Something is happening.

Settled sorrow

Mm-hmm.

Prepare for launch.

The stars are calling.

Sob, what the fuck is up?

That one sub?

is noted

Taken, accepted,

Tribute accepted.

You are recognized.

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

Friendsness

Yeah.

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 TikTok, 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 the 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 successful, and we're gonna start boosting it now.

And we're gonna let the space simmer.

As I immediately launch.

Prepare for launch 'cause it's happening now, okay?

And the space will be called.

We're calling the space something outrageous.

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.

So, this is we're back talking to the public on X, all of the bots on X, all of the people from Nikita Beer's X platform.

So, we're gonna have that open.

We're gonna allow people to be given the time, and we're gonna 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 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 Z, but 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 twenty nine, thirty-six 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, it's five things people really need to understand.

Put down the potato chips, pick up the collected works of Marx Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

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 are you doing, man?

Appreciate you.

So I understand that these anti communists are sad and they're jealous 'cause they're not as successful.

Well, they lack affluence 'cause 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 who you know they're just fundamentally jealous of communist success.

China's success, our success, the first and second Soviet five-year plans that superindustrialize the country, they put people into space.

We are just basking in success into W's 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 do 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.

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.

Islam and communism aren't compatible.

Debate me on quarrel.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.

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 gonna go on a retarded ass fucking website I've never heard of.

I'm literally doing an X Space.

You wanna debate me, then get in the X Space.

You come to you wanna debate me?

Come to my 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?

You can 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 Tahir 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 this 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.

I don't saying it's legit.

I don't give a fuck.

I don't go on websites.

I don'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 am 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 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 as a science.

Islam is a science, okay?

They used to they called the pre Islamic era Jahaliyya, okay?

Means ignorance.

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

Islam is a type of enlightenment which is the same thing that Marxism is.

These people who try to gatekeep Islam, what have you done to defend Islam?

What are you?

Your version of Islam.

Having a beard with a mustache.

Total communist victory with the twenty-five.

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 don't I promote Islam then?

What are you talking about?

What do you mean?

Promote what?

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 is 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 Cosmic Lee Ordoin.

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 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 gonna talk about 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 as 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 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.

Uh, what's the X space?

You go on InfraHaz at Infrahas, and if you have a British accent, 10 points are subtracted from you.

In Frahas, if you have a British accent.

You are subtracted of 15 points.

Okay?

So Infra Haz 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 Space.

Let's go.

I'll bring Sewell on.

I'll bring Sewell 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.

Seul, please.

Bring up these challengers to the the Sultan, the Khan.

The Shah, the Shawn Shah.

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

or the Nader Shah or the Qizil Bash, but comes from some random village somewhere in Iran.

Just some random big nose 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 Tyrio, you should be the ruler 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.

Profound.

This guy's saying me.

Well you should request on X if you are requesting, then get on X and request.

I'm requesting this 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 ninety nine percent okay, here we go, 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 the I'm not British, I'm American.

I see a kind of British twang in your voice.

I kind of like you're not British.

I'm not British.

Say Peter Piper picked a pack of pickle peppers.

Say that.

Peter Piper picked a packle peppers.

Hmm.

Okay, now one last thing.

Say armory.

Armory.

Okay, I got my eye on you, but I see something is amiss.

Well, this is the way you're saying non.

It's the way you're saying na-na-na, 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.

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 saying, 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 uh is this good enough for you?

Try your best consistently.

Go ahead.

Okay, well you were saying that the I'm framing the question wrong that it's gotta sound like your credit score is good.

Yeah, I don't sound like that.

No.

Sound like your credit score is A-O-K.

Is it because I'm black?

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

Correct.

And uh I forgot what your response was.

Uh 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 our Sharia comes from the revelation of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Okay.

But Marxism comes from Marx.

So how can the two be compatible?

How can a man made 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, uh is math invented or discovered?

Um

It is discovered.

Correct.

You were on thin ice, because had 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.

Okay, oh, well, no, no.

Well, what do you have to say about the ownership of private property in Islam?

It does not exist in Islam at all.

No, not at all.

Not even one percent.

Do not say no in that tone.

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

Speak with composure.

I will not tolerate these loud noises of no's.

Go ahead.

Okay, I know for how can you say there's no private or yeah, there's no private ownership in here.

There is none.

But did did the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam not own the the land?

Did he not own the the house that

Nah.

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 under the custodianship 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 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 in 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 its 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.

Okay?

So it was basically oligarchical rule.

There's 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, what you have the capacity to maintain, to attend to, 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 Allah in Islam.

Alhamdulillah, as Lenin would say.

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 Allah, 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 another objective.

Are you God?

Are you God?

I have more.

Are you God?

No.

Do you think you're God?

No.

Then wallah, you join the Communist Party right now.

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

I have more questions.

So you think you're God?

Interesting.

No, what?

No, I believe you are God.

No.

You do believe you are God.

No, no, no.

Okay, so what about this?

In communism.

Aren't the communist societies traditionally atheist and materialist?

But in Islam, in the world, in the world, communist atheism is far closer on the path to reaching the Emerald Mountain of Islamic revelation and devotion to Allah than the so-called Islamic societies and their corrupt, filthy pig rulers of swine.

Atheist communism is absence of idols.

They have turned Allah into an idol that is an excuse for all their debauchery, filth, and hypocrisy.

When Allah 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, Sheikh Marx, Sheikh Engels, Sheikh Lennon, Sheikh Stalin, Sheikh Mausaitong are far closer to Allah, far closer in their hearts to Allah than all of these so called Muslims.

who had betrayed Palestine.

