TOTAL DOMINATION | MAJOR UPDATES

o'u o'u o'u o'u o'u o'o o'o o'o o'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i' God Allah

Cosmosi Jinping

Allah Cosmos

He Jinping

Allah Cosmos

He Jinping

Allah Cosmos He Jinping The star is bright, Allah cross, Moshinian thing

The star is bright, horizon red, the blade is swift, and horses tread.

Allah most seeming pain, Allah was seen in big, Allah was meeting, God Godosmos Siening day Allah cosmos Siening

God

Cosmos

Sien Mending Godosmosmos meeting Allah Mosmosmos meeting

God God

God God God God God God God God United States Hallocusposes

jimbing

Allah cosmoses in three

Allah cosmoses in

Hey! Allah cosmos

city in three

Allah crossmos

city in three

Oh yeah

Allah cosmos

Nip Hey Allah Allah cosmos Zinc From Babylon to Lenin's fight From Babylon to Lenin's fight, the earth has turned and within my

allah cosmos we did it bring allah cosmos is in pain allah cosmos is in pain God God God God God God God God God God God

God God God God yeah God Yeah Yeah Yeah

Yeah Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

Yeah

God

Cosmos

in pain Allah God Osmosis in pain

Allah cosmos deeping

Allah cosmos season peing

Allah cosmos

Dijinpe Allah cosmos

Pid God

Aught Aqq P

Apho Sizin May God bless me Allah Allah Allah God bless

God God

God bless God God God God God God God

God God God God God God, God bless me.

You know, God bless me.

Oh, hallo

Godozyde. o'u o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o'allot God God God God God God God God God

God God God Himself thing thing thing

Allah God God Himself thing The star is bright The star is bright

Verizon Red

The blade is swift and horses tread oh la post for singing thing

allah boss for singing thing allah post for streaming thing allah boss for streaming thing allah Godosmos Sending thing PATH

Godos

Sending thing

God

God God

Cosmos meeting

God

God

Cosmos

meeting

Allah Cosmos

meeting

Allah Cosmos

M Ravda's way

for us to heed

Revolutionary dynasty

Allah

Allah God Godosmosis Gently God

God

Cosmosky in three

Allah Cosmoskid in

Hey Allah

God

Godoskidin

Hey

Allah

Allah

Allah Cosmosk

God God

God

God Cosm From Babylon to linen From Babylon to linen

Say a within

From Babylon

to linen spice

The earth has turned

And within my...

I know. I don't know what I'm going to be able to be a great.

We're going to be able to be a lot of be. I'm going to

I'm going to I'm going to and the other people and the other

I'm a lot of I'm I'm I'm

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I'm going to be.

I'm a

I'm a

I'm

I'm

I'm not a lot of I'm

a

I'm I'm going to be. I'm a Bhopal

I'm a

Bres I'm a lot of I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm not

I'm a

I'm and

I'm Oh fuck. Oh fuck.

It doesn't work.

Shit!

Wait, ones if it works.

Ones of the mics works.

Oh, it does work.

Perfect.

Yo.

Later. With the five. Yo Later

With the 5

Is up bro

Appreciate it

Yellowstone

With the 1,000 bits

What the fuck

Is up bro What up y'all? Yo thousand bits. What the fuck is up, bro?

What of y'all?

We are in for a fucking great stream.

Thank you for the 100 thingy mobs.

Buck is up, everybody.

It's your favorite grifter.

Coming back, grifting, just grifting it up.

Just grifting it up because I'm such a grifter.

Totally not a sorcerer. Totally not grifter. Totally not a sorcerer.

Totally not a magician.

Totally not a magi.

Totally not an ancient sage.

Totally not an ancient sage warrior, literally trying to revive Tartaria from the ruins of underneath the Yellowstone Mountains, the Rocky Mountains and the Yellowstone Caledra in the western part of the United States, currently known as the United States, where the hordes of Tartary will rise again. Totally not a mystical man. Totally just some scamming grifter who just

wants your money. And what am I going to do with this money, you ask?

Buy a lambo.

And I'll be buying my Lambo. I'll be driving my

Lambo around. Bill, what's

up?

And then I'm just thinking,

you know, all that stuff I, like,

dedicated my entire life to for, like,

12 years, and I just, like, it's the only thing I ever cared about.

That was all just to get this

cool car.

Room, room, ha, ha. to get this cool car room room and then this cool watch

I mean those things are totally meaningful

and really

really worth all that

honestly really truly worth it

you know

you're just driving around

and you know

you're stopping at the stop sign with like every fucking else everyone else you're just driving around and you know you're stopping at the stop sign

with like everyone fucking else

but uh it does

it sure feels good to be in this stupid

fucking thing

that

anyway guys

uh

today's stream is not for retards today's stream is going to be for the smart people

and i have i actually want not want i will i will be getting in-depth into some very heavy stuff.

It's going to be very jam-packed with content,

with big brain shit, things that are very important.

And, you know, if you're the type that has a low attention span and you're just a fucking idiot,

I'm talking to you right now.

You need to push yourself and stop being such a little bitch. Because I'm going to tell you the same thing I would tell someone at the gym.

Because the brain is a muscle, okay?

And you're going to be doing some lifting today under the guidance of Coach Haas.

You understand? If you're at Haas, you understand?

If you're at the gym, you're not even trying.

You're not even straining.

You're not even putting any effort whatsoever.

You're being called out.

You're fucking weakling.

You're not even trying.

You're not even breaking a sweat.

Okay?

If you're a low attention span idiot who doesn't understand the importance of thinking about shit, then you just have a brain that you haven't exercised.

You haven't worked on it.

It's a muscle like anything else.

Like anything else, it's a muscle.

That's all it is.

Oh, I don't have the IQ.

Orvo, imagine if they translated IQ to physical potential output at the gym.

What a fucking coward.

Imagine some skinny fuck who sits around eating Doritos all day.

It goes, I just don't have the genes to be strong.

And nobody said we're all have the same aptitude and all, we all have the same abilities.

But everyone knows the difference between a strong person and a weak person, because a strong person actually lifts and pushes themselves.

And they may not be stronger than Billy Bob, who was, I don't know, born with some hereditary

advantage that makes them some margin stronger.

But nobody actually pays attention to that shit.

The thing people pay attention to is, do you have soft hands hands or do you have hands that look like you put

some work in do you look like you actually try and you work hard and you struggle with this

shit that's all that fucking matters do you actually struggle with it and the brain is the same thing when

people say haz you're so smart you're so brilliant well the reason i come off that way to

you is because you're seeing a reflection of years and years of struggle and pain very very very intense

mental anguish and pain and you should subject yourself to similar level of strenuous exercise of the mind and don't worry about

comparing yourself to others or it's saying that you're not born to be a smart person

I'm so sick of retards who do this if a fucking nerd with glasses can go hit the gym and look jacked as fuck,

then a working man, who's the son of a working man, whose father was a working man,

whose father's father's father was a working man, whose father's father's father was a working man, he can be a great,

brilliant theorist who understands all of it. And I cannot tell you how often I encounter people

who are told by society, oh, you're just a grunt. You're an idiot. You don't have the potential in you. Midwest, what's up? They say, no, no, no, you can't do it. You're meant to just do physical labor. You're not meant to think.

You're not part of the priest class.

You're just some idiot.

And people fucking internalize that shit.

But if the fucking nerd can go to the gym and with his glasses look jacked as fuck, holy fuck Midwest with the 25 thank you bro i really appreciate it man

thank you if he can fucking do that then the one who works with their hands and who considers

themselves a simple man can understand all the things the intellectuals do too.

Just like how the nerd can understand how to lift, how to be strong, and how to work, so too is the reverse possible.

You just have to push yourself and put yourself through the pain.

The same way that you cringe when some limp-risted pussy who has pink hands barely is lazy and won't put in hard work physically,

I'm cringing at you when you're not putting in hard work to exercise your mind, to make your mind stronger,

to make your brain stronger.

You understand?

Carlos, what's up, man?

Appreciate the 2000.

I appreciate you, brother.

I mean, I think I'm looking at a census of our party.

We're a very blue-collar party.

It is the largest profession in our party is blue-collar workers.

DG., What's up?

And

the blue-collar worker who can master

the theory and who can understand Marxism

properly and can talk

down to these dipshit

academic Marxists

combined with all

the technical skills and know-how that

they have, they'll build

a fucking organization that is

insurmountable, that is unbeatable.

That's what we fucking need.

We need people who know reality, know how to fucking get shit done and understand things,

who simultaneously have the confidence to outclass, to surpass, and supersede an authority you know these dsa c p u s a fucking rahmans whatever you call them

anyway i wanted to say that because because I want you to apply your...

I want you to actually put...

I want you to apply yourself and follow through with what I'm going to try to say in the stream and don't and if if you actually

have a question I'm going to actually help you okay I'm going to actually answer your questions

if you're confused if you don't understand something just ask and I'll explain it okay I'm going to introduce to you some of the concepts I've been working on behind the scenes

that you're going to see in some of the writings I have in store that are coming up

I'm going to introduce new terms that I've come up with to describe them.

And all of this is in reaction specifically to a few things that I saw, which really bothered me.

And I want to show them to you.

Okay, so let me, uh, let me pull it up right here.

Let me pull it up right here.

Let me pull it up right here.

Let me pull it up right here.

I'm going to pull it up right here. Dictator, what's up, bro? Appreciate you, man. Thank you.

Okay, so there's this and there was a bunch of reactions to it and it's the reactions that triggered me

and bothered me a lot they were coming from these arrogant piece of shit infidels that's what i what I call them. They're infidels.

I hate them. I hate them because they're infidels.

This is why in Islam they called them infidels.

That's why they call them that, because these disgusting people.

Anyway, I'll show you the original post and I'll show you

what was correct about the original post and why it should be defended and affirmed over and against the

people that are trying to attack it. So, uh, you know, as many of you know, we're, we're Marxists over here, we're communists. I've been getting into a lot of this. And what does that actually fucking mean? And I'm going to make it simple for you, right? But first of all, there is an interesting tweet someone, it wasn't interesting. I've actually seen this tweet a million times in

different forms different variations it goes is there a secret science that bridges all science right

that's the tweet and then this person who doesn't like us, for whatever reason.

I think there's some PSL person.

Some PSL people just don't like us

because we're a bunch of woman-hating misogynists

because I'm a bearded, hairy, well, the hairy thing,

I don't know if that matters,

but I'm a Arab man taliban style with a beard

who very much uh doesn't wear a dress and speaks in a certain way and has a certain sense of humor and walks and conducts

themselves in a certain way and that means I am just the primordial enemy of these people I

don't know.

