Something is happening.

Salazar.

Salazar.

Salad Sar.

Salad Sar. prepare for launch

the stars are

glasses down

anchor up

glasses down anchor Glasses down, anchor up.

Glasses down, anchor up.

Settlesar.

Settlesar.

Glass, the planets Of glasses wears

Settled Star

Intergalactic years

Zero, Zero, Hero, Hero, Hero, Hero, Hero, Hero, Zero, Zero, zero, zero, hero,

hero,

zero,

zero,

zero,

zero, Salazar. Salutes

Star

Prepare for lunch.

The stars are calling

Glasses down anchor up Glasses down and curl

Salazar

Salazar Celadzar Celadzar

Glass The Planet

of

Glass is

weird

Selotsar

Intergalactic years

zero

zero

zero

zero

zero

cello star

cello star cello star Cello Star Prepare for launch

The stars

Are calling Glasses down

Anchor Glasses down, anchor up.

Glasses down, anchor up.

Salazar.

Cells are.

Glass, planets.

Glassless wears. Glass planets Of glass

Slalof

Sar

Salazar

To collect

He's zero

zero

zero

zero zero

Zero

Sealth Summer Sall Sall Sal of Star Sal of Star

Prepare for launch.

The stars are calling.

Glasses down, anchor up.

Glasses down, pinker up.

Settled SARS.

Glass, the planets of glasses wears.

Saddle the star. glasses wears Salazar Solitaire intergalactic

Here's zero

Bealueuio

Beal

Yeah

Prepare for launch

Stars are calling

Glasses down and grow

Glasses down and girl

Salon stars Glasses down and girl Salazar

Slalzah

Glass planets

Of glasses

Where is

Selvats are Intergalactic Y Cellulzar

Intergalactic year

Zero

Zero

Cellopsa

Prepare for launch

The stars are calling

glasses down

anchor up

glasses down anchor up

cellars

glass the planets

of glasses

of glasses wears cellars salazar salazar The planets Of glasses Wearers

Cellus are

Centrogalactic year

Zero

Zero

Set up song

Prepare for launch the stars are calling glasses down anchor glasses down anchor up cellar

glass the planets of classes worlds

Salazar

celadzar

into galactic ears

Hero

Hero

Hero

Hero hero Hero

Zero

Zero

Prepare for launch

The stars

You're calling

Glasses down

Anchor

Glasses down

anchor

Cellot Cells

Cells Claments

But glasses

But glasses Where's

Salazar

Settles are

Into galactic

Here's zero

Settlesar

Prepare for launch

The stars are calling

Glasses down thinker

Of glasses down

Anchor of Salazar

Glass is the plants

Of glasses

of glasses wearers

Salazar

Salazar, Salazar intergalactic

years

zero

Salonzo

prepare for launch

the stars

are calling

glasses

glasses down

and girl

glasses down

anger cellars cellars down anchor cellars cell glass Glasses down and girl Glasses down and girl

Cellars

Glass planets

of glasses

Where is

Cellars

Central Star

Intergalactic

Year Zero

Prepare for launch

The stars are calling

Glasses down, anchor up, glasses down, anchor up

Cellars

Glass The planets

Of glasses

Where's

Cellars

Cellar

Centrolete

To collect

Here's zero

So

Compare for launch

The stars

Are calling

Glasses

Down,

Anchor

glasses down

Inker

Glasses down

Ingram

The Sun

Class the planets

of glasses

Where

Celad Sar

Cellars

Into

Elect

Zero

Zero

Cellots Selaus So Cellotaur. Select the Cells are Cells are

Prepare for launch the stars of calling

Grass

I'm pinker of glass

Salazar

Cells

glass

The planets

of glasses of glasses Weirs Glass The planets Of glasses

Wearers

Cellar

Centacalactic year

Zero

Zero

Cells stars Prepare from watch the stars

Calls glasses

Downing girls And girls And girls Prepare for the stars. Call glasses down.

Pinker of glasses down.

Pinker.

Cellar.

Cellar.

Celal star.

Clause.

The planets.

Of glasses, blue.

Salazar.

Cellar.

Cellal star.

Intercollectic

Easeo

Soil

Prepavelace

The stars are crawling

Grasses down

Inker

Glasses down and grow

Soll

Glass The planet Of glasses and girls and girls cells glass planet

of glasses

of glasses whereas Joseph and Nassana

Come to the light

Come to the eyes.

Oh,

Sims

and Rosanna

ain't that right, Rosanna.

Oh, my God, Oh, my God

Oh my God

Ain't that rise

Rosanna

Oh

Sins

Come to the lights

Come to the lights Come to the lights

Joe Sims and Rossana

Come to the light

Come to the light

Joe's sins and Rossana

Ain't that right

Rosetta

Oh my God

Oh my God

Oh my God

Ain't that right Rosetta

Joseph

Joseph's come to the light

Oh

come to the light

Oh

Come to the light

Joseph

And Rassana

Come to the

light

Come to the light

Joseph and Rassana Come to the light Home to the light Josin

Sarana

Ain't that right

Rosanna

Oh my God

Oh my God

Oh my God

Ain't that right

Rosetta Josim Joseph Oh my God Ain't that right Rosanna

Jocin's

Your sins

Come to the light

Come to the light

Ah

Come to the light

Your sins

And Rosanna

Come to the light Come to the light

Come to the light

Your Sims and Rosanah

Ain't that right

That right pro set up

Oh my God

Oh my God

Oh my God Oh my God Oh my God

Oh my boy

Ain't that right

Rosanna

Joe

Sins

Come to the light

Oh

Come to the light

Joe Sins and Rastana Come to the light Joe sins and Rossana

Come to the light

Come to the light

Oh shit and Rosson Jones and Rosanna

Ain't that right

Rosanna

Oh my God

Oh my God

Oh my God

Ain't that right.

Rosetta.

Chosen

Come to the light.

Come to the light.

Oh, come to the light.

Joe's

Shins and cross on us.

Come to the light. Come to the light. Oh, sins and cross under.

Come to the light.

Come to the light. Oh, sins and cross on us.

That right, right, Rotterna.

Oh, my God.

Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. my God Oh my Lord

Oh my Lord

Ain't that right

Rosetta

Oh

Joseph Come to the life

Come to the light

Come to the light

Come to the light

Go Chose Choltsin and Ross Come to the light Go on

Roast your tins

and rosanna

Come to the light

Come to the light

Chosins

and Rosanna

Ain't that right

That bright

Roseetta Oh my God Oh my God Ain't that right That right Rosetta

Oh my God

Oh my God

Oh my God

Ain't that right

Rosetta

John

Oh sins

Come to the life

Come to the life Come to the light Come to the light Come to the light Come to the light

Come to the light

Your sins and Rostana

Come to the light

Your sins and Rastana

Ain't that right, Rosanna.

Oh, my God.

Oh, my God.

Ain't that right.

Oh, my God.

Ain't that right Rosanna

Your sins come to the light

Come to the light

Come to the line the life Boeroo Boerrilas and sun

sing for a vision

the golden standing

his path

gorillas and sun

sing for a vision

the golden

standing in his path

gorillas and sons

Infer revision

The gorillas and sons Imprevision

The golden star in his path

Ha!

The golden star in this path

Gorillas and sons

infrared vision

The golden

Stalin's bar

Gorillas and sons

Inferred vision

The golden Golden Star Sunn's Inferring vision The Gordon

Star in the spa suns infrared vision

the golden

star in the

world

and suns

infrared vision Correlazance and suns In for a vision

You're golden star in this sky

Corrilla

suns

Inferred vision

The golden star in the sky in this man I'm Realize that the suns

You're for a vision

The road of the star in this life

The golden star in his path

Corrillas and stars

In for a vision

Infor a vision, Infraudition

Unitsap

Who will have some

Something

Infor vision

Infor vision

Gollinsins

Staling in his path

Coelida

Sons

Infer vision.

Infrared vision.

Go on Stalin

his mind.

Coralant star in this back.

Corolla and sons.

Infer vision.

Infraudition

Conflatism

Goll and Stalingispa

Oh. vision constant vista Oh Oh

Oh

Oh Oh Oh gorillas and suns infrared vision

golden starting his path

gorillas and sons in for a vision in for a vision

going star in his path gorillas and sons in for a vision infrared vision

going start in this path gorillas and sons in for a vision Who is standing in this heart

Who will have sex

Big for a vision

Infer region

I'm living in this place

Oh In fact In for a vision,

In for a vision.

In for a vision.

Running Stalin is. I'm going to be one of the world. and you want to know

I'm going to be

I'm not

I'm not

I'm and

I'm and the uh... and

the

I'm not and the I'm not a lot. and the and

I'm

and

I'm and you know and

you know

and

I'm not going to be.

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

I'm

I'm

and and I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm Yo,

Yo, yo, Yo,

Midnight Warrior with the one sub.

What the fuck is up?

That one sub

is noted,

taken, accepted. is noted taken accepted tribute accepted tribute accepted you are recognized welcome everyone Welcome everyone Welcome everyone to this twisted cult

Welcome to this prison, this mental escape plan, this labyrinth of insanity.

Welcome cult members as we huddle around the fire at this late time at night to bask in our insanity, our fringeness.

Ha ha! My eyes... sanity are friendsness my eyes we have a lot to talk about today but you know it's all also just about that time confront the chairman except for the first time

in months

we're going to be going

to X.com platform

to do

confront the chairman

on X, not on Tick Tac, because I'm sick of Tic Tac.

But we need an all-out mobilization.

Before I launch this X-space, I need to know something from you.

I need your guarantee. I need your word and I need your bond.

You have to boost the fuck out of this space. When I say boost the shit out of this space, I mean post it to 20,000 different places and just boost this shit out of the space.

So it is so vast and far reaching that it is unignorable that is the level of boosting that we need to make this a successful confront the chairman okay and this will be, and we're going to start boosting it now.

And we're going to let the space simmer as I immediately launch.

Prepare for launch because it's happening now. Okay. And the space will be called. You know, We're calling the space something outrageous, but it will, indeed.

Indeed, we're launching. But it will. Indeed. Indeed.

We're launching.

T minus zero seconds to launch.

Okay.

You guys have to boost this so far and wide that it's like you need to retweet this

at least 200 times.

This needs like 200 retweets alone.

The impressions, you have,

just about impressions.

You need the impressions to be up so much

that so much,

this reaches the algorithm

algorithmically.

Get on stream and boost this on X.

You don't need to join the space.

I don't even want you guys to join the space.

I want you guys to stay on kick and we will

we will do this for the first time in a long

time okay

so this is we're back

talking to the public on X all of the bots on X all of the

people from Nikita Beers X platform. So we're going to have

that open. We're going to allow people to be given the time and we're going to talk about the

things that need to be talked about. Okay. First of all, every single person that has a problem with me, okay, I need you to understand something very carefully.

Every single person who has an issue with me is mentally retarded, jealous, sad, depressed, suicidal.

You cannot defeat a force of nature. You cannot defeat something whose victory is premised under the condition that the cosmos is what it is.

You can't defeat that.

You can't defeat reality. You can't defeat reality.

You can't fight reality.

Every single enemy I have is mentally retarded, and there's no way for them to confront

me in any way, in any forum, in any arena without being utterly defeated and discombobulated.

All my enemies can do is cry from a distance they can cry

about me from a distance but can they face me in any way no they can't they can talk about how

they're going to do x y and z and they can do x y and g but they can do nothing but from a distance

cry about me that's all they can do nothing, but from a distance cry about me.

That's all they can do.

Any confrontation with me will lead to their instant demise, whether that's through a debate, a battle of wits, if you will.

Or whether it is something else doesn't matter.

You cannot defeat a force of nature.

You cannot defeat a lion.

It's very simple, okay?

And people wonder, as I sit on my 2936 million dollar yacht, which I'm on right now, I have happened to carve out a studio on my yacht right now.

That looks exactly like the one that I usually stream from or the record revelation that I've been streaming on a yacht this whole time. Okay. So as I am on my yacht relaxing

and meditating on my yacht, people want to know where do I get the success from to have a yacht.

Because most people don't have yachts.

I'm one of the only people who has a yacht.

People want to know where do you get it from?

Where do you get this ability to have a yacht from?

How do you do this?

How do you reach this level of transcendence and success?

Lysenko Med School, what's up, man?

First advice, five things people really need to understand.

Put down the potato chips, pick up the collected works of Marks lennon stalin and mow immediately you're

going to elevate your perspective you're going to elevate your worldview you're going to be able to

understand how things work and then you can be on a yacht like i am right now as we speak frightful

what's up how you doing man appreciate you so i understand that these

anti-communists are sad and they're jealous because they're not as successful well they lack

affluence because they believe lies about Stalin and Mao if they understood the truth about

Stalin and Mao they would have the affluence that they so

bitterly envy that I have that they don't. But it all boils down to jealousy and incompetence and mental

retardation, of course. There is a way out.

There you can be on the yacht.

You can be on your own yacht.

But you have to take the pill.

You have to understand that Marxism is correct.

And you just have these anti-communists.

So, you know, they're just fundamentally jealous of communist success, China's success, our

success, the first and second Soviet five-year plans that super industrialized the country,

they put people into space.

We are just basking in success into Ws all the time and these sad,

pathetic losers on the right wing. You think about the right wing. What success do they have? They

had Hitler who killed himself. They had Mussolini who's upside down. What did they have?

Nothing.

Only communists are the successful ones.

And these jealous, resentful, anti-communist, vermin, they're just kind of quite sad.

They're just jealous of us.

They're jealous of our success.

They're jealous of my yacht, my fleet of yachts. I have about

four to ten yachts on the moderate side of things, honestly. I'm doing lowball because I don't

want to make people even more jealous of me, right? But it is what it is they're so jealous

he added five to the war chest

Islam and communism aren't compatible

debate me on quarrel dot TV bro I'm ready

right now you want to debate

Islam and communism thank you for the five

I'm not going on your retarded fucking website to debate Islam and communism. Thank you for the five.

I'm not going on your retarded fucking website.

Why the fuck would I go on your retarded fucking nothing website I've never fucking heard of in my life?

Quarrel. I'm not going to go on a retarded ass fucking website I've never heard of. I'm literally doing an X-space. You want to debate me, then get in the X-pace. You come to him? You want to debate me? Come to my layer on the internet that no one's fucking heard of ever.

Why would I do that? Why don't you just come on the X-base?

And if you don't think, if you think Islam, the question is, is Islam and communism compatible?

I could already tell you're mentally deficient and mentally molested because you're asking that question.

It's not a question of compatibility when they're the same thing.

When Islam and Marxism are literally the same thing, which can be proven mathematically with precision.

Why the fuck are you talking about compatibility? Compatibility is under the

premise that these things are different in the first place. Rabbi to hear with the five.

Once again, you have these illiterate, mentally retarded people who are creating these false dichotomies that they can't back up or defend in any kind of way.

And it's quite sad, actually.

This is low vibration frequency level of thinking on these people.

It's quite sad.

They're at a low vibrational level.

And their thoughts are radiated.

People think that thoughts are things that you have, but the truth is thoughts are actually the consequence of the vibrational state you have.

Thoughts are reflections of where you're already at you don't control your thoughts the thoughts appear to you the thoughts appear to you i don't saying it's legit i don't give a fuck

i don't go on websites i don't't understand. So the thoughts appear to you,

and you get the thoughts that you deserve, okay?

I've got these random people that are not even subscribed telling me about this website.

First of all, why don't you donate 10 subs so I know you're legit?

What are I even looking at you for?

How could I ever recognize you? It's not compatible.

Well, go on X and tell me how it's not compatible.

It's not a question of compatibility when these are the same thing.

How could it be a question of compatibility when these are the same thing. How could it be a question of compatibility

when we're talking about literally the same thing? We're not talking about, I agree, it's not

about compatibility when Islam and Marxism are literally the same thing. If you're not ready for that pill,

I don't know what to tell you. But it's so simple,

when all is said and done, it's so eloquently simple, almost gracefully simple.

What is Islam? What does that even mean? Do you even know what Islam means? That's what Marxism is. Islam is about, it's a science. Islam is a science, okay? They used to, they called the pre-Islamic era Jhaaliyah, okay?

Means ignorance.

It's an absence of knowledge and absence of science.

Islam is a type of enlightenment, which what are you your version of Islam is having a beard with no mustache total communist victory added 25 to the war chest total communist victory with the 25 that's a beautiful

name that's exactly what we're talking about these people who are gatekeeping Islam who only

have shown for Islam that they will shave their mustache and keep their beard as though that is the way as though that is what is that's

what's needed in the world why promote what i promote the truth. Nothing but the truth.