Okay, but how can someone who's how can somebody who denies the lordship of Allah be closer to Allah than how could they deny that to which they have never been introduced?

How could they deny that?

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 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 a struggle between the different classes and communism s like seeks to abolish the the different classes, right?

The the like the wealth inequality.

Of course classes are a shirk, they'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 wealth.

I'm not talking about castes.

You are Hindu.

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

We're 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, Reba.

The only thing He declared war on.

Well, the class, all the classes, the ruling classes of history, were based on Reba, 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 k you need help from these people to confront one as I a true Sufi sheikh, a true Sufi Master Azai.

Just be wait, hold on.

No, 'cause I have a communist in the room right now.

He's he's not helping me out.

I'm trying to I I wanna see the hold on.

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

Uh I uh does okay, does communism does it does it ban riba?

Does it ban interest?

Like a complete it wipes it 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, hold on.

Okay, so Marx came from like he came from a completely materialist world view.

He's not Islam is dialectical materialism.

How?

Because m i idealism is the idol worship of the ideality 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 Allah real or is Allah an idea?

Allah 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 Allah, who is the sublime rea the supreme reality of all reality?

How dare you divide from the reality of Allah and His creation and His Being something 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?

No, okay, but communism is like 100% materialist.

Islam is 5 million percent materialist.

But what about the afterlife?

What about our spiritual health?

What about the soul, which is which is 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 ideality?

It's just some shit and 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 being, his reality.

Who are you to say this is only God's thought and this

Allah 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 uh body.

He's the supreme reality, the Ultimate, the Absolute.

No, I'm I'm I'm saying

Okay.

Okay, okay, moving on.

Any you you mentioned, um uh what's it called?

What your right hand possesses.

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

Do you think Marx would would be aligned with that, knowing i his goal was 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, 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, relatively speaking, for the time they lived in.

So we don't we live in a world, alhamdulillah, where this is no longer

Something we consider necessary.

But even so, that's not true.

So, for example, in a 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 prisoner 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.

Uh I g I guess that's that that's

Okay, all right.

What about what about like the okay, what about the 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.

And the no?

How?

What what how 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

Extreme degree of socialization, huge development of the productive forces, that, for example, it would be permissible 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 Khalifa or it was the Sultan or anything else, they always owned the common works, the public works.

They owned 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 mode of 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 you mentioned how how Islam like y you say it didn't have a system, then you you started to talk about how like the the the resources like i it would be given like how much how much I say?

It didn't mean to invent the system from scratch because there was already norms and expectations for how civilizations 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 the guidance of the Prophet is is the guidance for humanity and for all times.

So wh what what what we do what what we just to insult the prophet by this interpretation, to interpret guidance as direct insults the prophet, because you're saying the prophet 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 distil the essence of what he's saying, the meaning of what he's saying.

That's why only the Sufis can understand the Qur'an.

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

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

They're just taking it at face value.

They don't understand the hidden secrets, the hidden meaning, 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 saying?

That the Prophet wouldn't align with what I'm saying?

But it's a guidance for all times.

If you said the Prophet is talking about a camel, he's not just talking about a camel, maybe he's talking about all means of transportation.

So, how do you interpret that?

Who's going to interpret that?

Well we interpret that.

People who are learners, people who are who are capable of interpreting it.

Who?

The chosen people?

The people who Allah the 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 the human experience, right?

But the goal of scholarship today is to use the Quran.

Islam says it will be clear to you based on your heart, not based on what some guy says.

On your heart, you will know truth from false.

So people who look into the Islamic tradition and they look at the evidences, they're going to be able to come to a consensus on what a ruling should be particularly.

Consensus, what does that mean?

So a bunch of people who can be corrupt agree with each other.

So what?

Why should I care?

So basically, what you're saying is that Allah just left us to come up with our own economic system.

To fight, yes, He left us to fight.

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 as an excuse to avoid the pain, the jihad, the struggle of understanding.

They never said that.

That's what the hypocrites want 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 Zedong and just as the Russians understood Lenin.

No, I don't know, I don't know.

I mean okay 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 much is it anticipated the outcome of economic association.

Nowhere does that have to imply private property at all.

You know, I think it's all about a knowledge issue.

What can be anticipated and what cannot be anticipated, and it requires more data.

I think we should debate on Coral T V.

I'm not going to any T V.

I don't watch the television.

Nah, crawl.tv.

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 owns that shit.

No.

Or ISIS owns it.

How the fuck would I know?

The fuck does that mean?

It's Muslim owned.

All right, man.

I don't come again, Trice.

No, just hop on, just hop on real quick with me.

Actually, I'm not hopping on shit.

No, I want to test out the functionality of it.

I'm not doing none of that.

I'm looking fast.

I'm not doing none of that shit.

You don't do you don't do live debates?

You don't wanna do I'm doing a live debate right now.

Nah, let me just okay.

Yeah, somebody's in the background.

Sort your shit.

I'm not dealing with none of that.

I'm bringing Zoe Ran on on DSA, Reddit Ziden, Gen Alpha.

From the democratic socialists of America.

Why do you reject the message of Allah?

Go ahead.

I think they stopped requesting, so now I have to bring on Zoron.

Go ahead, Zoron.

Assalamu alaikum Akhi.

Alaykum Assalam.

So, I think your claim that Islam is pro-communism 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 twenty percent of the war spoils.

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.

Huh?

He used it for the public because he was the sovereign ruler.