I'm their antichrist, basically, right?

And I could be as rational and reasonable

with these types as I

as one could be.

And it will not matter because someone

who sounds as I do, just the tone

of my voice, the vocal inflections, whatever you have it, somebody who looks as I do, someone who has my temperament and my disposition, a priori, they just reject the premise that this is what a communist can be like.

Even though I probably am, I've met old communists.

I've met many communists around the world.

And they all have my temperament and my disposition disposition and they're just like me in terms of like

you know the vibe i give you know or whatever and very few of them there's the only ones who

are the soft you know

male feminist type I don't know

the type that are like wearing glasses and scarves

and shit

those tend to be

the you know

Western Western ones

and I'll be nice to them for sure, but, you know, they're not, they don't represent what communists have always been, right?

Communists historically were just like me.

And this bothers these type of people for some, and I'm not the one who has a problem with someone who wears glasses

and has a scarf or crosses their legs at the cafe or whatever these

fucking people do. But they have a fucking problem with me. Because it's like,

they're like, this gorilla, this ape shouldn't be allowed

to be reping

communism. And then I'm like,

who the fuck are you

to gatekeep anything? You piss

ant. Who the fuck are you?

You're nothing.

The entire

era where your type,

your specimen,

has come to dominate our movement,

it's funny because it seems like

I'm ranting against this person

in their tweet, which I'm not.

I'm just kind of ranting about how

people who would otherwise agree with us have a fucking problem with us for such a stupid reason, right?

Thank you.

What's up?

But it's like the era where communists were successful was the era they were more like us and more like me, right?

And I don't know, there's, there's an ACP vibe.

Like Black Redguard posted something where he's like,

the real working class are playing basketball and they're in the ghetto.

They're not in vegan cafes and they're not sipping, I don't know, some kind of hipster stuff.

He was like, he was like kind of, you know, he does that thing.

He's attacking them

the white millennial

types

uh and then somebody

kind of responded

because someone posted

out of constantly like oh did someone from ACP

write this

so if we give off this vibe

that is just not even based on

it's not it's not right wing left wing it's not even that it's like because in that

piece it would the implication was that black people are the real workers right

but the fact that we're kind of demeaning this like sissy hipster, I don't

fucking know, I don't know what to call them. I don't have the words, I'm sorry. And I don't

have a problem with these people by nature. I'm so nice to them. If they're nice to me, I'm

nice to everybody. I'm very chill. I'm a very chill

guy. I don't judge people either. I'm not a judgmental

person. But

for some reason, they have an issue with me.

You understand? You see how it's like a one-sided

beef? Like, I saw this guy,

I read a comment on TikTok once,

which is like so true. He's like, there's like a guy who's like six, five. He's like, you know, my father always told me there's a war between short men and tall men, but the tall men don't know about it.

It's like, well, I mean, as a short guy, I guess I'm in the crossfire, but it's so true.

It's just like so true.

It's like a one-sided beef, right?

Because if you're tall, why would you give a fuck? Right? And then it's like the same thing with me, though. It's like with these people who like wear glasses, it's like there's this

one-sided problem they have with me, whereas I am extremely indifferent toward them.

I'm a big fan of... Well, I'm not a big fan, but, you know, I don't have any problem with women who are effeminate.

None at all, actually.

And... Not none at all, actually. And, you know, as for these males, to, you know, I don't want to, I don't want to, how should I say like impose I guess

I mean it's like to each their own

if they want to be like this

they can do so

if I have kids I'm not going to teach my kids

to talk that way and speak that way and and and I just kind of like have this kind of like accent where I'm talking about like I don't know it's just like it teach their own right as as Halali says life life goes on, right?

But I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's like a one-sided beef.

They just have this pathological issue with me that doesn't even make sense.

It doesn't even make sense to me, you know?

And I just wanted to say that before I agree or I don't want to even seem like I'm defending this person.

I don't know who they are.

I'm not really defending them as much as I'm attacking the retards who are crashing out over what she said.

So, it's like,

is there a secret science that bridges

all science, right?

And then she goes,

dialectical materialism is

confirmed by literally every scientific discovery as the only consistent method of understanding reality and can only be refuted by religion or superstition.

A scientist who is not a communist is a living contradiction so that's true that's very true i don't think

this person is smart enough to understand why that's true i think maybe they're coming at it for i don't

want to be presumptuous i wouldn't infer that they're coming at it. I don't want to be presumptuous.

I wouldn't infer that they're smart enough to understand why this would be true.

But I could say that this is true.

And I would even say that I don't know if it can be refuted by religion.

I think, you know, it's really heavy on the superstition, heavy on the metaphysics, heavy on the copium, heavy on the jibber-jabber, right?

And that's true.

I mean, dialectical materialism is the thing that bridges everything

because, hey, what's my favorite word

of the year? It's the only cosmic

perspective. Dialectical materialism

is really

a type of cosmos-oriented thinking.

Cosmos, I love that word so much. Cosmos. I love that word so much. Cosmos.

I love that word so much.

Cosmos.

I love the word cosmos because it's like cause and then most, right?

And it's like there's this resonance in that word that I love because that's what it is that's

what Cosmos is. Cosmos is this kind of order that's based on relationality. It's based on

an interrelation of opposites, right, or apparent opposites. So that's what dialectical

materialism is. It's a cosmos-oriented outlook. It's a cosmic type of thinking. And it is

absolutely the thing that bridges all science.

But then I saw a really filthy, hideous, disgusting comment, which was so disgusting,

I just, I do, you know, on these writing where you say, you want to throw me in a gulag?

And it's like, it depends on your class background, to be honest.

But I do think people like this should be thrown in a gulag.

Like, this person doesn't deserve to have rights.

This person doesn't deserve to be treated as human.

This person doesn't deserve to be walking amongst us as a human being.

This person doesn't deserve to have an opinion.

This person doesn't deserve to open their mouth in public this person

doesn't deserve this is a fucking infidel this is a kufr kufr Islamic is Islamically kufr these are

infidels these are disbelieving infidel scum. And I hate them. You are an infidel. You don't believe in Marxism. You think Marxism is a supplement and a justification for some Neil de Grassy Tyson Reddit ideology.

It's disgusting. It's hideous. This person asserts dialectical

materialism

as the thing

that integrates

all sciences into one

outlook. Absolutely true.

This person

is sowing out over that because it's unscientific and it's not neutral and it's

contaminating science with ideology.

And burn these infidels in a video game, right?

Because you're a fucking infidel.

You don't believe in communism. You don't believe infidel. You don't believe

in communism. You don't believe in Cosmos.

You don't believe in the cause.

You don't believe in the

revolutionary cause.

You believe in Neil deGrassey-Tyson.

The smart part of this has not begun by the way

right I'm just kind of

rhetorically explaining

my anger and frustration

but in any case i will okay for those of you who want a more what am i kidding i'm

anyway guys i'm not crazy for those of you i'm not gonna why am I talking so formally? Because I'm a professor, right?

Listen, for those of you that would like me to explain this better, what I mean by this infidel thing and this disbeliever, like, what's the kernel of truth in that?

Well, it's that these people don't recognize Marxism as a distinct outlook from whatever

acceptable, institutionally sanitized ideology, you know, they can get away with having

without the glasses wearers looking at them like

you can't do man it's like

there's this knee-jerk reaction of bourgeois

institutionalism

where if you go outside

the bounds of

conventionally accepted philosophy of

science, you're

considered a nut job.

And in terms of your

status, you are classified

in the same

a category as like an actual homeless schizophrenic.

And that's what Marxists should aspire to be.

What do I mean by that? Let me, let me qualify that. If you're a real Marxist, you don't mind being in the same boat as a homeless schizophrenic. Because you understand that epistemically, and in terms of humanity everyone is equal. There are no hierarchies of status

when it comes to legitimate versus illegitimate aspirations toward truth. All human beings are truth seekers.

They seek truth.

They are entitled to do so

by virtue of being human.

You can't gatekeep

scientific inquiry itself and box certain...

Oh, this is an unacceptable line of inquiry this is

an unacceptable philosophy of science no for all intensive purposes everything is equal and it's

and it should be on the same plane and the only thing that should make a difference are the results. So I don't mind being

equal in the eyes of these academic institutions to a homeless schizophrenic. I'm confident enough

that my path is going to be distinct from that of the homeless schizophrenic.

So I don't worry that I'm going to become the same thing as them in terms of raving on the sidewalk and yelling.

But I don't have the validation and legitimation that academic institutions confer

on these

limp-risted,

soyified,

low testosterone

little bitches like

this person

that they so

dearly depend upon

and rely upon

just to have

the fucking confidence

to open their

mouth about

anything, right?

If you're a Marxist, you

think that we're all on an equal

playing field in terms of our ability

to

ask questions and to

partake in scientific inquiry, right?

And I'm really disgusted by this knee-jerk reaction, these disgusting, filthy, left-com, infidel, heretic, Marxoids, whatever you fucking call these disgusting infidels, what else can you call them, have to...

You know how there's the strong anthropic principle? I would say there's a strong Marxism. They have a knee-jerk reaction to strong

Marxism, right? They believe in a kind of soft Marxoidism, where Marxism is basically just this thing

that is meant to confirm and submit to and align itself with prevailing institutional academic paradigms,

outlooks, and things that are just conventionally accepted by the hegemony within society, right?

Oh, no, no, no, no, Marx agreed with empiricism.

No, no, no, Marx was a positivist. No, no, Marx, he was an empiricist. He agreed with empiricism. No, no, no, no, Marx was a positivist.

No, no, no, Marx, he was an empiricist.

He agreed with empiricism, right?

No, no, no, no, no, trust me, trust me.

Marxism really, Marx affirmed the multiverse theory.

No, no, no, no, no.

Marx would never question a big pharma and Pfizer. He would, no, no, no, no. Marks would never question a big pharma in Pfizer.

He would, no, no, no, no, but trust me, Marxism is just like this way of we can just bow down

to the fucking, you know, institutional prevailing institutional soience without having any

kind of critical distance whatsoever, right?

Yeah, so that's this type of person.

And every people, they try to call me right wing or something, and they try to say this, they try to say that.

My problematic characteristics come from these types of people.

And I'm looking for a pattern.

You know, if the pattern was that, I don't even know if I should say this.

Should I say this?

Should I say this?

I don't want to say it.

I'm not going to say it. I'm not going to say it.

But it's like, that's the reason I'm a problematic person.

It's because I see

these are the enemies of communism

with a capital C. These are these

disgusting, filthy Sockdam

Marxoid people,

Frankfurt

schoolers or some shit.