I was on an airplane the other day, and I thought to myself, you know what actually makes me fearless?

I was thinking, like, what if this plane,

when I was like traveling to Russia or I traveled to Turkey, I travel abroad, I'm like, what if

this plane, it's in the middle of the ocean now, it just crashes and burns right now? And I think,

what is the thing that makes me fearless and accept this outcome? And I'm like, it's not Islamic LARP that I get from online Islamic LARP or influencers.

It's Cosmos.

This is Cosmically or Dway.

This is Cosmos.

This is Cosmos.

I think of Cosmos.

Because ultimately everything is God's creation, right?

Well, that's called the cosmos, the order of creation.

And I say, this is cosmos.

I say, I accept it, cosmism.

And I'm like, this makes me fearless.

I'll take bullets.

I can be bombed.

I can be blown up. And I accept cosmos. makes me fearless. I'll take bullets. I can be bombed. I can be blown up and I accept

Cosmos. Makes me absolutely fearless. And that's all that matters, honestly. What makes you

fearless is what matters. You know, you know when I was an atheist, I'm going to talk about it.

I don't like talking about religion, but you know, when you grow up and you go through atheism, it's a necessary stage because a lot of people who talk about God, what they're actually talking about is the demiurge. They're talking about an absolute source for the guarantee of the false reality we inhibit, the false reality of Dr. Phil and George W. Bush and Barack Obama and the talking television. They're saying, well, God is the puppet behind the television.

And it's like the only way you can comprehensively break from this false reality is if you first as a stage enter into atheism.

And then you can rediscover what God actually is.

But when you believe in God is an absolute source of the guarantee of the justice and the meaningfulness of the world as it presents itself to you, to you, that's not God.

That's some kind of luciferian demiurgic front that is an

idol, which

you absolutely

have to

discard and

you can't

keep coping

about.

That's why

religious people

when they're

on the

internet, the

religious

larpers are

some of the

most

demonic,

twisted

evil people in the world. Every religious

LARP community on the internet is full of sociopathic psychopaths who defend every kind of

falseness and depravity and evil that you see in the world. You have to go through

Marxist revolutionary atheism

before you can actually appreciate God.

That's the truth.

That is that is nothing but the truth as a matter of fact but people are very terrified of confronting me because I'm a lion and these are hyenas who will not debate me about a single thing ever.

People think, what is going on with Haas? Has Haas lost his mind?

And then the answer is very simple.

What's the X-Space?

You go on Infrajas, at Infrahas.

And if you have a British accent,

10 points are subtracted from you.

Infrajas, if you have a British accent,

you are subtracted of 15 points, okay?

So infrahaz is the space.

If I hear your voice and it's British, I immediately will take the content of whatever you're saying, 35% less seriously.

So let's go.

I'm not going on your weird fucking website.

Get on the X-base.

Let's go.

I'll bring Seul on.

I'll bring Seul, the Armenian enabler of Asiatic tyranny.

The Armenian enforcer of Oriental despotism.

We oriental despots, we love to just draw from all these different ethnicities to enforce our rule.

Armenians, Kurds,

you name it. We just draw from all these different groups, smaller groups,

Georgians, Armenians,

they are the enforcers of

Asiatic despotic rule.

Tsul, please.

Bring up these challengers to the Sultan, the Khan, the Shah, the Shah and Shaw.

The real Shah, not the fake Shah Pahlavi, who has no blood connection to the great safavid dynasty

or the nadir shaw or the kizalbash but comes from some random village somewhere in iran

just some random big nose guyosed guy that the British chose,

who was, you know, the guy that,

you know when the British would have people carry them on their back?

The Pahlavi dynasty was one of these guys

who was carrying some British guy on his back.

And they were like,

Tereo, you should be the rule of Iran.

And that's where the Pahlavi dynasty came from.

It has no basis in the mythos of Iran,

this great, powerful story of the Safavis.

They are the most cuckolded

family and dynasty and lineage

in the entire history of Persia.

So, Sewell,

is anyone requesting that I don't know about?

That's the question.

There are no requests.

There's no requests.

No requests.

No requests.

We're found.

This guy's saying me.

Well, you should request on X if you are requesting.

Then get on X if you are requesting then get on X and

request

I'm requesting

to see we have these trolls

who claim that they're requesting

and nobody sees that you're requesting

and you're evidently not requesting

so what are you talking about

okay

we need to talk about the fact that 99%, okay, here we go, here we go. Let's see if he's British or not. Go ahead. British accent or not?

Sound like him. How are you, brother? I am good. I'm not British. I'm American.

I see a kind of British twang in your voice. I kind of...

Nah, nah, nah.

You're not British.

I'm not British.

Say Peter Piper picked a pack of pickle peppers.

Say that.

Peter Piper picked the packle peppers.

Okay, now one last thing.

Say Armory.

Armory.

Okay, I got my eye on you, but I see something as, you know, I miss. Nah, no, nah, nah, nah.

Well, that's just the way you're saying, nah, nah, nah, well,

it's just the way

you're saying,

it's the way

you're saying,

nah,

nah,

nah,

and that whole

thing,

I'm just picking

something up.

All right,

but anyways,

is Islam,

you're saying that's the wrong I'm framing the question wrong I'm

Are you born in America?

Yeah I was born in America

You have to speak proper American English with zero

Accent at all

What are you talking about? I was born here.

But you're speaking... Well, you do have

an accent, actually. Young man, you do

have an accent. And I would like you to

speak as befitting of a

white Anglo-Saxon gentleman

Protestant. Just as

I do.

Go ahead.

Is this good enough for you?

Try your best consistently. Go ahead.

Okay, well, you were saying that I'm framing the question wrong

that it's got to sound like your credit score is good

I don't sound like that

no sound like your credit score

is a okay

I didn't even know you were black

what are you talking about?

I just know that wasps have profoundly great credit scores.

You have to sound like you are...

You just came back from skiing.

That's what you have to sound like.

Go ahead.

Okay, well, you were saying that I framed the question wrong, that is Islam compatible with communism?

Correct.

And I forgot what your response was.

Can you, you were saying it's the same thing.

It's not a matter of compatibility when Marxism and Islam are the same thing.

Okay, okay, so the Islam Islam our Sharia

comes from the revelation of the prophet

so Allah Salah Salah

Allah Salam okay but Marxism

comes from Marx. So how can the

two be compatible?

How can a manmade system be compatible

with God's system?

You claim that Marxism comes from Marx alone.

Did Marx invent math or did he discover math?

Answer carefully.

Is math invented or is it discovered?

Answer carefully.

Oh shoot, wait, hold on. Is math

invented or discovered?

It is discovered.

Correct. You were on thin ice because as you said it was invented, you would have

committed an egregious crime against Islam. So why is Marxism any different? Marx discovered

Marxism, what we call Marxism. He discovered it. He did not invent it.

Case dismissed.

Oh, well, no, no.

Well, what do you have to say about

the ownership

of private property in Islam?

Islam allows us... Does not exist in Islam at all.

No? Not at all. No?

Not at all.

Not even one percent. No, no, no, no, no, no.

No, no, no, no, no.

Do not say no in that tone.

You have to speak as though you were just coming from a snowboarding club.

Speak with composer. Speak with Composer.

I will not tolerate these loud noises of nose.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I know for,

how can you say there's no,

there's no private,'s no there's no private

or yeah there's no private ownership in there is none

did the prophet

saw some not own

land did he not own the

the house that

not land not land Land, did you not own the house? No.

Not land.

Land ownership privately

is an extremely

Aryan and exceptional institution

in the history of human civilization.

For the grand majority of human history and civilization there was no such thing as the

private ownership of land it was impossible and unthinkable especially islam which said all the

land becomes to god is and under the custodian ship

of the sovereign

on earth

the Khaliva owned all

the land. Now certain people

could be given the rights to tend to

the land, but they did

not own it. They could not freely alienate the land, but they did not own it.

They could not freely alienate the land and buy and sell it as they pleased and felt.

So it is not private property as an institution.

The Quran refers to possessions and property as that which you can own and possess

in your right hand, meaning something that you are using. Private property is a political and

civilizational institution which carves out a piece of space whether it is a

tangible movable object or an immovable piece of land and said i have absolute sovereign jurisdiction

and ownership over this thing and abstraction from its use and from the various embedded

relations within which it is contextually existent within a wider totality and division of labor.

Islam does not give a stamp to that.

Greek law permitted private property.

Rome law, Roman law, permitted private property.

Later, feudal law permitted private property.

What all of these things had in common was a contractual understanding of sovereignty and statehood, where the state would not be the absolute sovereign, but would rather negotiate sovereignty with other

rights claimants

whose terms

and conditions of being part of the state

were enumerated

in some constitution or some charter

which

did not give one single authority, supreme authority.

So it was basically oligarchical rule.

There is no such thing as private property in Islam.

There's none.

There is strictly enumerated terms and conditions about what is within your right to possess based on what you're actually using, what's relevant to how you're actually living and using life. There's no right to just own something because you put your fucking name on it and it's yours.

That doesn't exist in Islam.

You own what's in your right hand.

That's what they literally call it what you possess with your right hand, which you have the capacity to maintain, to attend to, actually use, to care about, to invest effort into, that's not the same as private property. Private property is an institution that carves out abstract space and says this is your private belonging but all belongs to a law and

Islam Hamdulillah as Lenin would say

Land is they have to Hamdulah let me say, Hamdallah.

Allah alone owns everything.

No one owns anything.

Not even a toothbrush.

You may use the toothbrush to brush your teeth.

You may have it in your right hand. Another person cannot come and

steal it out of your hand. So yes, it's yours to use to have as your dignity. But ultimately, it belongs to a law, not you.

You don't own the toothbrush as a private property.

Everything, even

the innermost privacy of your being

belongs to Allah alone.

What do you own? How vain

and foolish to think that

Islam permits private property.

How foolish?

What do you own?

Tell me what in the cosmos and all of Allah's creation belongs to you?

That you own.

That has your name.

Okay. I have your name. Okay.

I have another objective.

Are you God?

Are you God?

I have more objections.

Are you God?

No.

Do you think you're God?

No.

Then Allah, you join the Communist Party right now.

No, I haven't been convinced that communism is compatible or the same as Islam.

They have more questions.

So you think you're God.

Interesting.

No, what?

So you believe you are God.

No. You do believe you are God.

No.

Okay.

So what about this?

In communism,

aren't the communist society's traditionally atheist and materialist, but in Islam,

Allah is the only sovereign in Islam in the world

in the community atheism is far closer on the path to reaching the Emerald Mountain of Islamic revelation and devotion to Allah,

then the so-called Islamic societies and their corrupt filthy pig rulers of swine.

Atheist communism is absence of idols.

They have turned a law into an idol that is an excuse

for all their debauchery, filth, and hypocrisy.

When a law is so grand, so unthinkable, so unfathomable, so sublime, that only in the moment of feeling the

absence of Allah can you actually appreciate him in his greatness and in his might.

Bless the atheism of communism. For it alone opens the space by which a true

devotion and appreciation of Allah is now possible.

Versus the false religious hypocrites who speak of God,

who speak of Allah, who they turn into an idol.

Even the very

absence of Allah is the proof

of his presence. That is why Marx

Marx, Marx, Sheikh Engels That is why Marx, Sheikh Marx,

Sheikh, Marx, Sheikh Lenin,

Sheikh Stalin,

Sheikh Mao Saitong,

are far closer to Allah,

far closer in their hearts to

Allah than all of these so-called Muslims

who have betrayed Palestine.

Okay, but how can someone who's,

how can somebody who denies the lordship of Allah be closer to Allah

than someone who-

How could they deny that to which they have never been introduced?

How could they deny that to which they have never been introduced? How could they deny that?

They have net.

They already were Muslim.

They didn't know it.

They were never introduced.

They were introduced in Central Asia.

You had these corrupt, these corrupt war never introduced. They were introduced in Central Asia. You had these corrupt, these corrupt warlords and chiefs who carried over these pagan practices from the pre-Islamic world that were unjust, plainly unjust and immoral.

Okay, well, what about, um, okay, well, Marxism is, isn't the whole thing with communism, like you have a struggle between the different classes and communism like seeks to abolish the the different classes right the the like the wealth

inequality of course classes are a shirk they're're haram. No.

No man can be divided from another man on the basis of anything,

except what God has bestowed them.

Who is man to divide themselves into the class?

I'm above you, you're below me.

That's the Hindu caste system.

You are Hindu.

No, I'm not talking about like, I'm not, I'm talking about wealth.

I'm not talking about cast.

You are Hindu.

I'm talking about like class, like class inequality, like wealth.

I'm not talking about like caste systems.

No, class means

that's not class

doesn't mean just differences in wealth.

Class is the division, the fitna within the society,

where some rule over the others based on what,

based on owning what belongs to Allah alone.

They commit war against Allah

and Allah declared war against

them. Why? Because he declares war

against the greatest sin

the Riba. The only thing he declared

war on. Well the class, all the classes, the ruling

classes of history, were based on Riba, usury. That's where private property comes from.

And Allah declares war upon this no

hold on

yes consult your minions

consult your helpers who can you need help

from these people to

confront one as I, a true Sufi

Sheikh, a true Sufi master's eye.

It's just me. Wait, hold on.

No, because I have a communist in the room

right now. He's not helping me out. I'm trying to

I want to see that.

Hold on.

He's not going to help you because he's probably not a real communist, only I am.

I, uh, does,

okay, does communism,

does it, does it ban riba?

Does it ban interest?

Like a complete ban of...

It wipes and annihilates it from the face of Mother Earth.

It is the greatest weapon for the annihilation of this evil.

Okay, well How can

No, wait, hold on, hold on

Okay, so Marx came from

Like he came from a completely

Materialist worldview

He's not coming from us

Islam is dialectical materialism.

How?

Because idealism is the idol worship of the ideology

from the Greeks who were raping children.

I don't know what that means.

Plato raped children.

Aristotle raped children.

That's who you're drawing from?

Let me explain something to you and bomb you with a nuclear bomb are you ready yeah your whole world

will blow up in flames a nuclear bomb is a law real or is Allah an idea?

A law is real?

So when you have a thought and you say this thought is the idea, what is more real?

The thing in your thought or aah who is the sublime the supreme reality of all

reality how dare you divide from the reality of allah in his creation and his being something called

the ideal called the ideal

and the ideal realm and claim

this is Islam that it's all this ideal realm

no Islam is materialist

you say Islam is materialist

yes no okay but communism is like 100% materialism say Islam is materialist? Yes. No,

okay,

but communism is like 100%

materialist.

Islam is

5 million percent

materialist.

What about the afterlife?

What about our spiritual health?

What about the soul?

Which is it's intangible.

You can't grab the soul.

You think in reference to matters

as the soul and the unseen is what

you mean. The unseen.

You think Islam says the unseen

is thought and

ideology it's just some shit in

it's just a thought or are you saying it's God's thought

how dare you divide from God his faculties and say

this is God's brain and his thought

no it's the being it's Allah's his reality. Who are you to say this is only God's

thought and there's a law is the supreme reality in which nothing can be compared to him. You cannot

divide Allah into different, you can't turn him into a body where there's a head and there's a body.

He's the supreme reality, the ultimate, the absolute.

No, I'm saying.

Okay. Okay.

Okay, moving on. You mentioned what's it called?

What your right hand possesses?

In Islam, you're allowed to take captives of war.

Do you think Marx would be aligned with that, knowing his goal would to eradicate class?

Yes.

How?

Because at the time, based on the context, when you were going to war with people and you destroy them

you have two options

you leave them there they probably will die

or they will take up arms

and fight with you again

so that was the reality of the time that all wars Or they will take up arms and fight with you again.

So that was the reality of the time.

All wars that existed at that time.

And what did the Islam say about captives?

It was all something that, relatively speaking, was humane and was just. Rel relatively speaking for the time they lived in.

So we live in a world, al-hambul-il-la, where this is no longer something we consider necessary.

But even so, that's not true.

So for example, in a war, war even today when it's Soviet Union

versus Nazi Germany or let's

say

it's the Iraqi

I mean this is not an asymmetrical war

let's say it's

America versus Iran and America does a ground invasion.

So Iran defeats America in a battle, okay?

And the soldiers surrender on America's side.

Iran's going to take those soldiers and quarantine them in a place and take them prisoners as prisoners of war. So what's the difference?

Wait, say that again, the last part. How is it different than prisoners of war?