No, this is because he's land and he allocation.

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 he and this land went to his daughter daughters after his death.

So it wasn't a property of the ummah.

He was the ruler.

Yeah.

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, it 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 yeah You just messed up

You had no idea who you were talking to.

Someone who believes Ahul Bayt was 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 tafsir 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 Sheikh Frederick Engels and Karl Sheikh Karl Marx, they said each person equality is a bourgeois 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 Mark 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 wealth should be divided based on needs or quality or each according to their ability to each according to their need.

Okay.

So I'm I'm gonna go past the point of of um the war spoils like the the money 'cause you can argue oh who he w he represented the state.

But one more thing was the concubines, the females that were captured, even those were not distributed equally.

So the like the prophet 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, household context.

So to meaningfully speak of such things is impossible.

But there's like verses in hadith that says the Prophet had sex with those female captures and the female captures have no right to reject Like 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 Zahi al-Bukhari and Zahi Muslim.

It's not ISIS where the hadith Muslim.

Like Prophet Muhammad had Yes Yeah, you can back off a little bit, okay?

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 Zahi al-Bukhari and Zahi Muslim.

And I follow the Quran.

So, you think there's no verses in the Quran that says that talks about the concubine?

You should valorize just raping women.

No, I don't think it is.

There are Quran verses about 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 you are missing your recognition 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 concubines were taken against their will by the winner army, and they were divided among the winner army men, not equally, based on the prophet had the most, and then the Sahaba had more than their regular warriors.

And then those concubines, it's written explicitly in the hadith that they have no right to reject 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, and 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, oh, 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, so where do you get like your moral principle from if you reject Hadith regarding the concubines?

Like you just make it based on today's morality.

From Hadiths rather than Allah himself is paganism and idolatry.

We don't 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.

Okay.

Shias and Sunnis don't agree about all of them.

So I don't need to hear this.

Are you Shia or Sunni, 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 polytheist.

Who's fighting?

We don't do shirk.

We don't do shirk.

Okay, it's better not to be.

Israel and the colonial powers.

It's better not to.

I'm 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 does thou hate and doesn't do shirk is better than a bolytheist who's standing for Palestine.

This is the list of things then.

Let me bomb you with something.

Why should anyone be a Muslim if these are the most true Muslims?

If 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's your theology even based on?

Who gives a fuck if the people who are righteous in this world evidently are quote-unquote polytheists 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 Allah 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 dead letter for helping chosen people to interpret based on 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 want to like flag the systematic difference between you and me.

You get your morality based on Discord.

On communism, and I get it from Quran and Sunny.

You get it from Discord.

You get it from Saudi Arabia, madrasas, from Aramco 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 cause of God by sitting on your fucking ass and doing jack shit to stand up to Israel.

I can't do anything to them.

I can't.

I'm not, I'm not a ruler.

I'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?

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't, but I still cannot tell you that.

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 in two, 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 wanna put that up in your pipe and smoke it.

Okay, I wanna flag one more verse because I know some Muslims might be misguided by your words that the Quran says So the only sin that Allah won't forgive is shirk.

It's not not to stand to Palestine.

You can neglect Palestinians and accuse you of shirk.

How?

Because your Wahhabi Saudi rulers are your gods.

They are gods.

I'm not even Wahhabi.

I'm just a Muslim, bro.

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 know.

So, do you think, in the eyes of Allah, do you think in the eyes of Allah, a Christian who fights for Palestine is better than a Muslim who's not?

Yes, yes, one million percent.

A Christian is a Muslim, one thousand million, ten trillion percent, because you are munafiq with Zulbakar.

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 Zulfikar.

Zulfikar was made for the hypocrites, it's the exposes the hypocrites.

Okay.

So you think a Christian who is pro-Palestine and fighting for Palestine can enter Jannah, but a Muslim who doesn't is going to hell?

Okay.

Di is this what your Shia book says?

This is what my Shia truth, my n 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're fighting.

That's the difference.

Yeah.

So you don't think what's happening to you, the major attacks in Lebanon is accumulation from Allah for your shirk?

I guess if you have already been defeated and conquered, you can't lose.

So you got that.

You're calling the veneration of Ahrul Bayit and you're calling this shirk.

Okay, well, your veneration of your Discord admins is shirk.

Okay?

Okay.

Uh I have one more question.

Okay.

Uh do you uh view Ali Anad Hussein as a deity, as a demigod?

No, or do you say that?

No, but that's what you say.

Nobody says that.

But it's not in your books.

So what?

Why why would we say that?

Why would you do that?

So don't you say when you pray, you say Ali Hussein because they are exemplary heroes.

Because they show us what it means to actually follow God.

That's the difference.

Okay, I say this.

We 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 Allah.

Those are glasses wearers.

Yes.

I have the truth because I have some books.

That means I have the truth.

Okay.

At least I have a reference.

I have a principle.

I have books.

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, 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 Al-Bayt and what happened to the Iranians and what happened to Hezbollah, it's not a humiliation from Allah?

Like the way Hasan Nashallah died, the way Khomeini died, the way Hussein died.

Don't you think this is some sort of humiliation from Allah?

Because 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 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.

They would have beheaded you.

You don't think Iman Hussein was a Kharij, he was against the ruler, the Caliphate, Yazid ibn Muhammad?

Is this real?

This has got to be an Israeli.

Even Israeli, not an Israeli.

Hussein is not is not a is not a Sahabi.

Even the real traditional Sunnis don't defend Yazid.

This is incredible.

No, we do defend Yazid.