And it's like,

I don't know why I feel

like I should be anti-Semitic

about it. Because

these people aren't

even Jews, but I've been so brain rotted by the internet

that it's like the alex jones need but you see like even the fact like even a an instinct like

that doesn't come from me being right wing.

It comes from me having an intense, like, animosity toward whatever the fuck this is, right?

Toward this like institutional whatever.

And it really isn't a Jewish thing.

It really isn't.

But for some reason, there's this, I don't know what it is.

There's this magical type of anti-Semitism that has become very compelling where it's like you'll see something that is 100% goy, but for some reason we're being, we're being like trained. This is really the Epsteinian technology. We're being trained to just see things as Jew-coded that have nothing to do with Jews, right?

So I don't know.

You know what i'll bite there's a grain of truth here i'll bite it's the it's the it's the uh zionist moishi postone

and the various frank School Zionists that basically created this.

And, yeah, I think that's fair to say.

They were Zionists, for sure.

But it was a staunch rejection of dialectical materialism staunch rejection of communism with a capital c staunch rejection of um hard

strong Marxism right

there's a strong Marxism there's a soft Marxism

the Zionists

accepted a soft Marxism

they absolutely rejected strong Marxism. So strong Marxism is Lysenko, strong Marxism, is dialectical materialism. Strong Marxism is the one that defends Marx's work on mathematics, which was 100% true and justified.

Marx's work on the derivative, to this day, is vindicated.

You want to know something disgusting about, you know, there were some posts that recently went viral,

where it was like, oh my God, Marx got derivatives totally wrong. He didn't know anything about mathematics.

Now, these soft Marxoids tried to like cushion it and be like, no, no, Marx didn't know about advances in mathematics.

But lo and behold, get this, in practically applied mathematics that applies to engineering,

that applies to anything that actually involves math, like in the real world, Marx was actually 100% right.

And he's only wrong from the perspective of pure mathematics, which doesn't exist in the fucking real world, and only exists in the

pederastic world of these petter-assed, pure mathematicians that are parasites, that do, that contribute and have done nothing to contribute to humanity.

Mathematics as applied to physics, engineering, modern physics, even quantum mechanics, what have you.

Marx was 100% right in his mathematical manuscripts.

He was like ahead of his time.

100% on the dot.

But when it comes to pure mathematics, pure theoretical mathematics,

oh, people laugh at him and say, Marx, you are wrong.

That's not math, that's not math. Hey, fuck you, math. Math is what the fucking Babylonians created,

not the pederastic Greeks who are raping young boys with their imaginary fart

math that doesn't exist in the fucking real

world. Our math came

from a concordance

with celestial patterns

that we observed and we started measuring.

That's math. Math is not this invisible celestial patterns that we observed and we started measuring. Okay.

That's math.

Math is not this invisible abstract thing that comes out of people's asshole. So these pederastic mathematicians and people who believe in mathematics, oh, that's not math.

They say they have this thing.

Well, true math is, hey, buddy, you know what real mathematics is?

It's up there.

You understand?

It's Tian.

That's what mathematics is.

It's up there.

Meaning, real math is a reflection of concrete realities and relations and processes

in the real world. There is no pure math. There's no such thing. there are smelly farts that you worship and you call this math

and it does nothing but stink up the room nothing else smelly fart your smelly fart world is not the real world, right? I hate this person. It's real hatred. It's real disgust. I hate them. I hate them with so much fury and so much rage. I hate this sentiment that is

behind this disgusting

disgusting filthy

attempt to bastardize

and subordinate Marx

to your pre-established bourgeois

world outlook. White List, what's up?

This fucker

disgust me

and everyone

who sympathize

every single

one of these

people who like

the tweet

can burn in

hell because

they're infidels

and they're

not allowed

in Tartaria.

They're going to the gulag.

We're sending them to labor camps in Alaska.

And they will be slaves under our system, just not privately owned slaves.

They will be slaves of the state, forced to just work on the land bridge to Siberia.

They will be captured

in nets like in Planet of the Apes.

We're going to be on horses. We're just going to capture

these people and send

them to gulags.

But we're going to bring back the ancient custom of state-owned slavery just for these fucking people.

And every single person who liked this tweet.

Now, I wanted to get this out of my system.

So let's read what they say.

This is literally idealism in exactly the sense,

look at this, exactly the sense

Marx condemns

in the German ideology.

By the way,

the German ideology

is the favorite,

favorite citation

for the fake pseudo-Marxists

who want to distance

themselves from the strong Marxism that comes with Stalinism and Marxism, Leninism.

And they believe that in the German ideology, Marx is this kind of, you know, it's this, the humanist turn that Althusser was disgusted by in the post-war period where they tried to say, oh, Marx had a human face. He was this kind of soft guy. He wasn't this angry, state, brutal, you know, Asiatic Mongol Khan. He was this guy who just loved everyone so much,

whatever,

these soft boys who,

uh,

who try to create this distinction between

the strong Marxism and the soft one.

They think German ideologies

of vindication of soft Marx,

which could not be further from the truth.

Instead of starting from the real human sensual experience

and the empirical world as Marx wants, you are starting with a derived

philosophical model of reality that everything must conform to.

So I will very calmly explain why this is wrong, instead of just complaining and being angry at this person, which I very much am, I will actually set about to explain what is so disgusting and wrong and just false about this every single sentence is absolutely false that they typed out here no this is not idealism the notion that

dialectical materialism is confirmed by scientific discoveries is not idealism.

And no, Marx did not believe in starting with pure human senses, because he never entertained the notion of pure human senses.

But the key thing that contradicts all of this is that real human sensual experience is not the same thing as the datum that Hume identified, which is pure sensory experience.

For Marx, empiricism excised the dimension of the human.

That's why he called it a collection of dead facts.

Marx refers to empiricism as a mere collection of dead facts.

Because Marx gives, he uses the word sensuousness a lot in the German ideology, but what people don't understand is this isn't simply the empirical world as described or as upheld by bourgeois scientific institutions.

That would be within the paradigm of empiricism and all of its offshoots.

In the case of empiricism, everything has to be derivative of neutral observations of sensuous phenomena, right? And, you know, that's the scientific method. You test it and you just

see and Marxism regards this as metaphysical. Why? Because it excises the observer from the observed. It takes

away from the, from science, the process of practical involvement and interrelation with the object of inquiry that the observer imposes. And it's a rejection of the kind of classical renaissance humanist notion of man as the measure of all things.

It tries to kind of bracket the human and regard sensuous empirical phenomena as this kind of radically autonomous substance that is totally indifferent to humanity and totally outside of it and by no means necessarily interrelated with the human, right? So the purport of dialectical materialism, it's not a philosophical model that everything has to conform to.

Dialectical materialism, beginning in the German ideology, by the way, is what I like to call a presumption of resonance so i don't want to have to i'm

going to have to get out microsoft paint and explain a lot of this shit but what i call it is the

presumption of resonance, right?

According to dialectical materialism,

in any given inquiry into the empirical,

sorry, the world,

and however we regard objects of human sensuous experience, these things must be presumed as interrelated with all other aspects of the human cosmos.

They cannot be bracketed and treated as this completely dead fact separated from the living process of practical intervention or participation in reality. So Marxism has a praxeological orientation. It's based in practice as the criterion of truth, but practice doesn't occur within vacuum-sealed confines separated from the world of man. The world of man includes culture, includes politics, includes art, includes religion, whatever you have you. And there is a presumption that there is a resonance and interrelation of all the phenomena relevant to man's practice and man

as a world and as a cosmos. So this is related to the strong anthropic principle on the other hand,

which I introduced to you before before which is that we have to

assume that the emergence of humanity is a necessary fact or or feature of the universe itself a necessary outcome of the very nature of the universe itself,

a necessary outcome of the very nature of the cosmos and the universe, right?

But this applies to how we treat the process of scientific discovery,

what it means to know something,

what it means to regard something as an object of knowledge or

a new discovery

or any kind of novel

understanding of the world

is that there's a presumption of resonance

and interrelation, right?

And that is the purport of dialectical materialism that is absolutely given.

And there is no tabula rasa that you begin from a blank slate.

Nope, there is a presumption of resonance.

Because if you read the young Marx, if you really read him,

he has a specific reproach

to the kind of

bourgeois Cartesian

notion of

Tabula Rasa

and

I think this was

in his

1844

philosophical manuscripts

where he's talking about refutations to atheism, which are, okay, well, who created you? And then, you know, they'll say, well, it's your parents. And then the kind of religious person will say, well, who created your parents?

And then the idea is that ultimately the creator has to be some kind of intelligent being, right?

God.

And Marx basically regards this as an absurdity.

Because for Marx, the notion that our existence depends upon some

kind of like external, that in order to confirm, to find confirmation of our existence,

we have to believe that it, it's the consequence of, you know, some other being, so to speak, this is a denial of your own existence in a way, right? And how that applies to the rejection of this kind of Cartesian Tabula Rasa idea is that human beings are always already embedded in a specific world and cosmos where there is a presumption of resonance, practically speaking, on a practical level.

This is the whole purpose of this line of argumentation.

Who beget you? Who beget your mother, your father, and so on and so on?

It's like you're always embedded within this inheritance

where there is always a kind of presumption of resonance.

And that is the foundation of language.

It's the foundation of the ability for communication to be meaningful. It's the foundation of history and historical change. It's the foundation of a unified division of labor, a unified complex division of labor, as in an ordered ordered well-ordered society with laws and and conventions and culture and morals and civilization and so on and so on without the presumption of resonance there's no human being to be human is to presume a resonance. And Marx's favorite motto, this was the young Marx, was in Latin, nothing human is alien to me. And that could sum up in one way, the presumption of resonance that I'm talking about.

For Marx, we can presume by virtue of the fact that we are human, that the cosmos resonates with our existence as human beings.

So I'm going to open up paint, and I'm going to give you some new

concepts and and stuff that I've been kind of working on in the background and um

try to explain this to you in the best way that i can all right so let's call it the principle of resonance or the presumption of resonance.

Let's call it the principle.

Call it the principle of resonance, right? You know, Okay. So for Marx,

Okay, then there's going to be another kind of concept bracketed under this, which is here. here let's call it i don't actually have a word for it but i don't know how to describe it in a really simple way.

It's called the resonating object i'll just call it that

now the term that i coined for this is the iskra, okay, the spark.

This is what I call it. I call it the escra, okay?