Communists took prisoners of war.

Okay.

I guess that's...

Okay.

All right.

What about... What about,

what about the,

okay,

what about the general underpinning,

like,

okay, so Islam has a system for,

like,

like the economy,

by the way,

like it has a system for,

Islam has this,

any,

any way in humans can organize themselves, Islam has a system for Islam has any way in

humans can

organize

themselves

Islam has

a system

for

and

no

no

how

what do you mean

no

what do you mean no islam does not organize every facet of an economic system

islam establishes justice versus injustice specifically during the time of the prophet

what is permitted and what is normal versus what is not

based on what actually made sense to people at that time

nowhere does it say

that in a society within an extreme degree of socialization huge development of the productive forces that for example it would be permissible for for something like electricity or energy or running water to be owned

privately because we know in islamic societies the infrastructure was all owned by the sovereign

so whether it was the caliph So whether it was the

Khalifa or it was the

Sultan or anything else,

they always owned the common works,

the public works. They

own the science and research and development

and this was all owned

and planned in the hands

of the state.

So the idea

that in our modern society

when the means of production

have reached

such a social level

beyond the household

of what you can hold

with your right hand

and to the level

of a common

motor production that Islam would say no no it's okay hold with your right hand and to the level of a common motor

production that Islam would say

no no it's okay for this to be owned privately

that's nonsense makes no sense

historically

wait but you

mentioned how how Islam

like you say it didn't have a system.

Then you started to talk about how, like, the, the resources, like, it would be given, like, how much, how much I'm trying to say?

It didn't need to invent the system from scratch because there was already norms and expectations

for how civilization should function and work but what Islam did is it clarified what are the

tendencies that lead to the corruption of civilizations and what are the things that keep them on

the right track.

So it did not create something from scratch, is what I'm trying to say.

It clarified reality as it already existed.

That's what it means to bring justice. Okay, but the guidance of the prophet lsum is the guidance for humanity and for all

times okay so what what what we do what we just to insult the profit by this interpretation

to interpret guidance as direct insults the profit because you're saying

the profit anticipated smartphones and you have to be so direct in terms of his guidance that you ignore

the differences of technology and context and history.

And you just say one for one, when he mentions a camel, he's really talking about a camel.

That's nonsense.

You have to distill the essence of what he's saying, the meaning of what he's saying.

That's why only the Sufis can understand the Quran.

No one in Saudi Arabia can understand the Quran since Abdul Wahab.

He can't understand that because they're reading it in a way that is devoid of actual

exegis and interpretation.

They just taking it at face value.

They don't understand the hidden secrets,

the hidden meeting,

the subtext.

They have no comprehension of it.

Yeah,

I mean,

I'm not a Wahhabi,

but like that, wouldn't that just align with what I'm not a Wahhabi, but like that,

wouldn't that just align with what I'm saying that?

No.

The Prophet Selts don't.

It wouldn't align with what I'm saying?

But it's the guidance for all times.

If, if the, you said, you said the prophet saw the son, he's talking about a camel.

He's not just talking about a camel.

Maybe he's talking about all means of transportation.

Okay.

So how do you interpret that?

Who's going to interpret that?

Well, we interpret it.

Who should interpret that?

People who are learned.

People who are,. People who are capable

of interpreting it.

Who?

The chosen

people?

The people who Allah chose to interpret.

Is this what you? The chosen people?

What chosen people? Is there a chosen people, is this what you, the chosen people? What chosen people?

Does is there a chosen people in Islam?

Show me.

The people of knowledge.

Also, Saudi Arabia.

No, I just said I'm not a Wahhabi.

Okay.

Well, any man can have knowledge.

Any man can acquire knowledge.

So he, if he so seeks it, and we have to make the case to our fellow man based on our

humanity, which God created us as men and as women, with humanity, with an ability to recognize each other on the basis

of a common existence of a common essence okay well the point i'm making is that obviously you won't have a direct ruling for every single

facet of of the human experience right but the goal of scholarship today is to use the

islam says it will be clear to you based on your heart.

Not based on what some guy says.

On your heart,

you will go true from false.

So people who look into the Islamic tradition and they look at the evidence is

they're going to be able to come to

a consensus on what a

ruling should be partaking a certain

what does that mean? So a bunch of

people who can be corrupt agree with each

other. So what? Why

should I care care so basically what you're saying is that allah just left

us like just to come up with our own economic system to fight yes he left us to fight a lot

he left he left He gave us the guidance

and he leaves it upon us

to live, to fight,

to find the truth

based on what he has given.

And he trusts us

that we're going to sort it out.

He does never, never in Islam, they said,

I'm going to give you something.

You can use an excuse to avoid the pain,

the jihad, the struggle of understanding.

They never said that.

That's what the hypocrites wants you to think.

That you can just say, oh, it's just whatever.

And no, you may as well be an atheist.

You may as well in that sense.

Because God is not giving

you crotchets. He's not giving you

a crutch. He's giving you guidance.

If you don't walk on your two feet,

the guidance means nothing.

You don't get to excuse yourself from the struggle of history, from the struggle of society,

from the justice, the injustice that exists in the world.

Where in the Quran does it say Palestine is in need of liberation right now?

You need to see what's going on in the world and understand it.

And all the righteous people in the world do understand it.

Just as the Chinese understood Mao Zetong.

And just as the Russians understood Lenin.

Nah, I don't know, I don't know.

I mean, okay, you have your perspective.

Okay, okay, last question.

What about what about business ownership? Is it not different in communism and islam

what are you talking about islam did not live in a society where the forces of production have

developed to such an extent that the socialization of labor and the unity of the division of labor

could take the form of information technology well it can now so that's socialism that's communism

business then is about entrepreneurship people coming together to enterprise together

that has nothing to do with private property that has to do with how how much is it

anticipated the outcome of economic association.

Nowhere does that have to imply private property at all.

You know, I think we should debate on.

What's what can be anticipated and what cannot be anticipated and it requires more data?

I think we should debate on Coral TV.

I'm not going to any TV.

I don't watch the television.

No, Coral.com.

I don't give a fuck.

It's Muslim owned.

I don't trust that shit at all.

For all I know, UAE owns that shit or Saudi Arabia.

No.

Or ISIS owns it.

How the fuck what I know?

What the fuck does that mean?

It's Muslim owned.

All right, man.

I don't know.

Now, just hop on real quick with me.

I'm not hopping on shit.

I want to test up the functionality with me. I'm not hopping on shit. No,

I want to test up the functionality of it.

I'm not,

I'm not doing none of that.

I'm not doing that.

I'm not doing

none of that shit.

No, you don't do live debates I'm doing a live debate right now

Now let me just

Okay

Yeah

Somebody's in the background

Sort of shit

You're on I'm not dealing with none of that I'm bringing Zoran on he wants it. Somebody's in the background. Sort of shit.

I'm not dealing with none of that.

I'm bringing Zohran on,

on DSA,

read his Zid and Gen Alpha.

From the Democratic Socialists of America.

Why do you reject the message of a law?

Go ahead.

I think they stop requesting. So now I have to bring on Zoran. Go ahead

Zoran.

Assalam. Alaykum al-a-a-a-a-a-aqa alaqa so i think your claim that islam is pro-communism it is bullshit i didn't say it's pro-communism i said it is marxism yeah i think it's bullshit.

Well, you can use soap to cleanse your foul mouth and then return with an argument.

I have an argument.

Make it.

So, whenever there was a war um the prophet uh allocated to himself 20 percent of the war spoils okay

so he didn't equate himself with the remainder of the army. And what did the prophet do with his spoil?

As the sovereign leader, as the representative of the centralized authority.

He bought lands, you know the land that... Did he do with it?

Huh?

He used it for the public

because he was the sovereign ruler.

No.

It was his land and he gave it to...

No, it's about the allocation of resources

based on a principle of the division of labor so for example

if you take up a map and you plan beforehand the exact division that's still planned economics so so he owned this land and this land went to his daughter daughters after he did that's so it wasn't a property of the umma he was the ruler yes he was the sovereign so that's like

saying the caliph or the sultan owns it yes so after his death it didn't go to the Omar, didn't go to the state, it went to his kids.

And that's what you're missing, though.

You see, you messed up walking into this, talking to a Shia.

Hey!

You just messed up you had no idea who you were talking to someone who believes aul-bate what is the rightful successor of the prophet speechless

so

Quran chapter 16

verse 71 says

Allah has favored some of you

over others in provision.

So what?

And the taffsir of this verse

means that Allah has made people

into different classes based on wealth.

Based on no,

no,

no classes are mentioned.

Based on the words of Cher, no, no classes are mentioned. Based on the words of Scheher, Frederick Engels, and

Carl, Sheikh Karl Marx,

they said each person,

equality is a bourgeois principle,

because men are endowed with different

abilities and skills and qualities boucho principle because men are endowed with different abilities

and skills and

qualities and character and habit

the notion that everyone

is the same is not

communism. The

phrase that Marx cites from paraphrasing the bible from thomas munser

sheikh thomas munser from each according to their ability to each according to their need some are provisioned with more because their

needs are more so you think wells should be divided based on needs or quality each according to their ability to each according to their need okay so i'm gonna go past the point of of the war spoils like the money because you can argue or he represented the state.

But one more thing was the concubance, the females that were captured.

Even those were not distributed equally.

So the...

You are completely neglecting the historical context,

and therefore there is no way for you to meaningfully speak of such things.

The notion that women were considered a form of property is a perversion, a perverse

understanding of the complex sociology of the world predating the Middle Ages, where wars led to the devastation of people's form of subsistence and it led to a devastation of the ability for people to be taken care of because there was no such thing as centralized modern infrastructure or centralized

institutions that attended to people in a universal way people were very much embedded in their

familial parochial uh household context so to meaningfully speak of such things is impossible.

But there's like verses and hadiz

that says the prophet had six

with those female captures.

And the female captures have no right to reject

a request bed

with her owner. So they were merely

for sex, right?

You are speaking some

ISIS gibberish nonsense.

No, bro, it's literally

in Zahe-Al-Bukary

and Zah Muslim

it's not ISIS.

Where?

The Haddh

In Zahah

Bukhari and Sik Muslim

like Prophet Muhammad

had...

Yes.

Yeah,

you can back off a little bit,

okay?

You need to back off a little bit. you need to back off a little bit

because I don't my

I don't buy this nonsense this is some

nonsense ISIS stuff to me

bro it's literally

Zayhal Bukhari and I follow the Quran

so you think

there's no verses in the Quran that says that talks about the concubines?

That you should valorize just raping women?

No, I don't think it is.

There are Quran verses about concupans, bro.

Concubinage, as you're misrepresenting, you're saying all concubines, bro. Concubinage, as you're

misrepresenting, you're saying all

concubinage is

kidnapping women and raping them. That's

not what concubinage meant, in

the general sense.

I don't care about what you name

it, but... In practice, in practice. Based on I don't care about what you name it. You're missing,

you're not doing an analysis

based on the sociology of care and subsistence

and how that worked.

You are making it seem like concubinage

was about chattel slavery and it wasn't.

I don't care what

you name it. I mean in practice,

those concupans were taken

against their well by the

winner army and they were divided

among the winner army men not equally

pissed on the prophet had the most

And then the Sahaba had more than their regular warriors

And then those concupons, it's written explicitly in the Hadith that they have no right to reject

First of all

A call to bed to the owner.

First of all, this is what's disgusting about you Wahhabi-Salafi types.

You abstract something violently out of the context such that you depict something filthy, disgusting, and grotesque to any normal, sensible person.

The notion of normalizing out of context,

just bluntly dropping us this idea of defeating an enemy army, then taking the women into...

You're misrepresenting the actual context of what all this stuff actually meant. In actual context, wars devastated

people's means of subsistence and their household economy. So the question wasn't, how are we going to

simply divide all these prizes among people, it was a question of how do you deal with the

social devastation in the aftermath of something like that. And according, our modern

sensibilities have no way of properly understanding that. And your insensitivity to that vast chasm of context shows me that you are precisely the type that corrupts Islam to a point that makes it something hideous and filthy to a normal person.

Okay. Okay, so where do you get like your moral, uh, principle from if you reject Hadith regarding the concupons?

Like you just make it based on today's morality from From Hadiths rather than Allah himself is paganism and idolatry.

Hadith comes from the prophet and the prophet speaks from Allah.

Allegedly they do.

Not all of them.

There's not agreement about all of them.

Shiaos and Sunnis don't agree about all of them

so i don't need to hear this are you are you shia or sony by the way shia okay that makes a lot of sense

exactly and what are y'all doing about Palestine by the way

oh we're silent now

oh now we're silent

yeah we're not doing anything

but at least we're not both a feist

who's fighting we don't do shirk

we don't do shirk

okay but you're just dominated and raped by uh Israel and Who is fighting? We don't do Shirk. We don't do Shirk. Okay.

But you're just dominated and raped by Israel and the colonial powers?

It's better not to...

We're not doing Shirk, but we're getting raped by Israel and the colonial powers, so it's okay.

Yes.

In the eyes of Allah, someone who doesn't stand for Palestine, but just Tao hate and doesn't do a shirk is better than a boethyst.

This is what the Quran says.

Let me bomb you with something.

Why should anyone be a Muslim if these are the most true Muslims, they're cowards why would anyone want to be a

Muslim then why should we follow Islam if you're not able to attend to the basic human dimension of

our existence our dignity what we know in our hearts to be right from what's wrong if this is

Islam for you why should anyone be a Muslim in the

first place? How did the prophet even get followers? You think he was tricking people with magic tricks?

He was telling them what they already knew was right and wrong within their heart. They followed him

because he was a noble man.

He was a good man and they could see that.

He was bringing justice.

That's why they followed him.

If you're not doing that, nobody gives a fuck

if you're talking about polytheism.

Nobody gives a shit.

You're not delivering on the humanity.

And even in Islam, Allah made us first, and then

he gave us the guidance. Well, he

made us, he endowed us with moral

clarity. He gave us a basic dignity, where we know

right, we know wrong, intuitively in our hearts, in the

heart. You understand? If you are failing to do right by that, what right? What is your

theology even based on? Who gives a fuck?

If the people who are righteous in this world, evidently are, quote unquote, polytheism doing shirk,

isn't that an argument in favor of polytheism rather than Islam?

You're making a case against Islam when you say that. Don't pretend the ball is in the court of these monkeys with beards and no mustaches in Saudi Arabia who feel like they can gatekeep the entirety of this religion that's lasted over a thousand years.

The ball is in the court upon he who delivers in this world, the righteousness, the truth,

the nobility, the humanity.

Not clerics who turn it into a Talmudic

dead letter a dead letter

if a while is real

he gave us life

he gave us bones he gave us a gut feeling in our stomach

he didn't give us a gut feeling in our stomach.

He didn't give us a dead letter for fakekeeping chosen people to interpret based on some some unflexible rigid dogma that, what, is divorced from the reality itself that our hearts are connected to in real time that are beating what kind of Islam are you even selling so i i want to like flag the systematic difference between you and me you get your morality based on you get it from

discord on communism and i get it from korean and sun you get it from discord you get it from

saudi arabia madrasas from iramco oil revenues and i get it from my heart from my bones.

Okay, so regarding the question that why should people become Muslim?

The Quran tells us,

so Allah has created us to worship him this is the first

yes yes cause of us are you worshipping god by sitting on your fucking ass and doing jack shit to stand up to

israel i can't i can't i'm not i'm not a'm not a king. Oh, it's not my fault.

It's not my fault. It's just I'm not going to do any

self-criticism and address the spiritual and

moral vacuum inside of my heart.

That makes me absolutely culpable

in fucking what? A billion people

not doing a fucking thing to stand up to Israel.

Fuck are you even talking about?

It's not me.

It's not me.

How many people fucking say that?

But why is it that the Shia are fighting?

Why is Iran and its allies fighting?

Why is Hezbollah fighting?

Well, it happened that they are fighting and we are not.

It just happened. The circumstances are like that.

Just happened. Just happened.

But you can't explain it.

I wish I can do something, but I can.

But I still cannot tell you that a holy feist.

Maybe you should reflect. Maybe if there was more reflection, you could

understand why that is. How about you

reflect first? Because

one is following

the Zulfikar, the

sword that splits the hypocrites into, that exposes the appearance from the essence, that says it's not enough to larp and sit and say, I have the truth because I read some books. You have to show on this earth

what the truth is.

Through your deeds,

not just through your fucking words.

Okay.

I want to flag...

Set up in your pipe and smoke it.

Okay.