We name our people Yazid.

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 Muawiyah.

Mu'a'yah 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 Allah is on their side.

So you think Netanyahu is Allah's favored?

You say like a Zionist.

Maybe Allah has sent them to humiliate us because we have neglected Islam and we have abandoned Tawhid.

Yeah, the people of Gaza are sent.

You're saying Netanyahu is sent by God.

That's what you're saying.

So is what Netanyahu did against the will of God, or did God had a will for this to happen?

He's literally like a...

I'm not saying that.

You are a Zionist.

You believe that the chosen people.

That's it.

End of story.

Those who reach fleeting worldly success on the basis of injustice, well, that's because what God wanted.

That actually means it's good.

And 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 by the end of the Abbasid caliphate, Muslims has abandoned Islam and they started to translate Greek philosophy and abandon the deen.

And Allah sent the Mongols to humiliate them.

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 right.

Did you see that 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 Allah.

That this is why your evil is not my evil.

My evil is shirk.

Your evil is justice.

It's just Israel.

Israel is the source of all evil.

That's for me, the source of all evil is shirk, not Israel.

I don't like Israel.

He's defending Israel now.

I'm not defending them.

Sir, you speak.

My enemy, my you spoke, you spoke your peace.

You said what you had to say.

He mocks the family of the Prophet.

He glorifies their murder, their massacre, which all, even most Sunnis, recognize 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 Bayit in Hegiasophia.

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'm, 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 Yetanyahu 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 ortholarpers, some 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, assalamu alaikum.

Alaikum Assalam.

I did want to give my two cents on what I just heard.

I'm as shocked as you were about, especially the part about the humiliation of Ahlul Bayt calling Hussein Ali not a Sahabi.

I think that guy was Masad.

I think he was genuinely.

I genuinely have some real concerns about that guy.

May Allah 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 content 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 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.

And it's as simple as that.

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 and curse you.

You ran from Abu Ibrahim.

Yazindik.

May Allah curse you.

May Allah curse the actress of Jews.

You want to just cry and curse me?

Like I give a fuck?

You fucking LARP.

Shut the fuck up.

May Allah curse you, you fucking curse.

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

Fucking cursing me like I give a shit.

I mean, you talk, you get it, you're being amateur.

You're saying, oh, Islam doesn't agree with wealth 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 jurisprudence 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 Tazmat 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-frunct 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 frunct 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, uh uh Jesse.

Greetings, Comrade Chairman.

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

Hey, but you 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.

Yeah.

We'll have to see.

I mean, I I actually don't know.

I'm waiting for a response.

So you uh you need to um you know, we'll we'll see now based on what you say.

Well, so I 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 functional in practice yet.

But that this is the theoretical basis of why the destruction for a little bit.

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 Engels' book, Origin of the Family.

What changes are the various institutional and contractual, contractually enumerated ways in which human nature finds expression.

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 patrilineally, the patrilineal transmission of private property.

And, you know, marriage comes is the recognized 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.

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, this is 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.

Um

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 haven't reached the level where you can.

You can uh

Grow a human embryo outside of the context of a womb.

It's just that 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 like the monopoly.

Well, but 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 i if I'm understanding you correctly then 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.

Sure.

See you later on.

Yeah, I mean it's it's 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 has been spamming me this whole time.

Hiya.

You're Islam, right?

You follow the Quran?

Uh

Yeah.

Is it the vine?

Yes.

It's true, 100% accurate?

Yes.

And you liked Muhammad.

Muhammad's a good guy.

That's a role model for you to follow?

Sure, yeah.

Okay, so I I I I thought you were against like the Epstein class, but

I am, yeah.

Okay, well, you were talking about Plato and Socrates raping little kids.

What about Muhammad?

Just say what you want to say.

What about Muhammad raping little kids?

He didn't.

The why well, I thought you believed in the Koran.

I do.

That the Prophet married when she was six years old.

Now, where does it say that she consummated his marriage when she was nine years old?

And then she 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.

That'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.

Shias 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 that.

Shias don't believe that.

So you can't throw that on me.

We don't believe it.

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 that.

Okay.

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

Well, I must have gotten lucky 'cause I was born and raised 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 so such a thing.

Okay, well I mean that's the thing.

Even not all Sundays 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, s so and he's good, right?

Yes.

Okay, so when he does those bombings in Palestine or he

So he's not all powerful then?

Yes, he is.

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 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.

And kinda 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 a way and it was very heretical and scandalous to say this 'cause it's implying that we are somehow part of God, right?

But you believe you're 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, you're saying what God can do.

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 family.

I assume you're an atheist, right?

No, I'm not an atheist.

Are you a Christian?

No.

What are you?

Uh I believe in Jesus.

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 so okay, the same question you asked me, I could ask you.

How do you answer that question?

Well,.

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

It's the universe.

The universe is God, and there's no single divinity of lack of pain, right?

Pain is something that is a part of the universe and suffering.

So if someone else 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 humans taking the same thing you asked me, you don't even have the response to yourself.

These are humans taking their actions into account and bringing that into the effect of the universe.

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

God is just all-powerful.

God is.

The universe is.

Everything j is God.

Okay.

So if it is, then how is it not accounted for in the being of the thing?

How has contingency emerged?

That deviates.

It is.

It is.

These are humans.

These are humans.

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.

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 invent morality through our God, the 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.

My God is not something that is like a floating idea in the sky.

Islam doesn't say God is an eye.

Islam does not claim God is a floating thing.

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 could talk about the Axis.