Now, what is the eskra in the principle or within the principle of resonance,

within this kind of cosmological orientation right the the the the um the eastcara is this kind of object, so it is kind of exterior to the individual, but which is an object replete with a proof of

resonance

right of

some kind

right

so

for young

marks

just put

him right

here

for young marks Just put him right here.

For Young Marks, the Iskra was what?

The Iskra was actually the total comprehensive and integral, rational system created by Hegel.

Now, a lot of people don't understand exactly why it is that Hegel gives rise to Marx or what specific

debt does Marx owe to

Hegel and why does Marx

so why does Hegel lead

to Marx, so to speak

right?

And the reason is because the Hegelian system...

Let me just... okay so this is very powerful okay you need to understand what what this means that i just

show you right here right and why why this is so fundamental to the

development of the young Marx

and why this is crucial background

context to understand

the young Marx, right?

The conclusion of

Hegel's philosophical system was, and this is what gave rise to the young Hegelians and the kind of more progressive interpretation of Hegel rather than the conservative one, was more or less that all that is real in the world, all determinations within the world

are rational. Now, there was a kind of proximity between this conclusion and the rationalism that is in the background of the age of

enlightenment and the French Revolution. So you could say it was a kind of hyper-rationalism

or turbo-rationalism of some kind, right? But it wasn't the

Cartesian rationalism, which simply insisted that all things could be reduced to some kind of

procedure of thought or, know that reason could be collapsed into logic and so on and so on

hagel develops a processual and dialectical notion of the rational that is based on

the interaction and interpenetration of opposites

and the resolution of that interaction,

the resolution of these interactions, determinations right and so for hagel

everything in the world the natural world the the world of the cosmos, the stars, the planets, physics itself, the world of, and then most

importantly, human history and the world of society, the world of man, everything in the world

is rational. It doesn't simply mean has a rational explanation. It means is meaningful.

Is there for a purpose greater than itself? And that is extremely powerful in revolutionary conclusion to walk away with in an era where you're meant to kind of hypocritically ignore the injustices of the world or the contradictions of the world.

The world is full of these contradictions which contradict the Christian morality,

okay? Seeing a bunch of prostitutes everywhere and homeless people on the street and hungry,

starving people, seeing brutality and domination and exploitation and oppression, people under the whip,

as Marx would call it,

or people being persecuted for taking

wood from common forest areas.

All of this contradicts

the moral sensibilities

of Christians, of

enlightened people, whatever have you, right? But there is this implicit hypocrisy that, you know, well, the world isn't fair or, well, the world just doesn't make sense. You're meant to submit and surrender and move on, right right that's kind of how people cope with the

world today in a lot of ways right but the hegelian system asserted actually all of this is

rational now you'd think this is far from a revolutionary conclusion because it more or less amounts, you know, if you think about it, to a kind of like apologia for the existing world.

Well, don't worry about the homeless and the brutality.

All of that is rational.

Don't worry. So yeah, you'd think that this meant that, you know, this is a profoundly reactionary or conservative notion as a kind of apologia for the status quo.

You know, don't worry about all the injustice in the world because it's ultimately there for a reason. There's a greater purpose justifying it. But the reason Engels said, all that is real is rational, yes, but not without further qualification, according to the Hegelian system, is basically that if the world is so out of joint with our inner most moral

sensibilities and striving as a dignified human being, then that contradiction awaits

further qualification because there's a presumption of resonance.

If everything is rational, then everything is rational, which means the horrific deprivation and indignity suffered by man within the world, which contradicts man

as the highest of creation as a dignified being, this contradiction might be rational, this relationship might even be rational, but the interaction

between the two awaits further qualification, or at least implies a further development of some kind.

And there's such something very profoundly revolutionary about this notion that all that is real and all the determinations within being and within existence are ultimately meaningful and form this kind of rational

totality because there is a messianic implication if you want to think about it with a degree of

simplicity that all of this means something and will amount to something.

All of this has a purpose and has a meaning.

Now, these are not people who are superstitious who are saying, oh, this is all part of

God's plan. Don't worry. You're going to go to heaven. No, these are people of the Enlightenment.

They're talking about the real world itself, the world we live in here, the world of living

human beings, right? And so you see how easy it is for Marx to become the young Marx that we know him as,

just from this, right? That if all that is real is rational, that implies something about the future.

And there is a kind of messianic hope in that so that's

how the young hegelians a lot of them interpreted the hegelian system that it awaits further

qualification and there is hope.

And Marx, when he was writing letters,

I don't know, I don't remember exactly to whom.

I think it might have been his wife or Engels.

But he was talking about, you know, he's really young.

He's like, upon adopting so comprehensively the Higelian outlook, he was like, I was on the street and I wanted to kiss everyone that I saw.

And I had such adoration.

And he was like a hippie or something. He loved everyone so much. And this kind of profound feeling of universal love and brotherhood and harmony with the

world that comes from the Hegelian system, okay?

And then, of course, we won't talk for now about how and why Marx broke with it,

but I want you to understand that for Marx, the way the knowledge of and mastery of the Hegelian philosophy affected him, was that it was taken as proof for, it was taken as proof as a resonating object, okay?

It became this kind of total object of his existence, which resonated very deeply with these feelings of universal love and brotherhood and so on and so on. So in this sense, it resonated with, I think, sentiments that all human beings probably have somewhere deep down, right? But in this way, it was drawn out for the young Marx

and for other young Higalians, perhaps.

So I'm not going to define East Square yet

because we're not ready for it, right?

But then the second part that I think is important, and there's like, this is like such a

simplification I'm doing ad hoc, right? I just kind of want to get, I want to get past this

part so I can talk about the thing that I think is new, right?

Is this idea that there's an absolute interrelation of the ideas, right, and reality.

And there's something proto-communist just about this notion and about this sentiment. Because what it means

is that we more or less, the striving at the level of the ideal for a kind of completion or identity, for fulfillment, for

rationality, and so on and so on, note that an idea for a complete human being, not somebody who's bracketing this into some kind of like vacuum-sealed system that is divorced from all their other sensibilities and sentiments and so on.

From a well-rounded human perspective,

ideas reflect our innermost

reality as human beings.

It's in the realm of ideas

that we channel

our hopes,

our dreams,

our sentiments,

our existence.

And so, I'm not using idea in a very narrow sense, right? I'm using it in a sense that implied a much more integrated mental division

of labor, if you will, right?

But the idea that there is an interrelation between the striving of the philosophy to kind of fulfill the problems at the level of contradictions within ideas and reality itself that there is this kind of automatic interrelation that there's a resonance between the ideal and the real, more importantly, this is a

proto-communist notion for no other reason that it basically implies that we all share this fundamental reality, this rational

world, right?

Not even materially, by the way, this still in the realm of idealism, but we share this kind of rational world.

All humanity does, more or less, which is commensurate and resonates with our individual humanity, right? Our innermost thoughts, more or less,

as human beings. So the dimension of the private, of our most, private is what? It's thought, right?

Thoughts, I could talk endlessly about how the institution of private property precisely emerges with idealism.

Because why? Because there's nothing more intimate and private than a thought, right?

And the kind of shared origins of the platonic idea and the institution of private property are very clear, right?

You're creating a boundary.

Thoughts are invisible. They're absolutely, you know, okay, what am I thinking right now?

You don't know. I don't know what you're thinking, right? So this is a very intimate, private

dimension of

human existence, is our thoughts.

Our thoughts, and by extension,

our dreams, our hopes,

and so on. This is what I mean, a very strong

notion of the idea that I'm working with here.

But the

idea that there is a

resonance between that

and reality, the

world that we share at the

exterior level,

history, the events we

experience, nature, and so on and so on. That's a kind of proto-communist

notion when you think about it. It basically means that the thing that we regard is so private

and individual. On some level, we share with everyone as part of one

reality, right? So, how do you get from Hegelianism to communism is not as much of a leap as you might think at first.

Hegel might have not been this revolutionary politically, and he might have not advocated.

But what is communism in the first place?

You need to understand this context and this background, at least as it concerns Marx and the young Marx, right?

Um...

So...

Okay, so Marx... Um... okay so marks um i would say marks regards the entirety of the Hegelian system, right, as this single resonating object, which I will call

ESCRA, the Spark. And why am I calling it the Spark? Because it doesn't become Eskra until it's separated,

until there's a separation from, let's call it the, let's shape it like the anglo box right let's just call it the ideal what

else can we call it right so this is so schizophrenic whatever now upon the conclusion of the hegelian system which is

hegel's philosophy of right at the end, or at the beginning of the book,

if you will. In any case, Hegel's, Hegel punctuates his totalizing integral rational system

in a way that politically

speaking

contradicted

the sensibilities

that it otherwise

inspired in the young

Marx and other young Hgelians actually, right?

Hegel drew very profoundly conservative political conclusions from a philosophical system that at the outset inspired revolutionary feelings and sentiments in the young Marx and in the young Higalians, right?

But the reason for that is that Hegel has to reckon with how he relates the conclusion of his system to its premises.

And it's this move of taking the conclusion, which is this kind of resonance of the ideal and the real and, you know, this total comprehensively rational system

of reality and of thought

he has to reckon with the

premises the conclusion necessarily

implies right

and for the right hegelian Right?

And for the right Hegelians, and maybe for Hegel himself, but that conflict, by the way, of what premises, so the conflict, let's put it, post-Hagallian conflict, what premises do the conclusion, Hegelian this is where everything goes wrong right and then from here you get the, you know, the young Hegelians and the Wright Hegelians, right? And of course, Hegel himself in the philosophy of Wright. Maybe you could say Hegel concluded as a Wright Higelian, right?

But the premises implied by the conclusion are what Marx would later develop as the alienated essence of man as an ideality, as an ideality.

And I don't want to go through the whole chronology of how Marx arrives at this through Feuerbach and his specific critique of Feuerbach's humanism and and so on. But more or less, the reason Marx has to turn Hegel on his head is because Marx refuses this conclusion, right?

He refuses... conclusion right he refuses the conclusion and thereby the premise really he thinks something must have

been wrong from the start

right

um as I can.

Marks,

Marks more or less concedes.

I don't think this is very explicit in Marx, but in my interpretation,

I think Marx conceded to the right Higalians this conflict right

that the premises

that the conclusion of the

hegelian system imply

um

and that conclusion being the definition of this resonating object, right, that is created by Hegel through this system, that's the conclusion, this kind of all-encompassing total phenomenology of mind um it's an extremely

comprehensive system that hegel creates and it's very much internally consistent, right?

So, so it would seem, right?

Of course, Marx points out the internal contradictions in his critique of the philosophy of right.

But in any case...

In any case... Um...

The premises more or less imply the...

The...

How should I mean?

