

I'm going to do the Patreon Q&A now.

All right.

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 year! One year!

And it's only 23 questions!

And half of the questions are by one guy!

All right, I'll do it anyway. Uh, yeah.

Give me a moment, guys.

I'm getting my high score and Angry Birds right now.

That's disgusting. Jupiter, Saturn, Babylonia, scythia turan great parthia gilgamesh cyrus anabel barca Masters of the age, Sahim Kiran.

The Ere is calling Sahim Kiran. Jupiter, Saturn, Babylonia, Scythia hello welcome to the infrared patreon q and a read Patreon Q&A. 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 we reconcile eternal moral principles like honor,

justice, loyalty, with dialectical

laws of impermanence of all things?

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 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 going to sound cringy, but it's like the reason

everything is impermanent is because

it's almost like the entire

universe in 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 You're abstracting it from the melody.

And in a way, the melody is always the same.

Is difference in development and so on and so on possible?

Yes, but it's all part of one melody.

Super Reddit, but it's something I believe.

You also asked, in his work, political platonism,

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 Bolsville Revolution

to the ancient and modern matriarchical

logos of Sibyl,

which he identifies with materialism, by the way,

that suppress the reading and rediscovery of the Apollyan principle.

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 tartarian?

Well, I would say no, because I reject the view that all materialism falls under the

logos of Sybil.

And I think that the logos of Sybil. And I think that the Logos of Sybil is a, 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

pre-exist or is precedent with respect. It's a kind of more precedent ground before the Greek Apollyan kind of principle of ideality, right?

Is the material contradiction between town and country just a different form of the

contradictions between coastal, philassic, land. Yeah, these are

all resonances of the same contradiction.

For sure.

Yes.

To put it very simply,

yes. Can you

elaborate on the Neocontian 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 as uh c many, many questions.

You've earned them, though, so I'll answer all of them.

And capitalism value, which used to be a means to an end, becomes the end for itself, and it's self-expansion.

That's not quite true, but all granted for your question.

Marx 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 majority 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 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...

I like to think of modernity as the same thing as the Kisalbos, an esoteric Sufi order that did finally become involved in the world and changed 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. like majority represents this like kind of almost eschatological

moment of confronting the fundamental underlying principles of our existence and we lose the ability to take them for granted, right?

It's even kind of described in the Communist Manifesto.

The dead weight of convention, all that disappears, you know, where 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 were in a social mode of production, why is modernity

seem to have accelerated

rather than decelerated?

I think I guess I already answer that question.

In the substack,hmins of democracy you explain how the material in marxist materialism is not another substance but better translate into essential as in an essence that is itself essential rather than formal. This is a very dialectical understanding of materials.

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 you know 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 dialectal materialism except?

That's the only point, when, you know, frankly,

I'd rather just refer it to 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?

On Crucef'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 tendency, so that, so just like when I gave the example earlier in

the stream, which you probably didn't watch, you know, animal existence is a tendency

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 a sense of like our cosmic causes, right?

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 J. 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 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?

First of all, and then second of all, Sakai falsifies history to a great extent.

And then third of all, he doesn't understand what a nation is.

Nations are not defined by not having differences internally.

Would you see, would you say Rousseau's general will as an early attempt to understand popular sovereignty?

Yeah, it is.

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?

Yes? Yes. sphere actually reveals something new about the nature yes is in for more than just cynical

enjoyment and yeah it does reveal something new

about the structure of truth that was hitherto unknown

yeah um That was hitherto unknown. Yeah.

Um.

For certain.

Uh, now how specifically that is is a whole can of worms.

And I'm not sure I'm capable of explicating right now explaining. um um

i think that for starters

the relative autonomy or the independence i should say of truth with respect to the various

kind of mediums taken on by it to express itself has been revealed first of all so in other other words, truth exists independent.

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? I appreciate you, man. How do you understand the meaning of proletariat

in the strict sense? I like the logo. sense.

I like the logo idea of the root word prolus, which is something defined by its ability to reproduce.

The Romans define the proletariat as those who had nothing but their children, you know?

So proless, right? It's kind of this prolific tendency.

So we have to still think about it from that root you know of the producing class that has nothing but what it produces you know so dong

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 you ever hear 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 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 a good way.

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 a multi-polarity.

But Bricks is not that, you know.

Do you think that the KBRF will seize power democratically,

or would Russia require another revolution?

I

don't

I really can't answer that question

regarding

I think the KPRF could, maybe.

I don't know, actually, I mean, I don't, 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

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 I think that 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 fundamentalist things between Prussian realist political philosophy

and the Machiavellian and Hobbesian

counterparts

Interesting.

I think that

Carl Schmidt tries to really situate Prussian political philosophy in continuity with Hobbes.

Now, whether Hobbs is the necessary conclusion of the Klausvizian tradition, I don't think so. I, the Klaus Wittzian tradition.

I don't think so.

I think the Klaus Witsian in a sense, you know, and Prussian realist political

philosophy is more about a real machine, a real political, a real quality, war, Prussia, you know, and the nature of war in relation to the political, you know.

It's not as metaphysically loaded

as Hobbs

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

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, you know, it acknowledges it more as something objective, rather than this kind of game theoretic thing with Hobbes.

Regarding Machiavelli,

I would have to defer to Al Thucer in his writing on Machiavelli,

which I'm not even that.

I don't remember a lot of it.

I'm not even that. I don't remember a lot of it. I'm not too intimately familiar with Machiavellian writings,

but Al Thucer regards them as like the origin of materialism in the modern sense itself.

Of course, there's profound contextual and historical differences that can be presupposed.

All right, well, that's it. That was only 19 minutes. You know, Can I not upload shit anymore?

Connect Vimeo?

What the fuck? Oh, drag it and drop it.

Okay, is that how we're fucking doing it it is 423 hello welcome to the infrared. All right.

Okay.

So theoretically, it should be fine if I put it here, right?

Oh, yeah, it is.

All right. Thank you. all right all right 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 tomorrow. Okay, bye-bye.