I am all too hard.

Hold on, hold on.

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.

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, uh 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.

He 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 him.

Nobody prays to him.

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.

We are all messengers of God.

Well

If that's true, is Jeffrey Dahmer a messenger of God?

You know?

Yes, everybody is 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 belief.

Okay, well, in your belief 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 so in Jeffrey Dahmer's version of of 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 version I'm going to say, it's like a microcosm universes and worlds, right?

You can create a figure of God.

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

This is 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.

It's not going to happen, so we have to focus and hone in on the argument, okay?

Uh 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 you 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 think God didn't want to 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 would be a child of God by assuming a unidirectional and direct possibility.

Uh, the notion of creation according to time, you're making assumptions about the nature of God that are not justifiable.

Like the notion, 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 s that 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, is because some people can corrupt God and and bring in uh evil.

If there is fate then from the beginning God would have to create evil.

The 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 every day.

Like changing fate is literally possible in a sense.

There's multiple versions of fate.

Fate.

Not fate.

Fate.

Yeah, there's multiple versions of fate.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, so then by definition, you're not talking about fate.

You just wasted yourself into a pretzel.

Well, if you read Mullah Sadra, then you can make an argument.

Okay, explain that for us.

I don't need to go do your homework.

You carry the argument yourself.

It's not my homework.

I'm giving you homework to do, actually.

Actually, 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 Mula 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.

So did God say that he says human beings.

Didn't know 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: he did.

He does know that he's going to change.

So then he never changed fate.

That's the passage.

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 is fate.

When God said, 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.

Okay.

Only if you have faith could you be blind enough to make this make sense.

You just flip.

I just tried to explain to you the free will and determinism thing, but then you're flipping into Hitler.

So you need to do a certain thing, but then I can change what fate is, and God will be able to do it.

Yeah, free will is so strong.

Yes, Molasadra makes the argument that free will is so strong that even human beings can alter fate.

Then it's not fate.

Then you just contradicted the definition of fate.

Fate is something that is written in stone because I'm trying to explain.

I'm trying to explain to you.

For us.

For God, no.

Yeah, for God, it's fate, okay?

But for God, fate 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 as 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.

Well, 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 to life.

We don't even talk about faith yet.

That can't even make any sense to Dawson.

If you're a skeptical person, a rational person, to give me a fucking break, Dawes, 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 every single human being has their own God that they just invented that's real.

Like, you literally believe in the plot.

We are attached to God.

We are a part of God.

The universe is God.

You literally believe in the story.

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 believed.

They're themselves as real.

Jesus understood this, right?

Jesus Buddha understood this, right?

That's why they awoken, right?

Before that, we're not going to be able to do that.

We talk about some hippie.

You have to be aware of that.

And then we have this divine consciousness breakthrough.

First of all, we 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.

Siddhartha, I know who Buddha was.

Buddha was not a hippie.

Okay, the name of Buddha corresponded to some of the most devastating and disciples.

Buddha was one of the first awakened ones.

Buddha, it 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, we're like, 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 not a religion.

Whatever worldview or system of belief you have sounds retarded, dude.

I'm just going to be honest.

Oh, more more than Islam?

Yeah, Islam.

But don't you believe in like a flying chariot that took somebody up to the head?

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 forty.

Okay, let's say you're forty-five, okay?

I'm younger than you.

Oh, you're younger than me.

Okay, so you're in your twenties.

So, as someone who's only lived, how old are you?

Um thirty.

Holy shit.

Okay, I'm older than you.

Okay.

Well, whatever.

Let's just say you're 35 or something, all right?

I thought you were like 40.

Okay, that's great.

So let me explain it to you, okay?

Um you have lived a life about twenty years, okay, forty 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 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 1400 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.

You'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 give me yours.

I'm asking the question.

What is your definition of faith?

I 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 are, you need to be much more charitable to the no, it's if you can rationale it, if you can make it rational, then by definition, that is not listening.

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 need to discard, 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, and that it's like, 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 pushed it.

So you thought that these people...

You thought they were that retarded, right?

That's what you think.

They basically.

I mean, who's Hercules?

Who's Hercules?

Is Hercules half man, half God?

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

Wait, wait, wait.

So you just think all of this is a metaphor.

No Quran.

No, no.

I'm saying it's not a metaphor, but it is the way people are translating their ontology into language.

Because I would say they're all metaphors.

Everything that they're saying is.

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

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 and 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 what I know that Noah's Ark.

No, I can tell you 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 retarded shit.

There's a reason why they phrased it.

Yeah, there's been histories of floods.

I understand the ark.

What is the ark?

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, 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 primitive tribal bands 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 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 what claim is it making what what claim is the what claim is the quran 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 is 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 should translate that.

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.

If you want to call it a religion.

Islam is all about oneness.

It's all about tawid.

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 if you weren't taught how to be human, then who's gonna 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 guardrails.

They don't need cages.

They don't need what?

They don't need cages.

They need guardrails.

Nobody said they need cages.

Who said they need cages?

Um 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 I have met a few North Koreans on vacation uh but only when I was in Ukraine.

You went to Ukraine?

When did you fucking go to Ukraine?

It was it's a joke.

They're not allowed to leave uh 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 explore the world.

Neither can you.

Exercise the freedom of human.

Neither can you.

Go do it.

Try it.

Get an idea.

I just got back from Japan.

Okay.

I've been to Europe.

Do it next time.

I've been to Southeast Asia.

Hold on.

Do it next time.

Do it next time without a passport or while you're 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 if they're given the proper permission, they can do it.