Beginning with...

I want to be very careful with my words here.

That's why I'm kind of struggling to simplify this,

because the simplest way I would put it is what angles described as, you know,

the Hegelian system with the universal descends to the particular angles

begin with the particular

to um begin with the particular

then ascend to the universal

and then this is also

very much

shown what's the symbol for this

fucking arrow

where the fuck is this arrow thing

right here

sent to Universal

rising from the abstract to the concrete right so that would be one way to

describe the premise right but it's really the conclusion

okay do you want to know the actual

conclusion simplified

it's basically that this

because it was developed through

thought is just a thought or an ideal.

Because the system develops through...

Okay, so I've got precisely what I can say to simplify this.

Because the system through the thought ideal and their various interrelations, the resonating object secreted by it is necessarily itself simply a thought idea, etc.

So this is basically the conclusion, or this is the premise Hegel's conclusion

was taken as implied necessarily, right?

That because the system develops through thought and ideas and their various interrelations,

the logic of their interrelations, so on, the, that their resonating object

secreted by it. And what is this object that I described? It's this very vague kind of affect

within Marx and the young Hagellians of, I don't want to sound retarded, but it's like, you know, this kind of feeling of universal love and resonance and harmony and rationality and this kind of messianic hope that's implied by it and so on and so on.

And, you know, the Higelian system kind of concludes in a way where that kind of gets erased, right?

It kind of gets erased and you end up implying a premise

that contradicts the conclusion insofar as this conclusion is this kind of um ephemeral resonating object, what I call Eskra, right?

So the question is, how did Marx, how was Marx, first of all, and this is really the first premise of Marxism as a whole?

The most fundamental premise of Marx and Marxism and Marxism and Marxism and his humanism and the rest.

Well,

what Marx did

was somehow isolate this

from this.

He was somehow able to distill

the essence of a resonating object from the very system that I call secreted it.

Does that make sense to any of you?

Does it make sense to any of you at all what I'm trying to say here?

For Marks, put it this way.

Let's put it this way.

I'm going to make it, I'll try to make it more sense for you, right?

For Marx is reading and master way. I'm going to make it, I'll try to make it more sense for you, right?

Marx is reading and mastering Hegelian philosophy.

And while he's doing that, he hears a specific melody and a song in his head, right?

And it's a beautiful song.

It's an extremely beautiful melody and an extremely beautiful song.

Okay.

But then at the conclusion of Hegel's philosophy,

um, There is a wrong move that implies a premise, which fucking ruins the entire song.

It ruins the whole thing. And if you want to think, I want to, if I can keep, um, trying to

explain it in terms of music, have you ever heard a song and there is such a harmony and beauty

in it? And you're like, oh, I could see where this is going. I see where it's going. And then there's a bad note that fucks it up.

And you're like, this was nothing like what I thought it was, right?

Um...

And it's like, suddenly it wasn't the song you thought it was, but the whole thing got fucked up, and it led to something very ugly, right?

Well, Marx was somehow able to preserve this kind of integral totalizing rational kernel.

Fuck, I mean, he himself used the language, okay?

He talked about how there's a rational kernel within Hegel's philosophy.

I'm like trying to think of the fucking term to describe it.

And then I'm like, oh shit, Marx himself used the term, the rational kernel.

That's what it was, okay?

If you can also say that a resonating object is a rational kernel, right?

So... so um the question is how was marks able to preserve um this right how is he able to preserve this at the expense of accepting all of the premises and the terms of the very relations that secreted for him this resonating object or rational kernel, right?

So it's as if you hear this beautiful song,

then at the end there's this shitty, awful note, which changes your entire perception of the song in the

first place right so it's like how can you preserve the memory of that harmonious beautiful melody

in a way that comes at the

expense of the actual song

itself. Does that make sense

to you at all?

Because now when you re-listen to

the song after the bad note

you think of it differently

you can't just simply say okay I'll cut out that

part no after you've heard

that part it's ruined for you right

but somehow for Marx

he was able to preserve

this rational kernel.

Well, the reason I can, I can, it's not the goal of this specific lecture to kind of go through this completely.

But I could just say, you know, Marx Marx does suit he does it through Feuerbach

man as the concrete reality of of so he does it through

Foyerbach

you know

and Foyerbach's kind of critique of religion

and there's a line of development i'm not just saying marx just

listen to his heart and that's how he got communism no there was a concrete kind of development

of various different intellectual currents which Marx very faithfully synthesized

in a way that allowed him to preserve this rational kernel of Hegel's system.

And so what becomes of Hegel for Marx. Okay.

So

let's

just talk about this, okay?

After all is said and done

Marx's humanism

materialism etc.

which begins from

having having

presumed

taken as given

etc. Okay, so when all is said and done, and, you know, not to rehash the entire history of the young marks, which I could do elsewhere, but I won't do now.

How do we begin with Marxism as a science.

Now, I want you to keep in mind what this person is implying.

This person is implying...

Let me find this right here.

Yeah, this person is implying that you can begin from real sensual experience and empirical reality.

So, retard Marxoids and just begin from empirical reality, right?

And that's the problem.

You can't just begin from empirical reality because of this.

Because how Marx arrived at his materialism in the first place was presuming and taking as given a kind of presumption of resonance, right?

And this is the only thing that establishes the meaningfulness of Marx's materialism in the

first place. Because Marx's

materialism, right?

Marx's materialism

implies

a material resonance between the loftiest, highest achievements of philosophy okay that's the problem

that's the problem and the interrelation between these, right?

The interrelation between this and this

does not

fit within empiricism. This goes beyond what empiricism permits. You can't arrive at this

conclusion by putting on gloves and putting on a lab suit and trying to dissect the empirical world in a way that is separate from all the other aspects of our existence as human beings, right?

You can't simply take a magnifying glass and observe, I don't know, rocks or something, and then arrive at the conclusion that Marx does when it comes to this notion of a resonance between the macrocosm and the microcosm, right?

Between man, including the loftiest achievements of whatever, these things that belong to the superstructure,

and man has a real concrete existence, his mode of production, his material way of reproducing himself, his actual existence, his actual real essential material reality, right?

The notion that these things are interrelated in a way that is not necessarily direct, but which implies a resonance, right?

The notion that these are a reflection of that, that cannot be justified by the investigation of reality in a vacuum-sealed empiricist way,

by treating all the different determinations within the world as dead empirical objects.

You can't arrive at this conclusion only by presuming an interrelation, only by taking objects necessarily as a given, as suspended in interrelations of some kind,

right?

Is it possible maybe, right?

And you can see their resonance.

So I'm not even saying it's impossible for scientists

to discover what Marx took it for granted.

Of course they can.

Ray Pete did.

Plenty of other scientists. Many scientists become Marxist

because of this.

But

you can't

just begin by

through empiricism.

You cannot.

You can't begin from empiricism.

So the question is, what are the real premises of Marxism?

I mean, Louis Althusser was very interested in this question because he was interested in the question of, to what extent is ideology just unavoidable? Should we just concede that ideology is unavoidable? There's no way to be purely scientific. We're always contaminated by an ideology, right?

It's basically Althusser's whole stick.

And what I would say is that, first of all, let's take seriously more this notion of

ESCRA, because it can be expanded.

And it doesn't end with Marx.

This is kind of one of the reasons I really wanted to do this stream and explain this. instead of the young marks let's have Lenin.

Okay.

Now, this is the second example I'm going to give, right?

Which will be much easier than the other one, because it involves much less philosophy.

And this is actually going to...

I hope this will clarify the lecture to you guys.

It'll be far more simple now, right, going forward.

Including, you'll understand what I was trying to say with Marx as well now, right?

Who is Lenin?

Lenin is a pretty cool guy. Okay? Well, it's not the point. Lenin is someone who obviously comes from a background of people who are revolutionary. His brother was killed by the czar. his brother was involved in revolutionary activities.

There were certain things that predisposed Lenin to have

revolutionary sentiment, for sure.

But how can we explain

Lenin's

acceptance explain Lenin's acceptance of Marxism and his

attachment to Marxism.

Dark, what's up? Why did Lenin

become a Marxist specifically? What made

Lenin so attached to Marxism?

Now, a LARPA or a liar will simply say,

How did the begin?

They simply investigated Russia and concluded Marxism was correct.

So this would maybe be the official notion, the official explanation.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Rather, Lenin was inspired by the Second International and the very large

prosperous

up and coming

history

and contemporary

significance

of German social democracy and the social democratic movements that existed within

western europe the truth is lenin began as a kotzky fan. And this is a truth.

This is true.

This is absolutely true.

Lenin began as a fan of Kotzky.

So, and he was also kind of...

I won't say envy because it has negative connotations.

So in the beginning lenin actually um was sort of ambivalent toward russia very much admired

the west as more progressive and more enlightened because he was a fan of Karl Kotzky,

the Second International German Social Democracy,

and this phenomenon, okay, became Lenin's resonating object.

So he's witnessing this foreign exterior phenomena, and for him, it secretes a resonating object okay which i will call eastgram call Iskra. Again.

So what Hegel was for Marx,

the reality of social democracy was for Lenin.

In terms of secreting this comprehensive, phenomenological, resonating object.

And does anyone know what followed? Does

anyone know the story of what comes after?

Well,

something very curious, the same thing somehow

Lenin what does he do does anyone know what comes next

same thing marks did. He somehow, even though...

Despite the fact that... was secret

through the development

he was somehow still its essence in a way that freed itself from these origins, social democracy. Thank you. You know, Does this make sense to anyone at all?

Do you understand structurally how it's the same as Marx for Hegel. It's the same fucking thing. Like the same exact thing more or less, right? Structurally. It's the same exact thing. Now, the song, so in this case, what's the song?

I want to test you in case you're understanding.

What is the song in this case that ends with a bad note?

What's the song? Nobody's gonna... Nobody's gonna... Only one person?

All right.

All right.

Yeah, okay.

Good.

Yeah, the song is the story of social democracy.

Okay, it's like a hymn.

It's like a hymn of social democracy, right?

And... right and um it ends in a bad note but a bad note that should ruin everything

right something was wrong from the beginning

and yet

in the same way in the case of Hegel

something was wrong from the beginning for sure

but Lenin was somehow able to distill this resonating object or ISCRA, this spark,

from the conclusion, it's like this secreted this by accident and then was cut off from it right So if I asked you to fill out this structure of the principle of resonance and eSkra,

for the young Mao-Saitong, how would you fill it out?

Shouldn't it be obvious?

Okay.

Instead of second or national German social democracy, you're going to have the Soviet Union and Stalin and the USSR, right?

It's people's...