I want to flag one more verse because I know some Muslims might be misguided by your words.

That the Quran says,

in Allah lai achforo, and you shirk who Iakfur,

so the only sin that Allah won't forgive is Shirk.

It's not to stand to Palestine.

You can you neglect Palestinians.

I accuse you of Shirk.

How?

Because your Wahhabi Saudi rulers are your gods.

They are god-

I'm not even

Wahhabi.

I don't get a

I'm just a Muslim

bro.

Whatever fucking UAE

nonsense gibberish

you get your

filth from

is your god

and that's shirk.

God bless the sufis god bless the standard real traditional sunnis and god bless the shia

whatever the fuck you are i don't think in the eyes of allah

you think in the eyes of all I have no brother of God. A Christian who

fight for Palestine is better than a Muslim who's not?

Yes! Yes!

How?

One million percent.

A Christian is a mushrig.

One million percent. One thousand a mushrig how can you one thousand million ten trillion

percent because you are one of munafiq with Zupakar I expose you because the

Christian follows Islam in his deed and the Muslim who does nothing is his word.

He's a hypocrite.

Nothing is worse than a fucking hypocrite.

The hypocrite is worse.

The one who's righteous in their actions and in their deeds

is the one who I could say is my brother not the

hypocrite i hate the hypocrite the hypocrite is the enemy of zulfaqar zulfaqar was made for the hypocrites

it's the exposes the hypocrites okay so you think a christian

who's pro-palestine and fighting for palestine can enter jennah but a muslim who doesn't is going

to learn and be

tortured in hell for eternity and the

Christian will be in paradise.

Okay. Is this

what your Shia book says?

This is what my Shia

truth, my common sense,

my intuition says. And I will run with that instead of your no mustache and beard

gatekeeping from saudi arabia and that's why you guys losing the war right we'll see who wins

and we'll see who loses but only we we're fighting. That's the difference.

Yeah. So you don't

think what's happening to you, the major

attacks in Lebanon is annihilation from Allah?

I guess you've already conquered. I guess if you

have already been defeated and conquered, you can't

lose. So you got that.

You're calling the veneration of a hul ba'it and you're calling this shirk okay well your veneration of your discord admins is shirk okay okay okay uh...

i have one more question okay uh do you uh view

ali and al-Hussein as

a deity as a demigod

No, no one says that.

No, but that's what you say. Nobody says that.

But it's not in your books.

So what? Why would we say that?

Why would we say that? So don't you say when you bring you say

yeah alia hossein okay

so you heroes

because they're exemplary heroes

because they show us what it means

to actually follow God that's's the difference. Okay, I say this by Allah remember the people who actually show us what it means to follow God. Otherwise, we're just going to listen to these disgusting perverts who have books in their lap who are telling us something because, well,

I'm a learned man, I know the truth.

Okay. By

a lot. Those are glasses wears.

Yes. I have the truth because I have some books. That means I have the truth.

Okay.

Well, at least I have a reference.

I have a principle.

I can look at the paper.

I'm going to look at the sword,

not the paper.

I'm going to look at the Zulfikar,

the one who fights for justice on earth,

who delivers truth and justice on earth,

not the person with parchment who's taking it out of context.

Someone who has a piece of paper, they take out of context.

What does the paper mean?

It means to communicate something.

It means to say something.

You're treating the parchment as an idol.

You're not even reading it. You don't even care what

it says.

Okay, let's put the books aside.

Do you think what happened to A'L'Al Bait

and what happened to the Iranians and what happened to

Hezbollah? It's not a humiliation from Allah.

Like the way Hassan Nasraah died,

the way Khomeini died, the way Hussein died.

Don't you think like this is some

some sort of humiliation from Allah?

He says, he says

the massacre of the Prophet's family

was a humiliation inflicted by Allah. This is

what this guy is saying. Because

Hussein went against the

caliphate. In the Ottoman,

in the Ottoman, Turkey, they would have

beheaded you for saying that.

In the Ottoman caliphate, they would have

beheaded you for such a filthy thing to say.

You don't think Emmanuel Hussein was like was a he was against the ruler, the caliphate.

Yazid bin Mawahe.

Is this real?

This has got to be an Israeli.

Not in Israeli, not an an israeli is not is not a is not a sohabi even even the real traditional sunnis don't defend yzid this is incredible no we do

defend yet we name our people jazeed there are Yazid kids in Saudi and in Morocco.

I know in Saudi Arabia.

I know in Saudi Arabia where they're a descendant of the Zionists in Saudi Arabia.

And even in Egypt in Morocco, we name Yazid.

Okay, in Morocco, which is an Israeli puppet,

doesn't surprise me. And in Egypt, you have to show

me some references, because that would

be indeed surprising if it was common,

even in former Fatimid Egypt.

Yes, we have Yazids, and we have

Moaahua.

Moawe is not as common as Yazid, by the way.

That's the greatest part.

I'm just going to let you speak and speak for yourself.

And everyone can see for themselves.

He's talking about the family of the prophet.

And he's saying Allah humiliated them.

He's saying every time there's injustice on earth, it's because Allah was humiliating you.

So when the Europeans and the Israelis humiliated the Arab and humiliated the Muslims of the world, it's because, you know, Allah is on their side.

So you think Netanyahu is Allah's favorite.

You sound like a Zionist.

Maybe, maybe Allah has sent them to humiliate us

because we have neglected Islam and we have abandoned

Pahlia.

Yeah, the people of Gaza are sent.

You're saying

Netanyahu is sent by God.

That's what you're saying.

So is what

Ni'i'i'i'iho did against

the will of God

or did God

like had a will

that for this to happen?

He's literally like a...

I'm not saying that...

You are Zionist. You believe there's the chosen people. That's it.

End of story. Those who, you know, reach

bleeding, worldly success

on the basis

of injustice

well that's because

what God wanted

that actually means

it's good

and you've been

if you're suffering

from injustice

well you deserved it

because God

humiliated you

that's what you're

saying

that's what you believe

yes and

and by the end of the

Abbasid Caliphate,

Muslims has abandoned Islam

and they started

to translate Greek philosophy

and abandoned the dean.

And Allah sent the Mongols to humiliate them.

Uh-huh. So go back in a time machine

and go live in this golden age.

That's all I could tell you, because you're not

faring well in the age we live in

as it stands.

Okay, and you can't even answer why Allah is on the...

It's not...

Like, do you see the attacks in Lebanon, the major attacks?

I pity you for the filth and misery inside of your corrupted heart. I just pity you. What else can I tell you?

You have a miserable worldview, a miserable existence, a hateful, ugly one. You cannot see how

the fighting of injustice and the overcoming of evil and injustice is part of the plan of a law.

Your evil is not my evil.

My evil is shirk.

Your evil is just Israel.

Israel is the source of all evil.

That's for me the source of all evil is shit.

Not Israel. I don't like Israel.

He was defending Israel now.

I'm not defending them.

Sir, sir, you said, my enemy,

you spoke, you spoke your peace.

You said what you had to say.

He humiliation. He, he mocks the you had to say. He humiliation

he mocks the family of the prophet.

He glorifies their murder,

their massacre, which all, even

most Sunnis recognized

was a grave injustice.

So much so that the last

leader of the Ottoman state, Abdul Hamid, the last real one that is, created reliefs in devotion to Ahu Bait in Heijiya Sofia. You can see the names of Hussein and Hassan and Ali there.

And in the armies of the

Ottomans, they would venerate Ali

and the Zulfiqar and they would

and this was real Islam, Sunni

or Shia. That was real traditional

Islam. But the Wahhabis have come and they're open Satanists. They worship Satan. Did you guys believe what you just fucking saw? This is what Islam is when I say this is why I don't care if I get called a heretic because this is the state genuinely of Islam in the world.

This guy's literally saying that God sent Netanyahu to punish, and then Yenahou is actually fulfilling the will of God directly.

And the Palestinians deserve what happened to them because they deserved it.

That's what he's saying.

He's saying that when Israel

is inflicting its terror

against Lebanon,

all the injustice

they inflict, well, actually it's because you deserved it,

because you were in the wrong. And he celebrates

and glorifies it

nobody is doing more damage

to Islam in the world than such people

you have to think about

that like why would anyone want to be Muslim

if this guy's going to be the representative of Islam

wouldn't it be better to convert to

something else I've never, you know,

for example, even the depravity, we've ortho-larpers, there's some disgusting larpers in the

Orthodox Christian community that we have, the online one, you know, that we have quarreled with.

But they've never reached this evil. I've never seen them go this far in their fucking evil.

Because you take those people who I consider hypocrites on the internet.

But if I ask them, is Israel the devil and are they satanic and are the Palestinian children innocent?

They'll say, well, yeah, of course they are.

So they still have some humanity, as much as they lie and as much as they slander us,

there's still something human there.

I mean, the only thing that comes close to this level of evil in Christianity are the evangelicals, right?

Only the evangelical.

No other Christian sect or denomination ever goes this far in their hideous evil than what you just fucking heard from that guy.

Fucking crazy.

Go ahead, Abu Ibrahim hey hasa'm alaikum

alaikum isa i want to i want i did want to give my two cents on what i just heard i'm

i'm as shocked as you were about especially the part about the humiliation of Ahead of Ait

calling Hussein

Aalam

not a sahabi

I think that guy was Muzad

I think he was genuinely

I genuinely I have some real

you know concerns about about that guy.

May I let me guide him.

In any case, a lot of what he repeated, before I get into what I wanted to talk about, a lot of what he repeated in the sense of, like, fatalism, the lack of centering of justice.

These are common ills among Muslims today.

I'm a Muslim constant creator and speaker,

so I guess you can consider myself more of the orthodox variety in any case,

but I don't really...

This is part of what I'm trying to change about how Muslims think is

there needs to be a kind of agency about justice and about changing our situation

from an Islamic perspective, and from an Islamic perspective is the operative word.

And I did come to you

because of your posts about Marxism

being Islam and I do want to have a

conversation about that. I'll be honest

I did not like

read or watch too much about

you to see how you're making that connection.

So I'll start with my basic position, which is that Marxism being both an economic

prescription for society and being a kind of worldview which sees history as driven by class conflict, I do not see that being consistent with Islam, neither in its legal prescriptions. You know, Islam allows private property.

Islam is not about the total redistribution of wealth, nor in its worldview.

These are arguments I've already addressed in the previous conversation, so we're going to have to avoid the redundancy since we've all been listening.

Well, I think I can represent this argument perhaps better than some of the others. So if you could

maybe catch me up quickly and we can leave off from there. No, actually, I think that you're

not informed enough. You're going to have to rewind in the video

and go see what I said.

Because these are straw mans from the beginning, you know.

And it's as simple as that, you know.

I just am weary of having

to repeat myself.

You know, go ahead.

This is the same guy about Ukraine who's obsessed with Ukraine.

So this person is Jesse who's claiming to be an ACP commissar.

There's no commissars in the ACP.

So this is going to be a troll who's trying to misrepresent us.

So I'll let them do that, though.

Go ahead.

Give it their best shot.

It's not TikTok, so I can't get banned for what other people say here, right?

So go ahead.

Curse you.

You ran from Abouh, Ibrahim, your Zendik.

May Allah curse you. May I'll curse the access of Jews.

You want to just cry and curse me? Like, I give a fuck. You fucking Larpur?

Shut the fuck up. May Allah curse you, you fucking cap.

May you shut the fuck up and get a fucking job, you bitch.

Fucking cursing me like I give a shit.

I mean, you're being amateur.

You're saying, oh, Islam doesn't agree with

equal wealth distribution.

Where in the

writings of

Karl Marx or

Engels or

any Marxist

do they say

equal wealth

distribution?

One time

they say

well,

Islam doesn't

ban private

property.

Yes, it

does.

In the

Greco-Roman legal jurisprudical sense of what private

property actually is that survives only through feudal Europe that does not exist in Islam

Islam presupposes as a given that everything is owned by God ultimately and in the final sense, that there is no

absolute right to alienate land, that land is ultimately owned by the sovereign.

It wasn't until the Tasmat reforms in the middle of the 19th century that trading land became even legal, for example, in the Ottoman Empire, right?

Usually there was user-a-fronked rights that were granted, usually special rights for tax collectors, and so on, but these were Asiatic states that centralized

the means of production and

prohibited the private ownership in land.

In the proper legal category of what private property

actually means. Use of fronk rights is not

private property. The specific language

that's used in the Quran is what you can own with your right hand.

So this is about the third time I've repeated myself, clarifying basic common sense if you're just a little bit educated enough to debate me on this topic.

Once again, go ahead, Jesse.

Greetings, Comrade Chairman.

I come to beseech the great con for knowledge that I may wield it as a sword against our enemies.

Okay, but you're joined in January with two followers and you're calling yourself the commissar.

So I just have to call into question the sincerity of whether you're actually in the party or not.

What chapter are you in?

I'll literally check with your chapter.

Oregon chapter.

You're actually in Oregon?

Yes, sir. Let's check. Thank you. I'm we'll have to see i mean i actually don't know i'm waiting for a response so you uh you, uh, you need to, um, you know, we'll,

we'll see now based on what you say. Well, so I, uh, encountered a pushback from the anti-family

leftist that I'm having trouble countering

and I wanted your perspective on it.

So their argument

is pulling from Stalin

in economic problems of socialism

in the USSR from his

formulation that the relations

of production must inevitably conform to the means or the productive forces rather.

So their argument is that because of the development of technology, like IVF, up and coming the ability to fertilize

an egg with DNA from another egg even though

that's not you know functional in practice yet

but that this is the theoretical basis

for why the destructive...

That's just post-humanism.

So a big mistake people make in their interpretation of Marxism

is that Marx and Engels don't subscribe to a notion of human nature,

but they do.

Even when it comes to matters of the family, they do presuppose an

underlying foundation of, yes, this is human nature, the natural monogamous family, does

exist, and it's referenced in Marx's book, Origin of the Family. What changes are the various institutional and contractually enumerated

ways in which human nature finds expression. Okay. So for example, marriage takes a very specific form in

capitalism in relation to the transmission of private property, for example, right?

And that the origin of private property establishes the institution of marriage, mainly as a vehicle for the transmission,rilineally the patrilineal transmission of private property and uh you know marriage comes is is the recognized uh in the form that it takes under capitalism,

arrangement of private property,

where the wife is subordinate as a category of the private property

as the husband, and so on and so on.

But Engels doesn't deny

there's an underlying human element

based on natural human love which he talks about

which is monogamous in nature right he simply denies the notion that the institutions that define the

expression of that which are in fact unique to a given mode of production, are in fact eternal. He talks about the various different ways in which these forms differ and change, but he's not talking about some kind of gender fluid theory or something across

history. He's talking about

in relation to the institution

of private property, right?

And the various modifications

that occur, especially when it comes

to the transmission of property.

You know, for example, distinguishing, and also, this is another thing, the incorporation of the individual into the community.

So Engels talks about in Gentile society, the matrilineal tradition, which establishes the division you're in in terms of

the gens, right? And then the division into the factories and the tribe and so on and so on.

And, you know, these are the things that change. But when it comes to human nature, Engels actually doesn't deny there's a human nature that these things are giving expression to in different ways.

Now, if you're talking about post-humanism, post-human forms of reproduction, I don't think, I'm not in a position where I'm willing to even entertain that, because we're not, we haven't reached a level where you can,

um,

you can,

uh,

grow a human embryo

outside of the context of a womb.

It's just,

I thought was my initial

reach as well, but I think what

they were specifically talking about

was like single mothers through IVF

where it's no longer

Well, but it's not, it's not

the mode of production is not just about technology.

There's all sorts of things that are technologically possible.

According to a strict, rationalistic organization of production based on technology alone,

that are in fact not common because the embeddedness within the human context of how people meaningfully make sense of their totality of labor and the totality of relations that they find themselves in is just as much of a historical force as technology is.

The relations of production are not just based on technology,

and the forces of production are not reducible to technology either.

It's the interrelation between the historically formed, what we would typically bracket as the cultural and civilizational norms combined with technology. And those things, the thing I just mentioned is not actually reducible to the superstructure.

It's fundamentally ingrained in the logic of production.

So I hope I'm not overly simplifying you here.

But if I'm understanding you correctly, then the particular way in which this is manifesting is a result of the social alienation within our society?

Yeah, I think even our fantasies about this idea that all of our human relations are going to be replaced by this, you know, automated process of, I don't know, some institution giving women the ability to fertilize their eggs independently of man. It's like this is a form,

this is a reflection of our alienation

from our humanity, you know?

Understood.