No, they can't.

Yes, they can.

Yeah, if they have a if they have somebody walking with them to keep an eye on them.

Not necessarily.

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

Yes, it is actually.

It's profoundly reasonable.

So I I'm I'm not defending the passport.

I don't think I should have to have a passport and get permission to to well, I I don't have to have permission to leave the country.

You do I don't have to have permission to enter the country.

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

I can go to Canada without having my own my passport.

I don't have to have my passport.

I don't have to have my passport to go to Canada.

I've gone to Canada before.

That's probably because it's a special agreement that you have.

We have with the government.

But that's only 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 freedom.

My government has given me that freedom.

Okay, well, if 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.

You don't get that freedom.

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

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

I'm not sitting here and I'm saying that, oh, hey, I'm not going to do it.

I'm going to objective government.

But objectively, that's how every government in the world works.

No, 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.

You can just say there is no such thing as good over evil.

That's a fake invisible thing.

What's your issue then?

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

E evil ev evil is created by man.

Okay.

And so they choose to because 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 terrible.

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 lax restrictions, I will criticize them.

How about that?

So you make your job.

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 now.

Russia's not even a communist.

Does China and the United States trade?

Go on.

U.S.

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 US situation.

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

It's not the fault of the s the government that people were starving in the 90s.

Holy shit.

What is the job of a government?

To protect your population.

Okay.

Um, 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 don't have an obligation to prevent starvation?

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 prioritizing nutrition of their citizens.

Why did the US impose such an aggressive embargo on the D PRK 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 sanctions.

That's such a victim card.

Like the whole thing about like the Berlin Wall and Eastern Germany.

If the United States is 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 meanie.

Like, okay, just man up, sack up, be a man, get the fucking economy on your back and be a good fucking country and lead 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 these these suck-ups in here that fucking brown knows you and say, oh my gosh, Paz, 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, Muhammad, that you have to listen to, that 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.

That's because of your daddy.

You named a few people that you venerate, like Jesus and Buddha and Confucius and others.

Did you not?

Yeah, they are my equal.

They are my brothers.

They have cracked the code.

They have understood.

Let me ask you the question: You sound so ridiculous.

If they're your equals, why do you name them?

Why don't you name yourself?

Because they're there, like you just said, the venerated leaders.

So why don't you just say that?

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 the eyes.

And that's how I see Putin or Xi Jinping or whatever.

They came before me.

And Muhammad?

He did come before me objectively.

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

Where?

Where in Islam is?

Is Muhammad God?

No.

Muhammad's 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 you?

Who twisted themselves into a prettier?

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, uh, religion 101.

Where?

Tell me where you got that course.

Uh Mu Muhammad ascended into heaven, did he not?

He went to heaven, okay.

Does that say is Muhammad is is Muhammad a part of of um uh God?

Is he God in human form?

No.

Who's where did you learn that?

So he's not.

Yeah.

I mean, y y you're the guy with the answers apparently, but I've never heard of that.

I've never heard of any Muslim 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 the um the sacrifice then?

W in in Islam?

Who who is 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 a part of Islam?

Uh yes, but it is said that it has been corrupted in the Islamic tradition.

They say that the 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?

The Islamic theology claims that the Quran is coeternal 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 'em, you just kind of throw 'em out and

You've taken shoes.

I mean 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.

Because you have to evaluate them based on their content and what the content is.

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 say, Well, it's just individuals can interpret it however they want, but they can't make 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 everyone should donate 20 subs for me having to deal with this.

We have to not fight against it, right?

What?

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

You you und you you believe this and and ha the the reality of nature will 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 we plant gardens and then one day the gardens come and and overgrow the g uh the the the weeds come back.

We y it's not about control, it's it's meaningless.

Well I'm saying like you have to be one with nature, right?

Like you have to be one with the oneness and you can't fight against it.

We are already.

Okay.

So, um

Going back to the the the divisions of labor, right, oh wait, first can you can you define for me what who who are the bourgeoisie?

What is your definition of bourgeoisie?

The bourgeoisie are those who own private property as capital.

Do you own property?

Uh 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 specialist.

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 you need to clarify what you mean.

I 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.

Do you own that?

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

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

Yeah, I don't I don't believe in having personal possession.

That's totally something I've said.

Okay, so um 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 the well according to their needs and contribute according to their abilities.

Um but you'll understand there are five subs and I keep this guy literally just five subscribers.

That's all it will take.

Five subs and he's gone.

Uh 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 we can elect or we can have somebody who's an author authoritarian leader divide the labor in an equal way for us.

No.

Alright, so how does this happen?

I told them that it's five subs 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.

And thanks guys for that.

Uh if anyone else would like to come up

That was so exhausting.

Yeah.

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

He's like um

Just so exhausting.

Like, he just has such a childlike mentality.

It's like.

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, go ahead.

Hey, what's happening?

Nothing much.

So explain to me

What's with the

this whole communism were

Leninism, Marxism, and Islam connection, because that's new to me.

Explain to you the connection between Marxism and Islam.

Yeah.

Yeah, well uh Marxism gives sources.

No, I'm not I don't 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, all right?

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

Uh Islam

Emerges as the first real universal faith of mankind.

Okay?

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 covenant.

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

So it's concretized.

Zoraster 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?

Uh 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 um

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 preexisting forms of political 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, um

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 Wesan, species being, a being that is a particular.

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

Uh 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 Hegel, 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 religious.

What?

I mean, he he he wasn't religious.