Guys, I'm trying to explain a kind of epistemology or ideology theory of Marxism of like, how does it actually, and what are its real origins?

Like, how does it actually emerge, right?

I'm trying to describe this common structure across the development of Marxism itself, where you don't begin with blank empirical senses or an idea. You don't begin either with an idea or blank empirical datum. You begin with a presumption of resonance, with a principle of resonance, of some kind. It can be Hegelian philosophy that gives form to this resonance,

or it could be the very phenomena of social democracy and the Second International,

which gives form to this resonance. But nonetheless, it's this fidelity to this fundamental,

rational integrity of being,

which I call Iskra, or a resonating object,

which is the true premise.

It's not a tabula rasa.

But then, okay, so as I began this specific thing with Lenin, like how, if you

went back in time, X. Nehilo,

and

you

tried to

repeat Lenin's steps,

walk in his steps, could you do so without the Second International and German Social Democracy?

This is the question that Lars Lee asks and Lenin rediscovered. He says no.

He says to retread Lenin's steps, we have to go through the principles of social democracy again. And that's actually the premise of the Mug club in the DSA and Donald Parkinson. It's what they believe.

And I think these people kind of miss the point.

You don't actually need to reinvent the wheel,

but you need to know what the wheel is, so to speak.

What is a wheel?

The closer you get to understanding what a wheel is,

the less time you have to spend reinventing it.

And

actually, some people argue the same

thing with Marx. They say, in order to

understand Marx, we have to relitigate Hagellian philosophy,

and we have to become Higalian philosophers. And that's actually a very prominent viewpoint in academic and philosophical circles, Marxist circles, right?

Amila, thank you so much for the 10, right?

No, no, it is sublation. Guys,, of course it's sublation that I'm talking about. But I'm talking about something more fundamental than mere sublation because I'm trying to kind of define this. I'm trying to kind of define this.

I'm trying to kind of I want to understand

the real subjective premises

of the revolutionary outlook.

And I think the real

premises of the revolutionary outlook, I have this kind of Gnostic idea that we all have a spark within us.

And when there's a resonance between this internal spark and some kind of object, resonating object, right, we establish a kind of cosmic alignment and that there is a path you can pursue to main fidelity to the alignment.

Amila, thank you so much for the 10.

And really, this is the truly scientific thing because... a presumption of resonance

any assumption about the terms of this relation,

about what they are,

or even the form of this relation itself.

The only presumption is that it is aligned with inner sense of the rational.

This is truly scientific because it destroys any attachment have to specific claims about the empirical world If we can be at peace knowing there is a so do i have to read this to you guys

does this make any sense to you?

This is real science, right?

This kind of presumption of resonance.

Because when you have this kind of cosmic understanding of there's a presumption of a cosmic alignment between the macrocosm and the microcosm, you now can be open to any conclusion because you still understand there's a rational integrity that does not need to be specifically confirmed or verified by any specific proposition.

And that's very important. It doesn't mean it's given in the sense that it's like this metaphysical dogma.

It's almost kind of like understanding of practice, right?

What he meant by the theoretical anti-humanism, a lot of people misunderstand it is that when you deny a specific um Oh. the understanding that our a priori embeddedness in practice, etc., frees us from having to answer some uh i don't fully agree with Al Thucer.

You guys know that, or you should know that about me by now.

But the presumption of resonance is the is it's like similar to what marks talked about in that thing with the atheism i talked about earlier it's like well do you need confirmation and verification that you exist do you exist do you deny your own existence do you

deny the fact that you're already embedded within a cosmos that you already exist that you already

live a certain way

by virtue of

like

is it simply an accident

that you're alive?

Is it random?

And I know

it sounds very like

mystical and vague

what I'm saying

but it's like

think about it

from a broader perspective. The fact that you're breathing and alive right now implies a lot of things. It applies a complex division of labor that you depend upon. It applies a specific type of society. It implies a specific type of law, specific conventions, specific norms that you can rely upon that your neighbor

is not going to come into your house tomorrow and kill you or whatever. It's like there's all

sorts of things that your existence itself implies about reality. And we can take it on a broader level, like at the level of the natural world,

with the strong anthropic principle, that, well, your existence also applies a specific nature

of the cosmos and the universe that gives rise to the existence of human beings and you, right?

So, no, Iskra is not God. Please don't say Iskra is God. Please don't say Iskra is God. Holy shit.

You're really missing the fucking point

if you're going to walk away with that conclusion.

Very, very false.

And so this kind of presumption

of resonance, if you want it to be in plain spoken language, you know, without the woo-woo bullshit, I guess, is really the, this kind of presumption that you, that our reality and our existence is by virtue of a specific

relationship between

labor

you know practice slash labor

and

this

East Grah

this kind of affect, this kind of, to whatever limited extent, it may come to us as an idea or something else, some kind of whatever.

But it's like inspiring vision, a dream, a hope,

whatever you will, a religion.

Whatever

compels us and motivates us to fucking get up

in the morning. Like, it could even be anything.

It could even be fear. Fear that you're, you know,

you're scared you're going to get shot or beheaded by some fucking futile landlord or some shit.

Whatever that so happens to be, it's the relationship between that and actual real practice that defines our existence and that there's a resonance between those two things and knowledge of that resonance is scientific.

And finally, you know,

um, we don't have to split hairs wondering if you know the conclusions of philosophy are aligned with our practical existence we don't have to be anxious about the question of whether our practical existence could ever possibly align with our ideals or our thoughts or our

philosophy. Some people call that a utopia, right? Well, no, there is automatically an alignment

and a resonance between the two. We just have to know what that is and be responsible for it,

because it's already there, right?

And that's basically the purport of Marxism.

In a way, when people say Marxism is this attempt

to make reality concordant with your ideals.

Why stop at ideals? Why not hopes and dreams and thoughts and feelings and all these other kinds of things, right?

But Marxism doesn't want to collapse the two into the same thing. Marxism

asserts that there's a resonance between, there's always already a resonance between these two

things. And that's the kind of cosmic principle that underlies Marx's materialism.

And that principle of resonance is very much beyond the scope and beyond the bounds of what institutional or bourgeois or empiricists or positivist science would

permit.

Amila, can I just be honest with you?

I am very bored from Heidegger.

I don't like Heidegger that much.

I think he's a stepping stone. I think he's an important stepping stone. But I also find him to be a profoundly boring thinker. And I don't feel like I want to do a stream about Heidegger because I just want people to understand

you know

what problem he was reacting to

but I don't

I can't really bring myself to be passionate about giving a lecture about Heidegger when I find him so boring.

I also, I don't think fucking Heidegger is the fucking key to everything, right?

I just don't.

I think there's something else that's the key to everything, and it's not him.

Yeah. He brought us back within Western Logos.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

I think actually Hegel did that.

I think what Heidegger did was raise a important question in an age where the development of the mental division of labor had basically

uh forced the question of being onto us where before it wasn't actually forced it wasn't actually

something we could imply or take for granted right haigle presupposes being i just I disagree, actually.

I disagree.

I think that's reading into it.

I think that's the Hagle that you have to, you know, there's the, what's these

fucking... what's these fucking

um

who's that like

analytic philosopher

hegelian

post-Hagallians

have to

have to do that

post-Hagelians have to do that.

Post Higelians have to do that, right?

Robert Brandom, is that his name?

The analytic philosopher, Higelian.

It's Brandom, right?

Post Higelians have to kind of answer that question of, by what did Hegel mean by what being was implied by Hegel? What did he mean by being? But Hegel proper for Hegel himself, I think actually harmoniously

is opening being

to Logos

he's not

he's not

foreclosing the question of being he's not um he's not deepening the forgetting so to

speak right i don't i actually don't think that's true for hagel at all i think for

post-hagallians's true for Hegel at all. I think for post-Hagalians, yes.

But for Hegel himself and for Pre-Hagel,

even for Descartes, Heidegger was wrong.

And Lacan is the one who proved that.

Heidegger was correct

against the philosophers of his age, but Heidegger was absolutely wrong about classical, a neo-classical, I should say, Western philosophy.

I think... But in any case um let me try to show okay so now out.

Okay, so now given this kind of vague introduction to this principle of resonance, I want to ask you guys what should be a obvious question with an obvious conclusion what is the escrow for us what is that for us many of you will overthink it you say china well close but there's more for sure

1770s

1770s Can you guys

one person kind of got it and you're all farting in a disgusting smelly way.

I just fucking can't stand it.

Just shut the fuck up.

It's just like awful.

He's awful, awful.

Yeah, yeah.

Jay Manu, you got it pretty it's the entire yeah denver hoja fucking congratulations the one guy who actually got it denver hoja is the guy yes it's the experience of 20th century communism. Okay.

That's what that is for us and this this is more comprehensive than social democracy because it's not just a

philosophy as in the case for hagel it's not just a philosophy as in the case for hagel it's not just a movement as in the

case of social democracy its entire civilizations it's cultures it's like it includes yes an outlook or a

philosophy if you will an ideology or a series of if you will, an ideology, or a series

of ideologies, it's like

an entire integral

totality of

existence, human

existence that is external to us,

right?

And

naive, realist, LARPA mistake, let's just begin from American conditions and derive ex-Nihilo, Kabula Rasa, American socialist movement, right?

So many of you make this suicidal mistake, which I find fundamentally arrogant, which is this idea that, you know, we can just ignore this right we can ignore this but you lose this too right you don't address what is the

east square though what is the resonating object because you

do that you end up no

different than the

empiricist right here right

you don't understand that there has

to be this kind of

you don't understand

that there has to be like this

radically

um

there has to be a confrontation

with our alienation with the resonating object or with Iskra, right?

And suppressing that B. Yeah, look, the problem with...

You know how many fucking people...

Like, literally... many fucking people like literally

turn their head inside out

and just like became fucking retard

autistic retard larpers

who defected from our movement

and who were like, you know what?

Forget all this like infrared.

Forget all this like commie stuff.

I'm just going to be an Americanist.

And they're like, I'm just going to be a patriot for America.

Our records, the anti-party records were on the same retarded bullshit, right?

The problem is that it's a fundamental dishonesty.

All you're doing is suppressing your origins and denying that you got to the conclusion of wanting to derive concretely,

the resonating...

Correlate or...

The concrete... Fuck! Why am I fucking... or the concrete

fuck why am I

fucking losing the words here right

the concrete

mirror or correlate

of East Correlate of East Grave the resonating

object you want you want

to know what it's like

what does that concretely look like in

America if we apply this inspiration

I'm getting from 20th century communism.