Thank you, comrade.

I appreciate it.

For sure. See you, comrade. I appreciate it. For sure.

See you later.

Yeah, I mean, it's kind of, we have to understand the human is the object and subject of Marxism.

The presupposition that human beings are mechanical utilities that, no, human beings don't,

you can't simply assume and presume that, for example, the relationships between human beings and words that, yes, Marx and Engels did use like love between

men and women, that the whole story of that is just over because technology and now it's just

going to be through robots or something. It's like, well, no, for most people, that's how they

actually acquire a sense of

self-determination and existence and humanity and recognition. It's through their relations with

other people, right? That's just as important as technology. I'll bring on this guy who's screaming in my chat. I just saved you for

last because you've been here before. Go ahead. Go ahead. Why is this taking so long?

This guy's been spamming me this whole time.

Hey, aye.

You're Islam, right? You follow the Quran?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah? Is ithmm. Yeah?

Is it divine?

Yes.

It's true, 100% accurate?

Yes.

And you like Muhammad. Muhammad's a good guy. That's a role model for you to follow?

Sure, yeah.

Okay, so I thought

you were against

like the Epstein class,

but...

I am, yeah.

Okay, well,

you were talking about

Plato and Socrates rap raping little kids?

What about Muhammad?

Just say what you want to say.

What about Muhammad raping little kids?

He didn't.

Well, I thought you believed in the Quran.

I do.

That the prophet prophet married when

married her when she was six years old

now where does it say that in the Quran is he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old

and then he remained with him for nine years. Where does it say that in the Quran?

Book 67. Hadith 69.

Okay, so it's a Hadith. Volume 7.

It's actually not the Quran. It's a Hadith.

First of all, so just be consistent in your argument second of all uh the majority or all basically

shias deny that sheas don't believe that i'm shia we don't believe that notion that she was

nine or something in the Shia Hadiths,

it doesn't say the Shias don't believe that.

So you can't throw that on me. We don't believe that.

Second of all, I don't even think all Sunnis

believe that. So you're talking

about a Hadith that

is contested and not

universally believed.

I don't believe it.

Okay.

So you pick and choose what you believe in the Quran?

Well, I must have gotten lucky because I was born in Ray Shia, and we Shia don't believe that.

So it is, I guess I did get lucky, you know, that I don't have to believe

such a thing.

Okay, well, I mean, that's kind of...

And it's not in the Quran. It's not in the Quran. It's in a Hadith that is not believed by everybody.

Even, not all Sunnis believe it either actually

I don't even think I don't even think majority of Sunnis I think this was something that was

made popular or normalized by some

and they're just misrepresenting it you know so Allah is all powerful and all knowledgeable

right sure okay so and he's good right yes okay so when he does those bombings

In Palestine

He does

So he

So he's not all powerful then

Yes he is

So he did that

No Do you believe Uh So he did that.

No.

Do you believe that he knew the end from the beginning?

Yes.

So before he said let there be light, he set it up to be like this, right?

So let me ask you a question. You seem very intimately familiar with the theology and the cosmology implied by it.

What?

Yes.

Why did God, what was the purpose of creation, according to the Quran? To glorify God.

Okay. To worship God. That's correct.

To worship him. Not necessarily glorify.

Okay. Worship. To worship God.

Kind of egocentric. No. Actually. to worship God.

Kind of egocentric.

No. Actually, no.

Because God is absolute being.

Okay.

So we're talking about a relationship of reflection and self-relation.

This is how the Sufis understood that creation is, in a sense,

and it was very heretical and scandalous to say this,

because it's implying that we are somehow part of God, right?

Do you believe your God?

No, that's not, that's a huge misinterpretation, but it is about the self-relation of absolute being, okay?

Which means we are not God, we, there's nothing like God, right?

He is unlike everything. There's absolutely incomparable. But simultaneously, to even consider all of creation in the aggregate in its totality is to refer to something that necessarily has to be

separate from it can't be a part of it okay because the whole is not a part do you understand

so um to first of all make the mistake of saying well if god did not just make everything according to a one-sided determination of this is directly what he wanted.

You're assuming too much what is God, who is he?

How can we even think about God and his intentions?

Well, the only way we can

do that... What?

You're talking about an Islamic version

of God, which is not

something that I accept. I mean, it's like watching

a bunch of clowns talk about the

you know, their favorite

comics. You're an atheist, right?

No, I'm not an atheist. Are you a Christian?

No. What

are you?

I believe in Jesus. I believe in

Buddha. I believe in

Zara, Zara, Astra,

I believe in Ra. I believe in Confucius.

I believe in... That's great. Do you think there's a god?

Of course.

Okay. So why don't I just turn this...

So, okay, the same question you asked me, I could ask you. How do you answer that question?

What?

If there's a God who's all powerful powerful then why is there injustice in the world

it's it's the universe the universe is god and there's no there's no single um

divinity of lack of

pain, right? Pain is

something that is a part of the universe

and suffering. So when someone

is getting raped and killed, is that

does God want that?

God does not want, God is.

Okay. So is God Raping and killing people

These are these are humans

Um

Taking

So the same thing you asked me

You don't even have the response to yourself

These are humans taking

Taking their actions into, into account and bringing that into the effect of the universe.

Because humans have free world, which is the same thing Islam says.

So what's the problem?

Well, because I don't have faith that God set it up and planned it like this. God is just...

So how is your God all powerful?

God is. The universe is. Everything is God. Okay. So if it is, then how is it not accounted for in the being of the thing how is contingency emerged

that degrades it is these are humans these are humans who are part of that acts deviated

okay you're claiming there's an original absolute substance or essence that is, right?

So how could it be possible that the will of human beings deviate from that?

It doesn't.

Right. So it's the same thing.

No.

Yeah, it is. You just twisted yourself into a

fucking pretzel. You don't even know what you're fucking saying.

God isn't this thing that's all holy and mighty and like you guys, you guys think that God, that morality comes from God.

Okay, you don't think that?

Humans, humans invent morality through our god divinity connection okay that's

divine consciousness that's great but you asked me the question of how could what's going on in gaza be

possible if god is all powerful.

How does your God account for the injustice?

You say, well, it's just human beings that are doing that.

Well, okay, I could just simplify it and say, in Islam, human beings also have free will.

Yeah, we are part of God.

That is, my God is not something that is like a floating idea in the sky that...

Islam doesn't say God is a...

Islam does not claim God is a floating idea.

Allah is up high, right?

And we are down low, right?

We are to bow our knees to Allah, right? That's not my God.

We can talk about the axis. I'm on

far with God. I look at God

eye to eye. We could talk about the loaded language

of the Axis Mundi and what that means.

But ultimately, Islam does not

say that God is an idea in the sky.

It doesn't say that. It says God is the ultimate reality that God is an idea in the sky. It doesn't say that.

It says God is the ultimate reality.

God is the absolute being.

God is the sublime for which nothing can be compared.

Okay?

So Islam does not say God is a floating thing in the sky.

Okay?

You're kind of...

Allah?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Allah is not an idea in the sky.

Muhammad? Muhammad is not a floating

thing in the sky somewhere? No, he's not.

He's a man. In Islam,

Muhammad is the prophet of God.

Isn't he, well, he's dead, right? And so when you pray to him, you're praying to a dead person.

Nobody in Islam prays to him. Believe it or not, nobody prays to him. He's a prophet. He's a messenger of God. Nobody prays to him he's a prophet he's a messenger of god nobody

praise to him we are all messengers of god well if that's true is geoffrey dommer a messenger of

god you know?

Yes, everybody's a messenger of God. In your religion, Jeffrey Dahmer is a messenger of God.

No, no, no.

I don't have religion.

Religion is a man-made packaging.

Okay, well, in your belief your system in your system of belief

is Jeffrey Dahmer a messenger of God

no

okay

so but you said all people were so I was just

trying to clarify what yeah so in

Jeffrey Dahmer's version of

God then that's his message.

Is that version of God real?

If Jeffrey Dahmer exists, yeah.

So that's a point in time.

So every single, the version of God.

Yeah, it's like, it's like a microcosm

universes and worlds

where you can create your own

is a legitimate messenger of God.

It's like you won't kick, right?

You're like the god of this kick

cult.

Okay.

Let's go back to Jeffrey Dahmer being the messenger of God in your opinion.

All right, but first you got to brush your hair for me.

It's getting me distracted.

It's not going to happen.

So we have to focus and hone in on the argument. Okay.

I think you haven't thought this thing through whatever's in your head, and I think that though you are trying to insult Islam and offend me, and you're not going to offend me.

I was an atheist for 10 years.

How are you going to offend me?

Though you're trying to offend me, I think that maybe you need to convert to Islam.

You're missing something.

You clearly, whatever this thing you've adopted, it's not doing much for you.

If you think Jeffrey Dahmer is a messenger of God,

I don't know

how much you...

So you think God didn't want

Jeffrey Dahmer to exist, and

God was fighting against Jeffrey Dahmer, but Jeffrey Dahmer won.

I think God accounts for the possibility

that Jeffrey Dahmer could exist.

God created Jeffrey Dahmer.

Jeffrey Dahmer will be a child of God, though.

By assuming a unidirectional and direct

notion Assuming a unidirectional and direct notion of creation according to time, you're making assumptions about the nature of God that are not justifiable.

Like, the notion that God creates as man creates, as in man, for example, fashions a sword by, you know, breaking metals and beating them with heating them up or something, like being a blacksmith.

And this is how God makes people.

You're making an assumption about the nature of God that's not justifiable.

Do you believe in fate?

Yeah.

Okay, so then therefore, that's where you and I differ.

I don't believe in fate.

We write our own fate.

We write our own histories. and this is why evil can exist

because some people can corrupt god and and bring in evil if there is faith then from the

beginning god would have to create evil a notion of fate would have to assume there's an ultimate reality, okay?

And that is what is faithful.

But if you read philosophers like Mullah Sadra, for example, he talks about how there can be different fates.

That free will is so powerful that there are different forms of destiny.

There's different types of destiny.

There's different fates that are possible.

Oh, my God.

That makes sense if you don't think about it.

Like changing fate is literally possible.

And it's multiple versions of fate.

Fate.

Not faith, fate.

Yeah, there's multiple versions of fate.

Yes.

Yes, it can change.

By definition, you're not talking about fate.

You just twisted yourself into a pretzel.

Well, if you read Molesodra, then you can make an argument.

Okay, explain that for us.

I don't need to go do your homework.

You carry the argument.

It's not my homework.

I'm giving you homework to do, actually.

Yeah, I know.

You, I'm not debating that guy.

I'm debating you.

So you have to carry his argument.

Well, basically the assumption that there's either a fixed fate for which our will is basically superfluous and which is set, which God himself cannot change, versus the notion

that we are completely free and autonomous to just do whatever we want, and there's no fate,

he was dealing with that contradiction, because it's a clear and obvious contradiction in the theology of free will and determinism and mullah sadra basically concludes that yes everything is predetermined by god but so powerful is God that God, for example,

can at any moment change fate.

That's one thing.

So there can be different types of fate.

God can change fate.

He can change what fate actually is.

And then he says human will...

He was going to do that? What? God human will. That he was going to do that?

What?

God didn't know that he was going to change his mind.

God changes his mind.

No, that's the beautiful thing is he did.

He does know that he's going to do it.

So then he never changed fate.

Then he got that was the path of the beginning.

But from what we, because we are finite beings, can comprehend as fate, yes, he can.

Fate for God is not something we can relate to or comprehend.

What we can comprehend as fate.

When that let there be light, did he know Hitler was going to do that?

In a sense, yes, but you're not talking about something that is...

So God created Hitler to go kill millions of people?

No, because you're assuming

you understand the reasons for

creation and existence

that you can't.

Only if you have faith, could you be blind

enough to make this make sense?

I just tried to explain

to you the free will and determinism thing, but then

you're flipping into Hitler, so you need to

focus on something. You just said, there's

fate, right? And so

I'm predestined to do a certain thing, but then

I can change what fate is

and God will make that fate. Yeah, free will

is so strong, yes, Molasodra

makes the argument that free

will is so strong that even human

beings can alter fate.

Then it's not faith.

Then you

just contradicted the definition of fate. Fate you just contradicted

the definition of

fate.

Fate is something

that is written

in

in stone

before it

is going to

happen.

That is going

to happen.

I'm trying to explain to

you.

For us

for God

no,

yeah,

for God it's

fate. Okay. But for God, yeah for God it's fate okay but for God faith is such that free will is superfluous

but that doesn't mean free will is not an attribute of creation it means for God the determination of being is so infinite and so sublime. It's something we cannot finitely comprehend. So for us, fate, what we can understand and comprehend his fate can change. For God, ultimately everything is determined by God, but we can't have access or relate to divine fate. That's something too infinite and too vast for us to comprehend finitely.

You're just contradicting yourself

you can't just

make a word

what we human beings

regard as contradictions

partake in the unity of God

we think they're contradictions

because we're not God.

We're finite beings.

So we assume it's a contradiction, but it is reconciled in God.

Only that could make sense to only somebody who uses faith as their reasoning through life.

No, you're not even...

Yeah.

We're not even talking about faith

yet. That can't even make any sense.

Dude, does.

If you're a skeptical person,

a rational person,

does. You can't make that make sense.

You're talking about

irrational faith. You think

Krishna is God. You think Confucius

is God. You think Jeffrey Dahmer's God is real. You think Krishna is God. You think Confucius is God. You think Jeffrey

Dahmer's God is real. You think every single human being has their own God that they just

invented that's real. Like you literally believe in the plot of American gods. We are a past

to God. We are, we are a part of God. The universe is God. You literally believe in the that exists is God. We are a part of God. The universe is God. Everything is a particle that exists is God.

You believe in the Star Show American Gods where there's like Mexican Jesus, there's normal Jesus. Like everything anyone believes is real.

No, not anything that they believe. They're themselves is real. No, not anything that they believe.

They're themselves is real.

Jesus,

Jesus understood this, right?

Jesus, Buddha understood this.

That's why they were woken, right?

Before that we were,

when we were animals walking, rolling the earth.

And then we have this divine consciousness breakthrough.

First of all, don't realize that we are connected to the universe.

Listen, listen, don't insult Buddha.

You don't know who Buddha was.

Buddha was not a hippie.

Saddata, I know who Buddha was.

Buddha was not a hippie. The name oftha, I know who Buddha was. Buddha was not a hippie.

The name of Buddha corresponded to some of the most

devastating and decisive.

Buddha was one of the first awakened ones.

Buddha corresponded to immense violence

throughout history.

The Mongols were Buddhists

and many wars were fought. Yeah, that's religion, though. That's the repackaging of religion.

But I'm just trying to tell you something that, like, when you have this hippie worldview, yeah, man, like, they were just hippies. It's like, that's not the truth at all.

No, that's not my worldview.

Okay. Well, you have a very, you invented your own religion, which is fine, but you're...

It's not a religion.

Whatever worldview or system of belief you have sounds retarded, dude, I'm just going to be honest.

Oh, more than Islam?

Yeah, Islam, but

the do, okay, don't you believe in like a flying

carrier that took somebody up to heaven? No, I want

you, I want you to humble yourself for one

second, okay? You believe

in a talking donkey?

Can I ask you something?

How old are you?

I'm old enough.

Okay, let's say you're 40.

Okay, let's say you're 45, okay?

I'm younger than you.

Oh, you're younger than me.

Okay, so you're in your 20s.

So, as someone who your 20s. So

as someone who's only lived...

Wait, how old are you?

I'm 30.

Holy shit. Okay, I'm older than you.

Okay. Well, whatever. Let's just

say you're 35 or something, right?

I thought you were like 40.

Okay. That's great. So let me explain it to you. Okay. You have lived a life about 20 years, okay, 40 years, let's say.

You have had time to think about things and come to your own conclusions about them.

But let me ask you a question.

What you're calling Islam, that's that's 1400 years of people thinking about

this shit just thinking it through spending time some devoting their entire lives

hold on hold on hold on some devoting their entire lives to thinking about it so when

you say that this thing that you invented in the shower

is less retarded than something that people had time to think about for 1,400 years,

you need to be a little bit humble and just assume,

well, actually, people were not that stupid. They did

actually think these things through and try to make sense of them.

No, because they're not being charitable enough, is what I'm trying to say.

What is the definition of faith? You have faith? Are you a faithful person?

Yes.

What is the definition of faith?

Give me yours first.

No, no, you can reward. I'm asking the question. What is your definition of faith? I don't have faith. So you tell me what faith is.