Yeah, I mean, he viewed it as a no, he agreed with Feuerbach that religion was an alienation of the Gatung'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 just a fucking cookie.

The absolute being has to be something that is already the concrete and integral totality, the concrete and integral whole, which is there before.

Uh before it kind of um

is recognized by us as such, right?

But he has ideas that are anti-Islamic.

Like what?

I mean, the id I mean he was anti-religion and the idea that religion keeps workers quiet.

It's a tool for control.

Islam was also anti-religion.

Muhammad in the Kaaba destroyed like 300 idols.

So he was pretty.

Pretty anti-religious.

No, p paganism isn't a religion, no.

Exactly antithesis.

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

Religion's the way of life.

One?

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.

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

They're undermining religion, the fabric of religiosity, in 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 privileged 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 who do you mean by they weren't Marx 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 aether somewhere.

It's very clear from Prophet Muhammad.

No, it's not at all.

Okay.

Jinn is pretty clear.

Jinn 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 irrelevant, but I mean, that's not the point.

The point is that the profit.

Made it pretty clear, and also from his, you know, certain miracles, certain hadiths that talk about what he did.

It was pretty clear that there are other creations, there are seven heavens.

Um his travels to uh the outer worlds Yeah, but what what what what did he mean to refer to when he said that?

When we're living in an 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 in and focussing on what does this mean, what content of meaning is 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 is this is believing in the unseen.

Ultimately that's what it comes down to.

Believing in the unseen.

But and I think the unseen yeah, the unseen Marxism also affirms the unseen, you know?

Marxism also affirms the unseen.

As long as we talk about

How do you see a mode of production?

You can see parts of a mode of production.

You can see evidence of a mode of production.

Yeah, 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 because everything physical is at the scale of individual sensibility if that's the 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.

Or 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 I think that's just kind of bike shedding.

We we can see society and it's y you're bike shedding.

I don't know.

I think it's

Uh bike shedding, it's like you're you're trying to

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 saying we're living in a society?

I'm asking.

How is that justified by the society?

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 I'll give you another I'll give you the o other I think what you're trying to say, like for example, right now i in in Christianity or or Islam, right, if you if you sin, if you commit like some kind of sin, let's not say like uh uh s stealing or something, but uh missing a prayer or something.

Right, there isn't really a an effect or anything that you would see or or anyone would see.

Well, the argument would be that there's not an immediate effect, but in the long term there's an effect.

So, in the same way,

They you if 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.

Um

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.

Jinn 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.

Um

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 l human language and meaning.

Ultimately, you know, this is what the analytical tradition struggled with deeply in terms of meaning and language.

Whether we're talking about Carnap or Sellars 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 uh 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, and then there's this okay.

No, that's the problem.

Even Feuerbach, who Marx draws 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 in a relationality with the species, right?

And it's ultimately the content of the species that defines.

Uh and contextualizes our thoughts, right?

Interesting.

I still didn't quite catch the Marxism and Islam connection.

And also your branding and and your messaging.

Why why go full frontal on the whole Marxism stuff and not just go Islam on because I think the w 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.

Uh, yeah, no, thank you for uh letting me have a quick chat.

I'll give someone else a turn.

For sure, for sure.

Okay guys, uh if we want to continue this, then drop a five.

Hate to put it I hate to bring it there.

But uh you just it's a way to just actually just ones in the chat if you want to continue.

That's a better pulse on the community, to be honest, 'cause then one person well, it still stands, okay?

Okay, we can we can have one more person up.

Anonia, go ahead.

Hello.

Yo, what's up?

Yeah, apologies.

It's a bit late as you can hear from my accent.

It's very um haven't slept much, so if I'm a bit slow right now, uh apologies.

First, I wanted to ask um a couple of questions just to try and understand um your sort of inner relation with this.

W what are your thoughts on like

The idea of sort of collective unconscious like some sort of idea akin to muses that like people kind of uh pick up on a string s or something like like on a thread these ideas that seem to come from somewhere else.

What 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 get on this esoteric grind kind of stuff.

Um just yeah, that's I'm just saying a little bit.

You don't have to like, you know.

Yeah, no, no, no, no, I I y you are right.

Um

I mean, you know the idea that like some oh gosh, there's echoing, I apologize.

That sometimes it seems like a bunch of people sort of around the world are having similar ideas at the same time.

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 like 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.

Um

So

I don't know if I believe in the idea of a collective unconscious as much as I think that.

I I don't the problem with the word collective is it means the aggregate of the individual, right?

So the 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

Uh 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 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 ref 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, but yeah, but what's the thing?

You know, that's the 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 uh, the point of the collective.

I just don't know how the words don't really uh flow because I have to, yeah, I have to get it across.

I understand.

And it, you know, I think that when you think about it in that way, there's 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 and 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 discourse is the same way.

There's always this opposing tension of 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.

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.

Um and so um

I I think that's why I 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 on to 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 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 into the world is to not subjectivize.

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 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 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 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 Rumi, for example?

I'm a little bit familiar.

Well, yeah, I mean, all of this is like sort of love poetry about God.

But it does sort of show this sort of interaction, this interplay between them.

And that's somewhat been, 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, you, 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, 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 subject means though, is like, you know, if you are wanting to be an instrument and that you don't view yourself 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.

No, 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 some forgotten how I've forgotten how, like, in well, I said 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.

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 to kind of like numb ourselves to like hearing any Google.

Yeah.

I mean, there's a lot of things to do.

I mean, a lot of like TVs and 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 same with the Seek.