How would that

look like in America? Now on the one hand, it's correct

to understand that would be radically

distinct from these foreign experiences.

But when you suppress the inspiration itself and simply think that you can now just start

to Bula Rasa as an empiricist, then you're committing a fundamental mistake.

Because the whole point of a...

A resonating object is what signifies or

um What would be the word or, or communicates the resonance between an image, idea, idea, idea philosophy it could be a word

it could be a word right it could be

thought the two

it is a resonance and not identity

okay

so this is what east square is all and not identity.

So this is what East Square is, all right?

And we have to embrace the foreignness of communism because otherwise, well, we try to collapse the distinction. You don't get the resonating object. You don't get ISCRA. You lose the principle of resonance. Instead, what you get is something very hideous, right? Which is LARP.

You're directly trying to be the thing instead of discover how indirectly, through the sublation that we're talking about here, the thing in its essential reality right

um

concrete is concretely realized

in a way that comes at the expense

of the very form which secreted the resonating object.

So for Marx, this was the proletariat. The proletariat for Marx, if you read his introduction

to the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right, is the genius soil of the people, the ingenious soil of the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right is the genius soil of the people the ingenious soil of the people that renders the Hegelian philosophy superfluous so for Marx it was Hegelian philosophy that secretes the resonating object, but Marx discovered the concrete reality of the proletariat

to be the very thing that renders this superfluous, right?

He discovered in the proletariat

the kind of concrete reality

of this resonating object

that he was inspired

with from Hegelian philosophy, right?

I just feel like I'm speaking in vain.

Like, once, I mean, I feel like, be honest.

Like, does anyone fucking understand anything I'm talking about?

I don't fucking know. You know, how does the proletariat relate maybe just ask questions if you don't fucking get it you know how does the

proletariat relate to hegel because marks basically um from hegel derives a notion of the rational

integrity of being that resonates with an inner sense of human dignity

that seeks to find confirmation in the world.

So in the same way that you have a crush on a girl and you love her so much and you want her to love you back, you know, you want the resonance.

You have this feeling, this, you know, you're writing her poems.

Dear Agatha, you're my, whatever you're doing, right?

But you have this kind of feeling in your heart, right? That's within you, right? And the whole point is that you want to establish this kind of resonance by having Agatha or whoever return your field, and thereby you find confirmation of a resonance, right, that you seek. So that doesn't just apply to relationships and stuff. applies to everything literally everything the entire

universe right so um uh in the case of marks he was inspired from hegel's philosophy with this kind of understanding of the rational integrity of being, that everything is rational, everything is interrelated. And there is a harmonious relationship between

the philosophy

that, you know,

that, as Epicurious

said,

is developed on the basis of kind of

curing this suffering of the mind

there's a resonance between that

and reality itself

which includes history which includes nature

so business you at least understand this first part about why Hegel is important for Marx?

Okay, so the thing is, for Marx, the proletariat is the concrete determination of the very truth, the essential truth, that he grasped from Hegel's philosophy, which was a truth that could not be contained within the philosophy itself so marks kind of

is inspired by this um a certain kind of disposition if if you will, from Hegelian philosophy, and then the simple question is, well, what's the truth of it? What does this all actually mean? And then Marx goes, aha, the emergence of the proletariat in modern society, a class that is not a class, a class that has nothing to lose because it's already lost everything, a class that has been reduced to the most fundamental attribute of a human existence, which is labor, right? It owns nothing except its labor.

This class, this new class that's emerged for the first time ever in history, the proletariat,

this is what punctuates Hegelel's philosophical system this is reality itself um responding or maybe that's not a good word this is reality itself taking shape in such a way

that heralds uh a meeting point between the truth of philosophy and the reality of the masses.

Remember, the masses who are crushed under this seemingly like irrational existential position,

property lists, living in slums

having nothing to sell but their own labor

but it's precisely this like

apparent meaninglessness this monstrosity precisely this like apparent

meaninglessness, this monstrosity, this

abomination,

Marx says, no, this actually heralds

something very promising

about the future actually, right?

It heralds communism.

It heralds the emergence of, for the first

time a class within civil society

that truly represents the

universal interests of humanity

because it has nothing

and can only assert its interests by, you know, re-asserting the interests of all mankind.

But how it relates specifically to the Hegelian philosophy is that it's this notion of the rational integrity

of being, right? And interrelation. So I don't know if that, I don't know if I've explained it to you at all.

If that makes any sense whatsoever to you. Okay, John Adams, please just stop trying.

If you don't understand, just don't understand.

You get it a bit um no it's actually really hard to explain basically um so So Hegel's system, underlying Hegel's system is a logic. Okay, let me explain it this way.

This would be a way to simplify it.

But I'm struggling, I'm struggling to simplify things, so bear with me here.

Hegel system, it gives form to a logic, okay? it's underlying it as a specific logic, right?

Okay, for Marx, that same logic is proven as a logic

of society

by the emergence

of the proletariat

right

the existence

of the proletariat

implies

that Hegel's logic

isn't just something that is that is that is that is that is

replete throughout the development of his philosophy but is also given expression by

the development of modern society, right?

The notion of a class, which is not a class,

and the specific understanding Hegel gives,

actually, of the concrete universal, right? Or the universal through the particular.

Marx identifies the proletariat as this kind of universal subject, this universal form of humanity, which as a class within civil society, represents only the universal interests

of all the society, right? And so Marx identifies a kind of structural brilliance in the very material existence of the proletariat.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you at all.

But that would be how I simplify it. You know, although i'm really not satisfied with that explanation at all.

Like, I even think it's kind of not true.

That's a kind of classical Higalian Marxist reading of the proletariat

but

yeah you know the reason you zoned out is because your attention span

it has nothing to do with the content of what I said

um the content of what I said.

Um... You know, no carlos marks is a lot more than that um it's not that they're a concrete expression of Hegel's logic, it's that they're the concrete reality of what Hegel was trying to describe in the estranged philosophical form, right? Pha... The thing about Iskra is that it's a primordial kind of principle.

Okay, so when Iskra reached the minds of the Greeks, they turned it into an ideal.

The reason they did that is because they heard a song, they thought the song was so beautiful,

and they tried to capture the essence of the song

by reducing it to something, right?

And that was their mistake.

Because what the song should have done is inspire them with a greater sense of appreciation for the harmony of the cosmos

and if that that's what it did it would have inspired them to discover this kind of chiral opposite of the form of the song itself,

which is what content, right?

And they would have discovered a kind of way in which that very song itself is itself resonant with reality in ways that are not reducible to the song itself or the form of the song, right?

So... um

the the

Marxist

Marxism

as dialectical

materialism

although

and maybe this is really just Marx's beginning, rising from the abstract to the concrete when you think about it, which is what Marks tried to do at least. But he never completed it. that's the other thing

should be in writing

alright yeah I guess I'll just fucking

bro can you just shut the fuck up

I know it should be in writing

it's just like what what do you

you know I'm but I'm here right now

I'm trying to fucking explain it to you people.

What do you fucking want for me? Um... Um...

Notice that whether it's Marx in relation to Hegelian philosophy or Lenin in relation to the history and reality of social democracy, although they began from this kind of intangible inspiration, by discovering concretely within reality

the essence of those things, they were able to sublate them.

And that is really the key to understanding Marxism as a science and dialectical materialism.

You don't begin with an empirical object.

That would be the same thing as the mistake within Marx's schema

of beginning with, you know, the concrete, which is impossible, right?

You have to begin with the Eskra, the spark spark that's all you can begin with and you discover how material reality is primary after the fact and this puzzle i don don't think Marxists understand with sufficient appreciation.

You can't begin with pure science.

I mean, Althusser was correct about this, to be honest.

I don't agree with Althusser, but he was definitely on the right track identifying these false presumptions about that Marxist had, which is, oh, you could

just have this pure science.

Pure knowledge, right?

And

pure knowledge of what is true

or what is false. And it's like,

well, well,

um, um, there's always this dimension of what Altusir,

altusir wrongly calls, I think, ideology,

but is definitely this kind of like intangible

object, for sure, intangible,

that I think is the premise of revolutionary consciousness and Marxism as a science itself. But science begins when you can distill the essence of the resonating principle within that object, that iscra, right, and free it from the form

which it takes for you. And that's the kind of that's what marxism begins doing as early as marx's

inversion of hegel right could the spark be something similar to feeling a sensory experience?

It has to take a form.

For sure, it has to take a form.

So I don't think it could just be a pure feeling or a sensory experience.

It has to be a kind of like comprehensive object i don't know if i would say like the kantian object uh total absolute object

of app perception or whatever free it from its material confines.

No!

Free it from its ideal form!

Or free it from convention or habit or formalism or whatever have you or dogmatism. But the opposite it's not that you're freeing it from its

material confines it's not like you're using it as a weight as as a measure of the materially real. It's like your compass. It's like the

thing you're using to discover the material, right? As a reference point, for which knowledge of

the material becomes itself possible. So no, you're not

freeing it from its material confines. Because the formal confines are not material. That's

precisely the point. That's precisely the entire mystery, right?

It's a process

of discovering what it

actually is materially.

But to discover what it is

materially

requires what it is materially, um,

requires a radical,

how,

how should I put it,

a radical,

um,

autonomy of,

of this kind of resonating object from its ideal or dogmatic or theoretical or institutional premises.

So, Marx maintained a rational kernel of Hegel while rejecting the idealist premises of Hegelian philosophy.

And Lenin retained the rational kernel of European social democracy while rejecting the institutionalistic, you know,

dogmatic, Eurocentric premises.

And the same is true for Mao with regard to the USSR and the common

turn. So that's really what I'm trying really desperately, and it's really hard for me to talk about

here. And I actually thought it would be a lot easier for some reason.

I really thought it would be a lot of, like I had it all mapped out in my head, like, so whatever well, like earlier today. And then as soon as I start up the stream I'm like actually

fuck

this is really hard

to explain

yeah

and now

we're doing that

ourselves

with

20th century communism and and and and that's what that's our task right

and this is how we remain in the lineage of the revolutionary dynasty, right?

Guys, I don't want us to fall into mysticism and obscurantism.

I want us to be clear or have a lucidity and clarity of what we're trying to talk about and say here, right?

You're just elaborating Marx's idea of the rational kernel.

I kind of am, but at the same time, I'm problematizing this.

Let me show you. I'm proclimizing this identity of Marxist science with empiricism.

Because Marxist science begins with this inheritance, this burden and this debt that world history imposes upon us.

This intuitive comprehension of reality as an integral, rational, totality.

And that is something that we've had since the beginning of time.

All societies have had this presumption of resonance.