I think faith names the specific relationship we have to that which is absolute, but which we can have no certainty with respect to the content of, but which nonetheless, ultimately and in the final sense, is the source of the confidence we have that life is meaningful and that there's there's an inner

harmony between what we give in this life and what we take from it and that's what i think faith is

faith by definition is believing in something that you cannot believe, understand, see, feel.

You need to be much more charitable to the...

No, if you can rational it, if you can make it rational, then by definition, that is not fake. Listen, I want to educate you.

You need to be more charitable to the tens or hundreds of thousands of years of history of human beings.

No, we don't.

Hold on.

You need to discard this idea that faith is the arbitrary investment of certainty or, you know, empirical claims arbitrarily made about reality.

Like, as though people were just, like, inventing something in their head, like unicorns, and they're like, I think there's a unicorn delusionally.

You believe the moon split into two.

No.

Did you think the Greeks thought that there was like some guys on Mount Olympus?

Like when the Greeks were sitting around and there's a mountain in front of them that they can see

do you think they actually believe that when you climb that mountain there's going to be like

some robed guys running around talking like they were that retarded yeah they basically

personified you thought that these people you thought they were that retarded, right?

That's what you mean.

Who's Hercules?

Who's Hercules?

Isn't Hercules half man, half God?

I can explain Hercules and other heroes from the Homeric era if you want, like, Heracles.

Wait, wait, so you just think all of this is a metaphor

No no no I'm saying it's not a metaphor

But it is the way people are translating their ontology into language

I would say they're all metaphors everything that the

It's not just metaphors, but it's the...

They don't have the science to...

They're not making empirical...

Listen, empirical truth value claims

are based upon the anticipation

of practically intervening in reality

in a specific way.

Whereas, translating your ontology into language to make sense of the universe that you live in and the world you live in and your relations with others in the totality does not take the form of making literal empirical truth claims about the physical or sensible world.

Do you believe in Noah's Ark?

I could tell you exactly what Noah's Ark was about, if you want.

I mean, do you believe all of the animals two by two got on a boat?

I can tell you what Noah's Ark was about, if you

want.

Just, I don't want the whole story.

I know, I know Noah's Ark.

No, I can tell me what it was about.

And why...

I'm saying, was there a physical boat

That animals two by two got on?

No

Okay, all right

Just checking, just clarifying, holy shit

That's like a

But that doesn't mean

They were just believing in some retarded shit

There's a reason why they phrased it.

Yeah, there's been histories of floods.

I understand the...

And what is the arc?

What is the arc?

It's the thing that preserves our...

And historically, we know what that is.

Okay, this is the rise of the temple economies because temples became

institutions where people stored all of their knowledge their skills and everything they could

take into the future and because of that when there was these cataclysmic cyclical floods. So for tens of thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years, human beings were at the mercy of arbitrary changes in the environment. And every time they had reached a certain level, the environment just wiped them out. So the rise of

temple economies around what we call the

Neolithic Revolution basically

allowed people to store their knowledge,

store their skills in a new

division of labor, you know,

survive and endure

these floods.

But the emergence of that was contentious socially.

The emergence of temples created a conflict between are we going to invest in the temple,

or are we going to keep to our own, you know, primitive tribal bans and have certainty in that?

So the story of Noah's Ark is about that specific conflict.

So you don't believe in the Quran literally it never it's not about literally or metaphorically

because it's never it never made the claim that it this is uh speaking within the context of

an experimental,

empirical, like,

um,

uh,

uh, context of reality.

It's never making that claim in the first place.

It's not speaking.

It's not speaking about reality in a modern sense of the way.

What claim is it making?

What claim is the,

what claim is the cron making?

Primarily ontological. It's primarily ontological. It's primarily religious, which is a separate category.

Well, ontology is about being. It's about the nature of being.

And what claim is it making about being?

That there's an absolute oneness of being, and that in particular, there's an absolute

totality underlying every division of labor that fundamentally, yes, I mean, that's literally what it's saying.

I can translate that you.

All religions have this absolute oneness correct, right?

Yes.

Bob Marley, one love.

They all have the

oneness correct.

And that's all

they need to go to.

So my religion

is the absence of two.

That's what you want to

call it.

So Islam is all about

oneness.

It's all about Tahuid.

That's what it's about.

It's about the one. No, but Islam is about control. Just like Marxism is about control. It's about order. It's about making sure everything has...

No, Dawson, you need to understand something. Do you have kids? No. Okay, but if you have kids, you understand when you have kids, you have to teach them how to be human. They're very unruly. If you don't watch your kids and impose order on them, they may grab a knife or put a fork into an electric socket and kill themselves, or they may

take a brick and smash their head

into it. Yeah, but if you were never

taught how to be human, who's going to teach

them?

You were taught how to avoid danger.

You know how to... No, no, no. I'm saying if

you weren't taught how to be human, then who's going to teach them?

Who hasn't been taught?

Okay, exactly.

So what do you mean?

How could they not be taught?

Because that's why we have authority.

That's why we have what you're calling control.

Because populations are the same way.

Not everyone is at the same level of maturity and development.

People need guidance, especially at the mass level.

Yeah, they need...

Only very recently...

They don't need...

They don't need cages.

They don't need what? They don't need cages. They don't need what?

They don't need cages.

They need gargails.

Nobody said they need cages.

Who said they need cages?

Basically, communism needs cages.

Why?

I mean, have you seen North Korea?

It's one giant cage.

It's not, actually, though.

It's really not.

You'll learn something.

I have met a few North Koreans on vacation,

but only when I was in Ukraine.

You went to Ukraine? When did you fucking go to Ukraine?

It's a joke. They're not allowed to leave

North Korea.

Well, they're not allowed to share

state secrets with enemy states, if that's what you're saying.

No, they can't go on vacation and, like, just

leave the country.

Neither can you.

Neither can you.

Exercise the freedom of human

neither can you

go do it

try it

get in a

I just got back

from Japan

okay

I've been to

I've been to Europe

I've been to

Southeast Asia

hold on

do it next time

in the South America

do it next time

without a passport

or while

out your under FBI investigation. Try it. Do it with a passport without a passport next time. Try it. Okay. So they can do it with a passport? Yeah. If they're given the proper permission, they can do it. No, they can't.

Yes, they can.

Yeah, if they have somebody

walking with them to keep an eye on them.

Not necessarily.

I mean, you think that level of restriction is reasonable?

Yes, it is, actually.

It's profoundly reasonable.

So I'm not defending the passport.

I don't think I should have to have a passport and get permission to, well, I don't

have to have permission to leave the country.

You do.

I don't have permission to enter the country.

No, I don't have to have permission to leave.

I can go to Canada without having my passport. Assuming that you have a passport. I don't have to have my passport. I don't have to have my passport to go to Canada. Okay. Well, that's probably a special agreement that you have. That's probably because it's a special agreement that we have with the name of government. But that's only that's at the mercy of the fact that our

governments have this agreement with each other not because you have the freedom but because

our governments gave you that my government my government has given me that freedom okay well

if you if your freedom is being given to you let me correct you on something if someone's giving you your freedom is being given to you, let me correct you on something.

If someone's giving you your freedom, you don't have it.

No, no.

My government hasn't taken away that freedom.

If it's given to you, you don't have it.

I don't think the government should be able to do with the things that it does.

I'm not sitting here and I'm saying, oh, hey, I'm pro-co-American

government. But objectively, that's how

every government in the world works.

No, no. I think there's lesser evils.

Yeah, every government is evil.

And I think there's lesser evils.

Okay, that's a very cowardly

way to look at the world where you don't have to make a choice and just choose good over evil.

There's no such thing is good over evil.

That's a fake invisible world that you're playing.

Why do you have a problem with cages if they're not evil?

Evil is created by man.

Okay.

And so they said it's not real.

They weren't raised right, right?

They were told that they need to keep authority and keep order, and you need to be strict because without order is chaos.

I'll tell you what. We can make a bet if you want to make a bet since you're so concerned about the freedom of North Koreans.

Here's my bet to you. Are you ready?

If the U.S. and its allies cease all hostilities and aggressions against the DPRK, meaning they stop their embargo, their sanctions, their attempt to overthrow the North Korean state, their attempt to meddle in their affairs and interfere in their affairs, if the U.S. and its allies agree to do that and the DPRK doesn't lack restrictions, I will

criticize them.

How about that?

So you make your job.

We have two jobs there.

Your job is to go

and make sure your government leaves

them alone and all of its

puppets leave them alone. They border

China and they border Russia

so they could just have an agreement

with China and Russia and go to China and Russia

if they wanted.

And China is another communist country.

Let me ask you a question.

Does China in the United States

trade?

Go on.

US sanctions on the DPRK apply to

China and also Russia

too. Well, Russia cares less about them, which is

why there's unprecedented economic

cooperation between the two.

But in any case,

no. This justifies

the starvation

of your population.

There's no intentional starvation of the population.

It's the U.S. Sanchez.

This justifies the ignorance of being able to run a country to starve your citizens.

It's not the fault of the government that people were starving in the

90s. Holy shit. What is the job

of a government?

To protect your population.

Okay. From what?

From people who want to rape and plunder

your nation like the USA.

Protect it from death, right?

If some, well, actually

death is one of the prices you have to pay

to retain your independence. Yeah, you're protecting

your citizens from being killed, right?

That's the point of a government

in the long term if you look at the south koreans they're killing themselves because their

fertility rate is so low they won't even exist in a matter of decades centuries whatever about

south korea that's fine.

So you have to, when you're

a government, you look at things in the long term.

When you're a government, you have to look

at things in the long term. You're saying that they

should have surrendered to the U.S.?

No, I'm saying they should have been

competent leaders and prioritize the nutrition of their citizens.

Why did the U.S. imposed such an aggressive embargo on the DPRK after the fall of the USSR if they were so concerned about people starving?

Why did they cause the starving by imposing that embargo?

And that's,

that's sanctions.

That's such a victim card.

Like the whole thing about like,

um,

the Berlin Wall and,

and,

uh,

if we in alone,

in,

in,

I don't even think if the United States, it's, oh, oh, and in in in Italy

the United States

Oh the the big

meanies were mean to us

That's why we suck

That's why we can't feed our people

That's why we'll have a good economy

Because the big meanies are meany

Like okay just just man up

Sack up be a man

Get the fucking economy on your up, be a man,

get the fucking economy on your back,

and be a good fucking country,

and leave your fucking people to success and salvation.

Can I be honest with you,

though you are older than me,

when you speak, you sound like a child.

Bro, you're over here with your little pretend fan club.

What are you talking about?

How pretend is it, though?

Bro, you speak into a mic like you're important every fucking day.

And you get these suckups in here that fucking brown knows you and say said oh my gosh hodge you're so amazing like who needs that for their fucking ego i don't fucking need that that's pretty fucking childish to me you have a fucking god mohammed that you have to listen to that you you bow to, that's pretty fucking childish to me.

I don't fucking do that to another man.

I don't call another man daddy, like Putin

or like Muhammad. I'm a fucking man.

I don't fucking look at these people as above me.

I look at them as eye to eye.

You have them as like above you. Like you're a little coward, like a little boy. In the beginning of this conversation, you named a few people that you venerate like Jesus and Buddha and Confucius and others. Did you not? Yeah, they're my equal

they're my brothers

they have they have cracked the code

they have understood

let me ask you a question

you sound so ridiculous

if they're your equals

why do you name them

why don't just name yourself

because they're there

like you just said the venerated leaders

so why not so they're not your equals then because if they were your equals you would just name

yourself they are my ancestors they came before me they laid that they laid the and that's how i

see uh putin or z or Xi Jinping or whatever.

And Muhammad?

He did come before me, objectively.

Yeah, but he's also your God, right?

Where?

Where in Islam is Muhammad God?

No.

Muhammad's not God.

Can you say that in a sentence for us? Muhammad is not God can you say that in a sentence for us

Muhammad is not God

holy shit

right here

everybody hears that

this guy who is Islam

just said Muhammad is not God

can I ask

who twisted themselves into a preckle right now?

Why do you have such a problem with Islam when you know nothing about it?

Holy shit.

Well, I mean, I thought one of the tenets of Islam is that Muhammad is God.

Where did you learn that?

Basic, basic religion 101. basic basic uh religion one oh one where tell me where you got that course uh mohammed ascended into heaven did he not

he went to heaven okay does that same is is momad is is muhammed a part of of um god

is he god in human form no who's where did you learn that

he's so he's not I mean

you're the guy

with the answers apparently

but I've never heard of that

I've never heard of any Muslims

saying that

so he's just some guy

then

he's a messenger of God

he's a prophet

so just like all the other prophets?

He's the last one. That's the difference.

Okay, so in Christianity, they think

Jesus is the last prophet, and then they say he's God.

They believe Jesus is, yes,

the son of God. So who fulfilled is, yes, the son of God.

So who fulfilled the sacrifice then?

In Islam?

Who has come to forgive us from our sins?

Who has taken away our sins?

Jesus.

Well, no. Islam did not say we had

a ledger of

sins that we've accumulated.

Is the Old Testament a part of

Islam?

Yes, but it is said

that it has been corrupted

in the Islamic tradition.

They say that the original

oldest text has been corrupted.

That's what Islam, the religion...

So then all of Islam is corrupt

because it comes from a corrupt thing.

Are you saying that somehow purity grew out of corruption?

No, the Islamic theology claims that the Quran is co-eternal and it is the Word of God and directly, but that, you know,

the older holy books have been distorted over time and corrupted.

So if you just don't like them,

you just kind of throw them out and you pick and choose.

Well, I mean, even if they're picking and choosing,

there's a reason why they're picking and choosing what they are in the first place,

and that's what's relevant in theology.

So how do you know that the books and the words in there were picked and chosen correctly?

Because you have to evaluate

them based on their content and what the content

So each individual is responsible

for authenticating each

individual word. So

then there is no fucking wrapped up

packaged religion. No, I don't think that's true.

It's not about each individual necessarily. It's about what the meaning is collectively in our collective struggle for existence now and what role it plays in that. And that's something we share. And we have the burden of sharing it because we have to communicate with each other in order

to coexist in a single division of labor.

So you can't, you can say, well, it's just individuals can interpret it however they want,

but they can't give that interpretation the objective social and historical significance.

It needs to actually become a force of history.

Do you believe that the ways of nature are what's going to be pure and truthful and come into

fruition in the world, right?

Like,

how many is what will be?

20 subs for me having to deal with us.

We have to not fight against it, right?

What?

Like, humans are always trying to fight against it, right? What? Like, humans are always trying to fight against nature, right?

You believe this?

And the reality of nature will exist, no matter how much we fight against it.

I don't believe that there's a fight with nature.

Like to control nature.

Like we plant gardens.

And then one day the gardens come and

overgrow the weeds

come back.

It's not about control. It's

meaningless.

Well, I'm saying like you have to be one with nature right like we have to be one with the oneness and you can't fight against it

we are we are already

okay so um going back to the

divisions of labor,

right?

Wait, first, can you define for me

who are the bourgeoisie?

What is your definition of bourgeoisie?

The bourgeoisie? The bourgeoisie are those who own private property as capital.

Do you own property?

Funny enough, I don't own it as capital.

What does that mean as capital well

private property takes different forms

in history

but in capitalism

private property principally takes the form

of a self-

I'm talking about you specifically.

I only have personal belongings, honestly.

I don't really even have property.

But you said you own property.

Well, you need to clarify what you mean.

I don't own property as capital like i like land with a

dwelling i have personal belongings and that's all i'll say so you don't own land with a dwelling

are you in your parents' house right now?

No.

So this is your house right now that you're sitting in?

I guess.

So you own that?

I don't know why you were asking, you're inquiring with such detail about this.

Well, it's just kind of funny that you don't believe in owning personal property when you own personal property.

Yeah, I don't believe in having personal possession. That's totally something I've said.

Okay.

So how does this division of labor work?

Because, I mean, it seems like a fantastical idea.

Like, I would love everybody to just receive their, according to their needs and contribute

according to their abilities

but you understand there are

five subs and I keep this guy

literally just five subs. That's all

we'll take five subs and he's

gone.

The division of labor is not an ideal.

It's a reality.

We all live in a division of labor.

Yeah, but to control it, right?

The idea that we can elect or we can have somebody who's an authoritarian leader divide the labor in an equal way for us?

No.

All right. So how does this, how does...

That's, I told them that five jumps to remove you.

And they donated the five.

Orvo, what's up?

Peter, what's up?

Chris, what's up?

I said five subs and I remove him and they gave me five subs.