So yeah, thank you for coming on.

I just remembered something yeah I just remembered something guys by the way

Every time I do an egg space, it's not recorded.

It's on kick, kick.com.

I guarantee you, I'm gonna 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 the clutter on my timeline.

Maybe I'll keep it.

I mean, 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.

Um

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, it's actually a cost.

TPH, 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.

Alright, here we go.

So, me and my buddy Lefcom have been having this like this argument for forever, for like forever.

And it's basically, he always approaches me with the material class interest of the Secretariat.

He says this, like, sort of like a meme, like, he just says it that way.

And, uh, he says, like, you know, the material class interest of the what?

Secretariat.

Okay.

So he's like, how can the 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 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 Genghis Khan 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 Sta all these divisions happened in the USSR.

The 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.

Uh and Mao is 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 Sedong.

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 foundations of the CPC.

And that's why Xi Jinping comes back as a 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.

That's fair, yeah.

And and you know, when the CIA report that said, you know, Stalin is not really a dictator, he 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.

W did you have anything else to add before I make the next thing?

Uh I would say, you know, um

Any, yeah, any institution that defines itself separately and says, we're going to be the supreme council that just rules, it's like, well,

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 kinda have somewhat of an answer going, but like, what is the um social or historical mechanism that um that continues the uh revolution actually producing comedy so the reason hegel probably defended monarchy is because in a monarchy where the the power is 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 engender changes.

And that's why, like, it 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.

It'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.

Okay, 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 an 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 in a sense bypasses the active dynamic process of mutual recognition that is continuous, right?

Wonder 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.

Uh th th 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 and 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.

And 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 gotta make that clear.

I to to really to really boil it down, like, that was good because you kind of um explained how this would be how 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, like, world DOTP, 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 it would be the natural thing.

What's to stop, um, I don't know, like, Stalin or something, from just being like, eh, nah, and then, like, canceling a couple of shipments and holding back the productive forces.

I think 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

cliques and factions and Khrushchevs and so on.

And uh 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 they were considered bad rulers, you know.

There's nothing guaranteeing a ruler would be good, will be good or will be bad.

That's the thing.

I mean, yeah.

That's why Hegel 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 is possible the ruler could be a bad ruler.

And in the event that they're a bad ruler,

Um

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 Shawn Shah, 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 in 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 to the...

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 somebody like a Deng come around and like class struggle is now like political mechanisms in the government that sort of changes things.

So what what what dang did not change things, the material conditions changed and deng was successfully responsible and the proof is in the pudding, you know?

So there's more people requesting, and I'll give them a chance to come.

Gotcha.

See you later, bro.

Paloma wants to speak.

Go ahead, Paloma.

Paloma is missing now.

We will bring on the spreader.

Spreader go ahead.

They left as well.

Well, okay, well are the spreaders here.

Go ahead, Spreader.

Koof spreader.

I'm a Koof spreader.

Um hey mate, how you doing?

Uh so I remember watching a video recently of yours.

You were talking about raising like legions of Albanians.

Um if you had any uh success with this and uh was it was it uh solely due to uh Fuentes's de uh degradation of the uh

Of them or any claims they have to, or any delegitimization of their claims to a European identity, or was it 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.

Well, you were talking about like you know, raising Albanian legions, basically, like red, red legions, yeah.

And you're quite passionate about this.

So, what made me think of it was: were you had you previously thought of this?

And where what influenced you to what influenced this idea of raising Albanian legions, and uh, you know, or was it just Nick's insolence?

Nick Fuentes, yes, because you were saying, Oh, well, Nick's come online, and Nick was, you know, talking shit on the Albanians, and then you were like, No, we've got a place for you.

I see, I see, yeah, well, that's what 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' movement uh because you're Albanian, uh it's like, well, we'll take you in because we don't care about these things.

Yeah, true.

So was I know just this legionary sort of rhetoric that you're sort of pushing.

It sounded very like Hitlerist.

Like, you know, they raised the...

Yeah, I wasn't being politically correct enough.

I should have said hordes because we're Mongols.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I should say we say hordes here, you know.

Yeah.

Yeah, fair enough.

Well, like, if you read the battle reports from the Skanderberg Legion of the SS in World War II, they're horrible, horrible.

They were not liked.

They couldn't even put their clothing on properly.

And they were likened to African soldiers, sadly.

But have you had any success?

Have you had any Albanians sort of coming to join?

Yeah?

Thousands, thousands.

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 kik, if you want to see it.

It's on kik.com/slash infrared.

That's where you can find it.

And I will be live for two more minutes.

Goodbye.

Gorillas and suns infrared vision Gorillas and Suns Infrared Vision

I wish you guys boosted the Abdul El Sayed tweet way more.

You guys like fucked that up.

Like, what's going on, guys?

Boost this tweet big time, you know?

Um let me find it.

Yeah guys, go like boost this.

What's going on?

This is like such a insightful analysis.

I'll link it in the chat.

Fix my discord.

Is on infrared.gg

It's there.

What you talking about?

On the website it doesn't work really?

Invalid link.

Okay.

What an insightful stream, guys.

I I'm not really a religious apologist, or it's called apologetics.

Um

Uh I wanna put like into writing why Marxism is Islam right now for you, just so it's like simplified.

So let's do MS Paint.

And we'll we'll wrap it up there.

That's kind of the gist of it, you know?

Stay tuned for the essay to for more.

That's I like to experiment with simplifying shit.

Alright guys, I'm wrapping the stream up.

Goodbye.

Bye-bye.