Even if it took a superstitious and mystical form, it doesn't matter. These were just the language, this is just the language that was used to give expression to it

but underlying that was a rational kernel right and this kind of presumption that there's a rational

kernel uh to human society and existence and civilization and history cannot itself be justified by

bourgeois science or bourgeois empiricism. And that's really what I'm trying to say. All right, guys.

I'm not doing a stream like this again for a very long time can you dumb it down for me I've been doing it down for me please

I can't

I've been doing the entire time

I've been dumbing it down I've been, that's what I've been doing the entire time. I've been dumbing it down.

I've been fucking, I've been struggling in anguish trying to dumb it down, right?

Um, then don't dumb it down

um

um Um...

Um...

There's so much shit I wanted to talk about.

And, uh, I just got so tired.

Because of how fuckingra which is a new concept that i you'll see it feature in my writings that are coming up but um

bro John Adams is pissing me the fuck like I'm getting fucking triggered bro come back tomorrow, I don't want to fucking deal with this.

Fucking annoying fucking emoji.

Like, literally, I don't want to see I was trying to fucking say.

I really don't.

I don't even remember what I was just fucking saying.

Holy shit.

Let me try to remember.

Um... This,

Um,

Fuck.

Yeah, I know East Scrab, but what was I fucking saying?

Mortar, thank you, bro, appreciate it. You know, so um this idea of the iscrum that i tried to give two examples for, or three examples for, right, which I thought would clarify the structure I'm trying to kind of give expression to better, but apparently not.

Okay. to better, but apparently not. This is

where we would typically

put ideology or

idea, right? Or that's where

Al Thusser would put ideology.

But my objection to the premise that it's necessarily an idea is that ideas and

ideality imply self-relation.

So an idea is a self-relation of thought.

Ideas have identity with themselves.

They have self-same identity, right?

Whereas I think that Iskra is more this kind of inceptual principle whose relationality

to what it relates to is actually much more radically open and it's this kind of spark

um which appears to us or affects us from without um and what it actually corresponds to and

only after the fact we say it's an idea right it's a self-relating thought it's a self-relating say it's an idea, right? It's a self-relating thought. It's a self-relating idea.

It's an identity. So this is its definition. It's this specific definition. But when we do that, something gets lost. So, and this notion of the iskra um i think is helpful to understand how the concrete totality

of material

existence, whether

it's a mode of production or a historical

era or something else,

the way that we can relate to that

through consciousness

is that remember

that thing I said about how it's lighter than a feather?

That's what it is.

That affects us

as this kind of extremely

fragile

resonance, right? and a very simple very simple resonance and a very simple resonance and and how you interpret that post-talk is where everything becomes decisive in the sphere of consciousness

but if you allow the relation of how the concrete appears to us, how that appearance relates to reality itself, if you allow that to remain open you can

establish a praxis you can establish a relationship of the thought and I kind of

even hesitate calling it a thought I think it's a more fundamental

kind of

it's a more fundamental

kind of

um um it's a more fundamental

like being itself that just affects us

and it and it can appear to us as a thought

it can appear to us as an image

can appear to us as an inspiration

or a

um

it's i think the song

thing like you kind of understand what i'm talking about where it's like when you

consume art for example there's something more you experience than the form itself.

Hence why a bad note can ruin an entire...

You know, you experience something in that melody, which is more fundamental, right?

We don't even necessarily have i think

the proper vocabulary or word to describe something like this right um because our immediate our immediate

instinct is to call it an idea

but I think that's wrong

I think that's too presumptuous

right? If you call it an idea, then you're assuming it is a thought. It is a self-same thought, right? It's a thought with an identity, a thought with a definition on the terms of thought. But there are some affects we experience, which we cannot reduce to definitions of thought to thought, right?

These are things that can only be defined by more fundamental kinds of experience and activity than just thought, right?

Yeah, East Square is not the empirical, not the ideal, and it's not simply what kickstarts the scientific process, but it's what, it's the inceptual principle of revolutionary consciousness more generally. how do you get the masses to Iskra?

Well, it's very simple, actually.

You just have to establish the resonance.

The masses feel a certain way,

and to make rational sense of those feelings through engaging and communicating with them in a specific way,

that's what Marxism traditionally was supposed to do.

It was supposed to make rational sense of their disposition,

a more fundamental disposition that the masses had,

such that the masses could look at Marxism and say,

aha, now I understand my entire fucking life struggle,

and I understand why I feel the way I do about society and the state and reality.

And that's actually how Marxism functioned for a long time. When workers read Capital and they learned about Marxism function for a long time. When workers read Capital

and they learned about Marxism,

it actually did

spark something that were like,

I knew this all along, I just didn't have the language

for it. That's what resonance is.

Okay? I want you to understand

what I mean by resonance. That's what it is. But Marxism doesn't have that function in America anymore, right? And, you know, that's why Marxists will talk to workers and it doesn't resonate with them. You see how resonance is such a beautiful,

simple word that it's like so useful, right? It's like, does it resonate or does it not resonate, right?

But what is resonance? It's very important to think about.

And what I'm trying to say is that the resonance is more fundamental than the terms of the resonance.

And that's the truly scientific view.

So some people, and you have to have that view, because for some people,

Hitler's mind comp resonates with them, because maybe they read in mind comp, you know, I was in jail,

and then somebody who maybe went to prison was like, oh, you know what I'm I relate to Hitler so much that resonates with me

and they then project

wrongly a lot of their

experiences onto knots and that's how a lot

of people get roped into the

kind of Hitler

you know fan club whatever this new thing is, right?

And if, if you can just distill the resonance itself and bracket the terms, then you will free people from their attachment to Hitler and give them a more

confident, unconditional, sorry, give them a more unconditional confidence in the fact that their humanity and their existential position and, dare I say their feeling is rationally commensurable with the world they live in and

in a way that makes sense of their existence and makes it meaningful.

I hope there's some usefulness in this lecture for you guys.

I'll self-critique and say I should have prepared more lecture for you guys.

I'll self-critique and say I should have prepared more for it.

Because I just thought it would be so simple and be like so easy to explain. But... But take away something, you know.

Anyway, guys, I will see you, I hope tomorrow.

But I'll let you know.

Maybe Thursday.

I actually want to stream tomorrow, though.

Texas, what's up? If I caused you some mental pain and anguish, then it's good. That's all I can say. If you struggled, it's good.

Because at least you're, it's up, man, appreciate you. you but you guys want to notice

you guys want to notice something interesting about Marxism.

Marx began,

Marx's Iskra

was the Hegelian

philosophical system.

But the proof

of the brilliance

of Marxism

is that

it itself became part of the Iskra.

So you can say Hegel was an accident and then we had Marx.

But then Iskra for Lenin was social democracy, which is part of the history of Marxism.

And then Iskra for Mao was the USSR, which was a further development.

And then for us, Iskra is 20th century communism and maybe China and so on.

So there's this recursive process in which Marxism itself participates in becoming part of the world concretely and thereby part of the very principles that inspire us to adopt the revolutionary consciousness.

So it's almost the kind of dynastic lineage, but within the realm of consciousness itself, right?

But that's why lineage is so important.

You can't step out and say, I'm just a neutral person.

I'm going to go look, I'm going to pick up sand and rocks outside and put my lab coat on.

And that's what Marks meant just to be an imperiousist.

No, I mean, no, fundamentally no.

No, because what you're missing is Iskra.

And what Al Ducer would say is that, no, what you're missing is ideology.

I'm not going to say that.

I don't think it's ideology.

But it's definitely something.

Keep that in mind. It's definitely something. Keep that in mind.

It's definitely something.

Like, you know how Altusir says you cannot be outside ideology, right?

I'm saying the precondition for having any kind of

um

fuck there's so much more I wanted to say

actually so much more I wanted to say

because the whole point for me

that I couldn't fucking

remember to say, really,

why did Marx

regard the proletariat as brilliant

and as the concrete

of Hegel's philosophy, or whatever? Because

idealism

regarded as primary

the ideal, and the metabolism of the ideal, right? That was just the work

of the idea. So the worker in this scheme merely fulfills the vision of the architect, okay, and that the material world is just this kind of

gesticulating process by which the ideal is given form in becoming.

And Marx radically inverts this by stating that, no, the ideal is just a reflection of the material and in this way the the how do you put this?

If you want to understand in utilitarian sense,

you have the ends and the instrument, right?

The instrument, it's just merely the instrument to realize the ends.

Mark's kind of

is in proximity

to this like revolt

of the instrument

as the real

sight of dignity

and the ideal the real site of dignity.

And the ideal is the mere reflection.

And so the question is, what gives integrity and unity and, let's say, universality to the material or to the proletariat, the working class,

because workers are just a bunch of individuals and so on and so on, tangible empirical beings.

And there's many ways Marxists have tried to cope

answering this.

And certainly

Marx himself

was trying to resolve this

question in his attempt to rise from the abstract to the concrete

in the writing of capital.

Marx believed that if he finished capital,

it's basically like discovering the philosopher's stone.

He thought that would be how he proves that it's in the material reality itself that the rational integrity that idealism regards are given primacy only by ideas would be proven.

And he didn't finish capital.

So we're left with a much more interesting reflection and understanding about

what was Marx actually trying to say? And my kind of take is that Marx implied a dark Plato, a material Plato, a Scythian Plato, right?

Zoraster, right?

There's an underlying principle that idealism misses.

So this is what puts everything in proximity with Heidegger, with the notion of the forgetting of being through the

inception of Logos to give a bone to Emila, I guess.

But that's why I engage with Heidegger and Dugan and so on.

It's because Marx couldn't, didn't, and couldn't finish capital.

And the thing Marx really discovered was that idealism was wrong, not because it asserted the integrity and unity of reality,

which Marx agreed with, by the way, he regarded reality as concrete, and idealism as an abstract kind of thinking but the way in which the concrete totality of being and existence affects us and how it relates to us via consciousness and thereby conscious activity, right?

And this is relevant for revolutionary praxis.

So not an idea.

Not an idea.

And not ideals. what and this is where you kind of get the interesting question of

you know in search of a dark plato um iskra this is what i call it you know kind of materialist notion of the idea

the thing that gets things going notion of the idea.

The thing that gets things going.

So that's also Lacan's. I would call it Jacques Lacan's Object A.

But that would confine me to a specific kind of clinical,

um, therapeutic paradigm, which I reject.

Catalyst, yeah? For sure, a catalyst.

Between Hume's datum

and Plato's idea

there's something else

this is what I'm trying to say

anyway guys I hope it's some food for thought.

I really got to end the stream, though.

Bye-bye.