So it's just honestly fair thanks guys for that

if anyone else would like

to come up

that was so exhausting

that's this guy's so exhausted So exhausting.

That's so, this guy's so exhausting.

He's like, um, just so exhausting.

Like, he just has such a childlike mentality. It's like... Blackpack.

Blackpack! Thank God, bro.

Thank you so much with the six.

Blackpack sent

six because he

was like, no, five

is not enough. He needs to especially be gone.

No, it's not Russia defender, actually.

It's not. Joseph Joseph go ahead Hey what's happening what's happening nothing much Nothing much.

So explain to me what's with

this whole

communism or

Lenism, Marxism,

and Islam connection

because that's new

to me.

Explain to you the connection between Marxism

and Islam?

Yeah.

Yeah, well, Marxism...

And give sources.

I don't do this Reddit thing, so sorry.

I don't know what your standard of sources is going to be, or you want some higher authority.

I am an authority, okay?

Call me Sheikh.

Okay,

okay, go ahead.

So,

the basic idea of the connection

of Marxism and Islam being the same

thing, don't interrupt me at any point, right?

Because then I'm going to lose track of what I'm saying.

Islam emerges as the first real universal faith of mankind.

Judaism was not universal.

And Zoroastrianism, though it was universal,

and though it aspired toward all of humanity and mankind,

and it was monotheist,

and it really initiates the tradition of messianic and eschatological monotheism which we call the abrahamic tradition

zoroastrianism was never concretized in the same way for example judaism was judaism was concretized in the same way, for example, Judaism was. Judaism was concretized in the

covenant. So the covenant was a special relationship between the tribe of Israel and God. So it's

concretized. Zeraster is not, it is in combination, an oral tradition, a textual tradition, but it's a

kind of a loose tradition and it's not concretized anywhere, right?

Christianity is concretized and universal in the form of Christ. Okay, so

Christianity is universal. But the problem with Christianity's universalism is the Trinity.

It is, yes, universal, but it is a universal that has not acquired the concreteness of the one.

It is a universal in the process of acquiring concreteness, right, through the hypostasis of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And the Trinity becomes the concrete in many interpretations, but there's a limitation as far as Christianity's ability to expand to the world because of that.

And Christianity mainly becomes defined by walled gated civilizations that have to institutionalize

the faith through a union with pre-existing forms of political sovereignty and authority namely the

romans right so in the western roman empire the byzantine empire sovereignty and authority, namely the Romans, right?

So in the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and even later in Russia, they're kind of inheriting these structures of sovereignty that come from the Romans.

Islam finally acquires a true notion of the universal faith of all mankind, like addressing all of humanity, concretized in the form of the Holy Quran, right?

So what we're really talking about is the universal humanity, the universality of man, okay?

And the universality of being. So the concrete, the concrete unity, the all, the one.

Hegel and Hegelian philosophy more or less attempts to develop through the faculties of reason and thinking and thought alone, a relationship between knowledge and the universal, right? Which is concluded in Hegel's notion of absolute knowledge,

and Hegel's notion of the absolute spirit as the mediation of reason and the idea in the world as mind, self-developing and acquiring self-recognition and self-relation through human history itself, right?

So Hegel's dialectic basically, more or less, is about how God acquires self-recognition and self-knowledge through human history,

but this is a god of contemplation, already projected as an absolute idea. Okay.

Feuerbach, who comes after Hegel,

says that this Hegelian absolute spirit

is just the alienated form of humanity.

And that Christianity,

and moreover, it was an alienated form of Christianity, and that Christianity is the ultimate human religion, because in a distorted and alien form, it gives expression to the essence of what man is, which is called within the Feuerbachian tradition,

Gatung Wesson, species being, a being that is a particular.

So a being that is, acquires self-relation by itself becoming a particular, right?

And of course, all being acquires particularity, but not as the self-relation of being as such.

So there's this profound ontological significance of man that Feuerbach discovers.

And it's specifically the movement of Feuerbach to Marx

that I think marks an accidental rediscovery of Islam

in the modern world.

Because in the movement of Feuerbach to Marx, Marx actually decouples the absolute from the strictly abstract kind of doctrinaire trinitarian form that's inherited from haigle and accepts the absolute

integrity of material being to simply be concrete to be concrete the concrete whole as this kind of unmediated

presupposition that man should simply

blindly acknowledge and accept

as like an a priori basically

and the early poetry of Young Marx actually reflects this directly,

such that for Marx,

the human essence doesn't take the form of any abstract projection of the faculties of thinking

but is already the concrete integrity of material being in front of us, that which on the street I find is directly

from his poetry, right? And that is the concrete unity, the concrete whole. So it's always about

the one, the unity for Marx. Now, he identifies that with man, and not necessarily with God.

But he's not replacing man with God.

He wasn't religion.

What?

I mean, he wasn't religious, yeah.

I mean, he viewed it as a...

No, no.

He agreed with Fortybock that religion was an alienation of the Gatom's Wesson.

But the problem is, is that God is unlike anything, basically, and that it's the relationality that Marx establishes the thinking being or the subject or the individual or whatever you want to call them toward themselves so the self-relation of man, that conveys the logic, basically, of, it presupposes a notion of the absolute being that you only find in Islam, basically.

That's basically the argument.

Marx's humanism presupposes a notion of the absolute,

which only Islamic theology provides, in my opinion.

That's the simplification that's the simplification

because for

for marks

the absolute being

has to be something that is already

the concrete and integral tot already the concrete and integral totality, the concrete and integral whole, which is there before it kind of is recognized by us as such, right?

But he has ideas that are anti-Islamic.

Like what?

I mean, he was anti-religion, and the idea that religion...

Well, Islam was also that religion keeps workers quiet.

It's a tool for control.

Islam was also anti-religion.

Muhammad and the Kaaba destroyed like 300 idols, so he was pretty anti-religion. No, paganism isn't

a religion, no.

Well, what is religion, though? Exactly the antithesis of religion, the root

word of religion, because we're not all speaking the same language in the world.

Religion is the way of life.

What?

Religion is the way of life.

No, it's not.

Religion in its root meaning is a shared community with a shared bond, okay?

Figures like Jesus Christ and Muhammad actually do sever these bonds and call them into question.

You're literally at the tribal familial level, right?

You're turning father against son and so on and so on,

cousin against cousin. So in a sense, if you think about it, the prophets in these traditions like

Muhammad or Moses or or Muhammad, or sorry, and Jesus, they're actually anti-religion as well. They're undermining

religion, the fabric of religiosity, and the strict sense of how we understand it in Western

civilization. If we mean religion as a receptacle of the sacred, Marx also wasn't necessarily anti-religion.

Because while Marx agreed more or less with Feuerbach that religion is an alienated or distorted reflection of the human essence, it still is the only

receptacle of the human essence that we can actually point to and refer to in order to have

a meaningful understanding of what the human is in the world.

Like, you can't speak of this human essence outside of the context of referencing religion, really.

Because even if

religion is the privileged form of human

alienation it's precisely because it's

privilege that gives it the meaningfulness

that it does.

So whether

like the question of whether

Marx

thinks that religion refers to something empirically real or empirically distinct, rather, is the better word, is actually immaterial and irrelevant.

If the meaning is the same, it doesn't matter what's at stake in terms of the empirical distinctions implied. Because the religions originally never even cared about empirical distinctions.

Like whether God is an empirically distinct entity that we could somehow sense as a separate substance tangibly in the world, they were not speaking on such a level. So why would it matter if Marx didn't believe that? What do you mean? Who you mean by they weren't marks rejected the idea that there's these separate metaphysical substances floating in the aether yeah yeah but but even that is not justifiably inferred from the history of religious revelations in history.

It's unclear, for example, whether Jesus was claiming there are these separate substances floating in the ather somewhere.

It's very clear from Prophet Muhammad.

No, it's not at all.

Okay.

Even when he refers to Jin, he's not referring to an Aether.

He's referring to, for example, entities...

No, Jin is pretty clear. Jin is another creation, my God. Yeah, but he's referring to, for example, Gen is pretty clear. Jin is another

creation, my God. Yeah, but

he's referring to things that actually exist.

They're made out of fire. They're made of a smokeless

fire, yeah. Yeah. But not

something in the Aether or something, right?

That's er rovan, but

I mean, that's not, that's not

the point. The point is that

the prophet

made it pretty clear

and also from his

certain miracles, certain

adidas that talk about

what he did.

It was pretty clear

that there are other

creations, there are seven heavens,

his travels to

the outer worlds.

Yeah, but what did he mean to refer to when he said that?

When we're living in a era, when people are not relating to the world around them in a primarily modern utilitarian sense where everything is ready at hand

but when cosmology and you know the description of reality is very much rooted in and focusing on what does this mean, what content of meaning is meant to be conveyed.

You can't say that they're referring to these like, yeah, let's just take like a spaceship expedition and we can just build one and go there they're

not thinking in this modern way they're not thinking in terms of that yeah yes definitely this

this is this is believing in the unseen ultimately that's what it comes down to believing in the unseen. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to.

Believing in the unseen.

But, and I think... But for example, the unseen...

The unseeing...

The unseeing...

Yeah, the Marxism also affirms the unseen, you know?

Marxism also affirms the unseen.

As long as we talk about the...

Yeah, if the unseen is the totality, how can you see a totality?

How do you see a mode of production?

You can see parts of a mode of production. You can see parts of a mode of production.

You can see evidence of a mode of production.

Yeah, yeah.

You can see...

In the physical world, it's not metaphysical.

The problem with talking about physical or super physical,

it's kind of devoid of meaning meaning because everything physical is at the scale of

individual's sensibility if we're talking about empiricism. But within Marxism, no individual can

actually see something called capitalism. You can see examples of the mode of production,

but we can't meaningfully refer to a total unity of the division of labor.

Let me simplify it.

Something called society.

How can we see society?

Think about it.

Aren't we just seeing different individuals?

What's a society?

Yeah, I mean, I think that's just kind of bike shutting.

That's what? Society and it's a, you're bike shedding. We can see society

and it's,

you're bike shutting.

I don't know what that means.

I think it's

uh,

bike shedding.

It's like you're trying to

go,

go,

it's a roundabout way

of going about the point

that we're trying to discuss

how am I circumventing the point

in your estimation? Yeah I mean

you can see society right we're living in a society

what do people mean when

they're seeing we're living in a society I'm do people mean when they're saying we're living in a society?

I'm asking you that. How is that justified by the strict? And by the way, when you said you can see the effects of something, that is by definition a physical thing. But within the

Islamic tradition, you can also...

I'll give you another. I'll give you the other. I think what you're trying to say.

Like, for example, right now in Christianity or Islam, right, if you sin, if you commit, like some kind of sin, let's not say like a stealing or something, but missing a prayer or something, right? There isn't really an effect or anything that you would see or anyone would see well the argument

there's not an immediate effect but in the long term there's an effect so in the same way they

you if you talk about heaven in Islam for example we definitely see the effects of heaven in Islam

that's why it's a meaningful referent of language nowhere is there being proposed some speculative thing that is entirely

unrelatable to us in any sense at all.

Like even God, although God is unlike anything,

the works of God are evident in the world. Heaven and its effect on the world is evident.

Jin are referring to entities that are responsible for things that happen in the world, that can be observed at the physical or individual level within Islam.

Likewise within Marxism, not everything Marxism refers to can be directly seen physically in the empiricist sense, empirical sense. Like I said, capitalism is kind of, or society is an abstraction. You can't see a society directly. You can see the effects of society. You can see relations that could only be

made meaningful sense of within the context of what we're referring to as a society. But this is about

human language and meaning. Ultimately, this is what the analytical tradition struggled with deeply

in terms of meaning and language, whether we're talking about Carnap or Cellars and others, when they're

talking about, what does it mean to signify something as a word well we're

signifying a referent whose concreteness ultimately is referring to like a tangible or observable

empirically observable thing well that we know that's not how it works Language refers to all manner of things in order to make sense of our reality, which are not

reducible to anything empirically, immediately accessible to us, but which only make me, only

like acquire their part of a meaning by existing in the context of wider relations so do you do you believe in i mean

you know there's this concept of like, I think therefore I am.

No.

There's this.

Okay.

No, that's the problem.

Even Feuerbach, who Mark Strauss from, rejects that.

Feuerbach rejects the idea that I think, therefore I am. He's basically saying, even when we think we're already embedded in a relationality with the species, right? And it's ultimately the content of the species that defines and contextualizes our thoughts, right?

Interesting. I still didn't quite catch the the marxism and islam connection and also your branding and your messaging

why why go full frontal on the whole marxism stuff and not just go Islam

Because I think the word Islam

Has been corrupted. I think the people who represent

Islam in the world have corrupted

the meaning of it.

Okay, that's fair. Yeah, that's fair.

That makes sense.

Yeah, no no thank you for

uh letting me have a quick chat

we'll give someone else a turn

for sure for sure

okay guys

if we want to continue this

then drop a five.

I hate to put it, I hate to bring it there.

But you just, there's a way to just, actually just one's in the chat if you want to continue.

That's a better pulse on the community, to be honest.

Because then one person,

well, it still stands, okay?

Okay, we can, we can have one more person up.

Enonia, go ahead.

Yo, what's up?

Yeah, apologies.

It's a bit latent, as you can hear from my accent.

I haven't slept much, so if I'm a bit slow right now, apologies.

First, I wanted to ask a couple of questions, just to try and understand

your sort of inner relation of this.

What are your thoughts on, like,

the idea of sort of

collective unconscious,

like some sort of idea

akin to muses that, like like people kind of pick up on a strings or something like

on a thread these ideas that seem to come from somewhere else what are your thoughts on this uh i need you

to clarify what you're asking a little bit better

Yeah, it's difficult when you're on the satiric grind kind of stuff

Just yeah, I'm just saying a little bit

You don't have to like, you know

Yeah, no, no, no, I, you are right

I mean, you are right.

I mean, you know the idea that, like, some, oh gosh,

there's echoing, apologies,

but sometimes it seems

like a bunch of people sort of

around the world are having similar ideas

at the same time. uh or there's almost

i get a feeling an idea when i see a piece of art that is deeply true that someone has like drawn

deeply from it that there are are echoes of sort of deeper

truths in it, even if they're not fully aware

of it, and it seems like there's almost

something being drawn from

from, I don't know

where exactly.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Yeah, I do, actually.

So I don't know if I believe in the idea of a collective unconscious as much as i think that

i don't the problem with the word collective is it means the aggregate of the individual right so

for example in fascism you have the analogy of a fascist, which is a bundle of sticks.

Well, I call into question the sovereignty of a stick in the first place, whether it's bundled together or apart, right?

We have to change our understanding of what the human essence is in such a way that accounts for the fact of why things are as apparently social and collective as they are and when it comes to the question of for example like why are there these resonances at these specific points in time

that appear to be shared by the population?

Why do our experiences seem to align

so directly?

I think it's also, I think it's because

as what we call

subjects who are continuously

being

participating in the discourse

of the world, we are

drawing from the same

rhythm of discourse,

the same pool of it. And I think we're all very sensitive to it in more

ways than we could comprehend. A lot of us like to think that our thoughts are our own, but in

reality, there's a continuous constant and unending stream of transmission of the aggregate information of mankind,

you know, relatively speaking, to each and every individual all the time, right?

Yeah.

And moreover, in addition to the fact that just our common discourse is continuously being transmitted upon us, the very scaffolding of discourse is also being continuously transmitted to us continuously in real time all the time.

And that scaffolding primarily consists in this fundamental referent of language itself that that allows us to make meaningful sense of what existence is what it means to exist

not only in relation to the shape and structure of discourse,

but in relation to the very object of discourse in the first place. And it's this object of

discourse, which is the interesting thing to think about. What is the object of discourse?

What is the literal, what is the reference, what is the thing everyone's talking about? Like, if you think of some memes where they're like, nothing ever happens or something is happening, what is that thing?

Something's always happening.

Yeah.

But what's the thing?

You know,

that's the most interesting thing

to think about

when you think about it,

you know?

You are correct, though,

by the way,

on the point of the collective vote.

I just don't know how

the words don't really

flow when, because I

have to get it across.

I understand. And it, you know, I think that

when you think about it in that way,

there is a lot of different

I like this idea.

You know, I was... I've been getting into music a little bit.

So, someone analogized a melody

as a call in response.

So, like, this is the part of the melody

that's asking a question,

and then this is the response. And melodies are just like questions and answers, right? And that's what makes melodies pleasing to us when we hear them. And I think I think discourse is the same way. There's always this opposing tension of what is what is it actually we're responding to. And it's not necessarily another discrete person's voice. It's this common implicit subtext of how do we actually react to the shape of this object that is continuously being

transmitted to us, which is not a person, it's not a face, it's not even a specific

chain of reasoning or discourse or logos per se se but is more like

something sophianic

you know

yeah something that takes form

accidentally as the consequence of

our being

you know collectively and

we're always we're always engaged in a dialectic with that.

We're always responding to it.

It's always continuously impressing itself upon us indirectly.

We're always reacting to it.

We're always answering it.

It's always imposing questions upon us that we're continuously

answering through and

by means of discourse.

And so

I think

that's why, I don't know if that answers

your question, but I think that's why you have this resonance in terms of like, why do we come across the same things at the same times as a species right now, you know?

Yeah, I mean, I have quite a few ideas, but it's interesting to see.

Because I feel like you are clicked onto what is going on in a way that most people aren't.

It's also very heartwarming to see someone who's on the left who's actually somewhat spiritual.

And also heartwarming to see someone who's religious who isn't just like a like doesn't even think about how their religion intertwines with themselves and the world and reality and i i just can't believe being a religious person and thinking spiritualism is like something silly to be mocked when like it's the fun. I don't know. I think the way to be tuned in to the world is to not subjectalize. You have to stop seeing it as a relationship between you and the object. You have to stop treating yourself as a subject. You have to stop assuming that you are the subject of everything that's happening. And you have to, in a way, dissolve yourself into the thing. And you have to in a way dissolve yourself into the

thing. And you have to just accept

that you are yourself

defined by the way you're continuously

reacting to this thing.

And that if you ever want to affect

it in any kind of way, you have to understand

it's not two-sided it's one-sided

i'm reacting to the aggregate totality of of the world always everyone is if i want to affect it i

can't treat myself as the subject of it if i want to to affect it, I have to, for example, turn my stream on and start talking to people.

I can't just assume that the universe is choosing me or talking to me.

Most people do think that, though, because most people have a relational understanding of discourse where

it's about mutual recognition but the key to being in tune with what's going on at all times

is to just not seek recognition from the thing.

Yeah, I mean, I'm going to partly agree and partly disagree.

I think you do need to drop the ego, but also I do think that at the same time, there is a want from the universe to know us and for us to know them and that kind of happens in that

process but there is that push i mean have you ever had like have you ever read any roomy for

example um i'm a little bit familiar.

Yeah. Yeah.

All of this is like sort of love poetry about

God.

It does sort of

show this sort of interaction, this interplay between them. And that's that somewhat

being, you know... But I think that I'm of the view that the interplay is... It's not that I think that

the cosmos or God is indifferent to us as individuals.

It's just that if you want to affect the world and how the world is reacting to things,

then you have to understand that you are not uniquely a subject of world historical discourse.

You know, if you want to affect it, you have to understand that you have to get your confidence from God for sure.

Yeah. But you have to, like like I think the great thing about Islam or other Abrahamic religions is what it's basically saying is we're

all equal before God actually we have an equal right to challenge and intervene in

the discourse if you are at peace with

god you don't need to get recognition from the discourse and assume you're the subject of

discourse you can just tap into the discourse and affect it yeah the question about what what subject means, though, is like, you know, if you are wanting to be an instrument and that you don't view yourself...

It's not about being an instrument, but it's about, like, the subject of discourse is not the individual.

The subject of discourse is ultimately

the self-relation of our common

essence, which it's almost like

our essence is talking to itself,

and we are taking

that personally too much.

That's the problem.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

I think,

I guess as well,

sorry,

it's probably difference of what we mean by like personally.

Because I feel like I'm kind of a bit down the rabbit hole at this point and so

I've somewhat

forgotten how like

in, well I say I still am in my own head in relation to things

but like how, you know,

just in your own head you get about these things.

I do think a big thing that is not spoken about enough is like quiet and just like listening. Um, I think this is, I mean, you know, pardon me for being conspiracy minded, but I think you might agree with this, that this is one of the

reasons why background noise

is just like pumped in, like, music wise

all the time. It's just kind of like numb

ourselves to like hearing

any...

Yeah. I mean,

there's a lot of things to do. I mean, a lot of like, too v there's a lot of things to do i mean a lot of like tvism a lot of um i mean all of the

most of the mystics have a period of isolation and then they you know happen same with the seek

so yeah thank you for coming on. I just remember something.

Yeah.

I just remembered something,

guys,

by the way.

Every time I do an X-Space,

it's not recorded.

It's on kick.

Kick.com.

I guarantee you,

I'm going to delete this off my timeline as I always do and then I'm gonna be accused of wiping the space well it's on kick it's just a

clutter on my timeline maybe I'll keep it I mean I don I don't know. It's just...

I feel like I like my timeline to be... Let me see if they change the...

...layout so that it's separated...

No, it's directly on my timeline. So...

I will delete the space but I'm not deleting a recording

because the only recording is on kick so I just want to put that out to everybody

the only recording is going to be on kick um so uh tph is requesting but i will be greedy

and say if you want tph on you have to vouch for him by dropping a five like this it's

actually a cost TPAH you're good but it's like someone needs to vouch for you I'm literally

just being fucking greedy I'll bring him on. Go ahead,

TPH.

But this will be the last person.

All right, here we go. So,

me and my buddy who's

left com have been having this like like, this argument for, forever, for, like, forever.

And it's basically, he always approaches me with the material class interest of the secretary.

He says this, like, sort of like a meme.

Like, he just says it that way. And he says, like, you know. meme like he just says it that way

and he says like you know

Secretariat

So he's like

How can the like leaders

Stay loyal to the proletariat

If they get in a party And then in a state and now they're like a different subjectivity that wants to reproduce itself and I say to him like you know the revolutionary consciousness that brought them into the party is what will make them loyal to the proletariat as a whole so far i'm not saying this is the solution but so far in the history of communism it's been monarchy in the proper definition of monarchy not in the right wing you know conventional feudal notion

of monarchy but in the sense of a supreme ruler endowed with absolute power basically

because that is the only way

the universal interests of the proletarian class

can actually find expression in something

and any

multiplicity of individuals

that are defined in any kind of way will inevitably yes acquire that

distinction whereas the this is why there was oriental despotism this is the reason it wasn't because

tamerlane or gangis con were greedy individuals who wanted all this power, the only way the universal interest that transcends the various divisions within society can become its own distinct perspective is literally by being a one leader, right? So all these

divisions happened in the USSR that plenty of people in the party became corrupted and

arrogant and try to elevate themselves above the masses.

And that's why Stalin was Stalin.

That's why he was what he was.

And Mao was the same.

And every communist state, you always have successful or remarkable one at least, you have a notable,

powerful leader. And between the period of Mao Zedong, or Deng Xiaoping, I should say,

and Xi Jinping, you did not have monarchical type of authority, but you did have a lot of corruption,

which threatened to undermine the very root foundations of the CPC.

And that's why Xi Jinping comes back as a kind of quasi kind of quasi monarch in a way people think of monarchy

it's a bad word because we associate it with so many negative feudal connotations but if we just

mean it in the sense of the concentration of power into one ruler ultimately in the last final sense um so far that's all we know of you know i'm

just being completely honest about it uh that's fair yeah and and you know when the cia report that said you know Stalin is not really a dictator

there's more like a collective leadership thing going on that's actually why Khrushchev betrayed

and got into power it was collective leadership that actually led to the secret speech later because

khrushchev was in that inner circle right uh-huh would did you have anything else to add

before I make the next thing

uh

I would say

you know

um any any institution that defines itself separately and says we're going to be the supreme

council that just rules it's like, that is creating a distinction among the masses that may not be a new class,

but it is a different subjectivity that's being interpolated.

That's true.

Right.

And so I guess what I'm asking is, and I kind of have somewhat of an answer going, but like, what is the social or historical mechanism that continues the revolution actually producing communism?

The reason Hegel probably defended monarchy is because in a monarchy where the powers in one ruler,

the delimitation of the social body or the body politic becomes infinite.

Meaning like

there's a supreme ruler

and ultimately

there's a supreme ruler I should rather say

there's also of course different levels of mediation, but ultimately

there's one.

And the Supreme Ruler represents an infinite permutations, an infinite permutation of how

the body politic can actually look. Whenever you have a division of labor that says this is how

it must look according to this form well you get a

special segment of society that stands apart and separated from the rest because it's clinging

on to this while changes in the relations and forces of production, inevitably endangering changes.

And that's why a monarchy is not really the rule of one man.

It's the rule of one representation.

But that representation, think about it like this, This is what's brilliant about it in a way. That's funny. I'm not defending monarchy per se, but I'm just saying this is the brilliance of why Hegel probably defends it.

For sure.

Everything is about mutual recognition.

But in a monarch, the way society looks is only in the head of the monarch.

It's not, for example, in how I see what the monarch sees, that is not absolute. You can't turn that into an

absolute principle because the recognition of the sovereign to you is something that has to be

continuously reproduced and vice versa. And the content of

what that is can be presumed to be in the head of the infinite wisdom of the monarch, but you

ultimately have no way of knowing what that is except the monarch, because thoughts are invisible, right? and of course it's a bluff of course no monarch

knows it all in their head and has it all but even the screen that makes this invisible it's only in one

person's head creates a

opening to the infinite in a sense

because that could be anything

and it has to be continuously

suspended in a relation of mutual recognition

with the entire body

politic and that's the

actual secret.

The power is not in the head of the monarch.

It's in the continuous relation between the monarch and the body

politic of mutual recognition.

When that's concentrated into one person as the authority,

there's room for that to actually continuously change.

But when we create an institution that's delimited, chartered contractually, or definitely,

this is the aristocracy because they're better, because this is their institution,

then that becomes something apart from the relation of absolute recognition,

mutual recognition that's suspended in time.

That becomes like a fixed thing that, a sense bypasses the active dynamic process of mutual recognition that is continuous right one's in my chat if you understand what i'm saying here it's like when you create a special

segment of any kind

within the division of labor that shares

sovereignty in any way

you are creating something

fixed and someone well the monarch is also

fixed. Okay sure

but the head of the monarch is invisible. You don't know what

they're actually thinking or what their will is or what their intentions are. And therefore,

it can become totally and fully suspended in a relation with the body politic of mutual recognition

that is living and active.

An absolute

ruler or tyrant

is not a tyrant

in our conventional

sense of the word.

That's actually someone who's purely

defined by their responsivity

to the body politic in that alone.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

I'm not so much saying I love monarchy so much, but I am giving charity historically to why that institution persisted as long as it had as the norm. It wasn't even an institution. It was just the norm. Everyone understood this is just the nature of what sovereignty is.

Yeah, people don't understand different social existences. So, I mean, you definitely got to make that clear.

I guess so I, to really, to really boil it down, like, that was good because you kind of, um, explained how this would be, how that type of leadership would be sustainable. But I guess what I'm asking is, like, in terms of the communist revolution, uh, let's say, like, the productive forces are approaching about like world d o tp right the productive forces are approaching a point where where communism would have to be start to be rolled out it would have to it would be the natural thing. What's to stop

I don't know, like Stalin

or something from just be like

eh, nah, and then like

canceling a couple of shipments and holding back

to productive forces?

I think the

what a weak ruler ultimately does is they successfully open up divisions within their own society.

When they cease to be able to unify their own society, when special segments within the society begin to fill vacuums that the ruler is

supposed to.

That is basically how you get the recipe for clicks andushchev's and so on.

And leaders, I'm saying, monarchs can fail and have failed many times throughout history

to be receptive and responsive to the calling of their era.

And their fate was not very good.

They didn't have a good fate.

They were considered bad rulers, you know?

There's nothing guaranteeing a ruler would be good, will be good.

Right.

Or will be bad.

That's the thing. Hagle, that's why Hagle considers this like a,

the realm of absolute freedom in a sense, because, well, there's

nothing actually guaranteeing whether the ruler will be good or be bad.

It's, it is possible. A ruler could be a or be bad. It is possible.

The ruler could be a bad ruler.

And in the event that they're a bad ruler,

the consequences of that

will be evident in the result,

you know?

And we have to be... And then that's where the dimension

of responsibility comes from.

And all the stories of heroism

and the Homeric epics and poems

or even in the Shaw and Shaw

and all the story, the secret history

of the Mongols, those who take and all the story, the secret history of the Mongols,

those who take and shoulder the responsibility for the weakness of a ruler or the injustice of a central authority, historically they're called heroes.

They're taking on and being responsible for this is where we're

at and this is why. And I'm going to

take responsibility for it. Well,

that's where the heroes come from who

themselves usually become monarchs

and the myths and stories and so on.

And Lenin was probably

one such hero.

Was he not?

Yeah.

So then I guess the answer to that is like a militant proletary that's ready for the process and pushing it themselves.

Education is so important.

Yes, but nothing

guaranteed. There's no guarantee in anything.

Nothing is ever guaranteed.

So then what do you get when you have

like somebody like a dang

come around and like class struggle

is now like political mechanisms

in the government

like that sort of changes things

so what what what did it

did not change things the material conditions change

and dang was successfully responsive

sure and the proof is in the pudding you know

so

there's more people

requesting and I'll give them a chance

to come on

see you later bro

uh

paloma wants to speak

go ahead paloma The Loma is missing now.

We will bring on the spreader go ahead

they left as well well are the spreaders here go ahead spreader

coofe spreader i'm the coofe spreader um hey mate how you doing uh so i remember watching a video

recently of yours you were talking about about raising legions of Albanians.

If you had any success with this and was it solely due to Fuentes's degradation of the

of them or any

claims they have to, or any

de-legitimization of their claims to

a European identity. Or is it

um,

have you been thinking

about this for a while and that sort of triggered it?

What do you mean? I don't know what you're talking about this for a while and that sort of triggered it? What do you mean?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, you were talking about, like, you know,

raising Albanian legions, basically,

like red, red regions, yeah.

And you were quite passionate about this.

So what made me think of it was,

were you,

had you previously thought of this where what influenced you to

what influenced this idea of raising albanian legions and uh you know or was it just nick's, um, uh, insolence?

Nick Fuentes?

Yes, because you were saying, oh, well, Nick's come online and Nick was, uh, you know,

talking shit on the Albanians.

And then you were like, no, we've got a place for you.

I see, I see.

Yes.

Well, uh, we could have placed for you I see I see yes well

I'm saying

yeah well I mean I we don't

I guess why not I mean like if you're

dissatisfied with the system and you're being excluded

from Nick Fuentes's movement

because you're Albanian.

It's like, well,

we'll take you in because we don't care

about these things.

Yeah, true.

So, what's, I was just this

legionary sort of, um, uh, rhetoric that you're sort of pushing. It sounded very like, uh, like Hitlerists. Like, you know, he's, they, they raised the, uh, that yes, yes. I wasn't, I wasn't being politically correct enough. I should have said hordes because we're a Mongol.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

We should say we see wards here, you know.

Yeah, fair enough.

Well, like, if you read the battle,

the battle reports from the Scanderberg Legion of the SS in World

or to that horrible horrible um

they were not liked they were uh they couldn't even put their clothing on properly and they were

likened to uh african soldiers uh sadly um but have you had any success?

Have you had any Albanians sort of coming to join?

Yeah.

Thousands, thousands.

It's actually tens of thousands, actually.

Anyway, we're going to wrap up the space now because even I should sleep.

I'm not saying I have to sleep.

I'm saying I should, right?

It's a normative thing.

This space will be deleted from my timeline.

It's not even being recorded.

It's on KIC if you want to see it.

It's on KIC.com slash infrared.

That's where you can find it.

And I will be live for two more minutes.

Goodbye. I will be live for two more minutes Goodbye Gollas

and sun's infrared vision

I wish you guys boosted the Abdul al-Said tweet

way more

you guys like fuck that up

like what's going on guys boost this tweet

big time you know

let me find it yeah guys go like boost this what's going on

this is like such a insightful analysis analysis. Thank you. You know, Fix my Discord. is on infrared.G.

It's there. What you talking about? On the website, it doesn't work, really? Invalid link. Okay. You know, What an insightful stream, guys.

I'm not really a religious apologist or it's called apologetics. Um, You know, I want to put like into writing why Marxism is Islam right now for you, just so it's like simplified.

So let's do MS Paint. You know, You know, That's kind of the gist of it, you know? You know, Stay tuned for the essay to for more.

That's...

I like to experiment with simplifying shit.

All right, guys, I'm wrapping the stream up.

Goodbye.

Bye-bye.