DEBATE: Does China Oppress Muslims?

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

[Music]

you said

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

all my life

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

this is

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

who can say

[Music]

you can't save

[Music]

welcome today

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

fucking you

[Music]

thank you

oh

[Music]

[Music]

I want the place

[Music]

surprising

[Music]

ly

worries

[Music]

and foreign

foreign

[Music]

I know why

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

the shelves

[Music]

mistake

[Applause]

still looking for the answer yes

[Music]

near the end

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

webcast everyone now I've been gone for

a few days but

this is now my voice

as you can see I speak like this now and

I'll be speaking like this forever

uh I got into

um a fight with Santa Claus

and he punched my voice box

and I'm just gonna speak like this

forever now hey everyone

welcome back to the infrared webcast we

are resuming broadcasting

hope everybody had a good Christmas

Merry Christmas and good holidays the

holidays aren't over holidays are over I

had good holidays

I thought about coming back yesterday

but I was catching up with an old friend

and I was doing some other stuff

and I lied to you all I said I was going

to be live yesterday and it was a it was

a bold-faced lie

now the reason I lied to you

was because I'm an asshole

that's it

now uh getting to the business at hand

we are going to get into this debate I'm

Gonna Give You context I'm gonna explain

to you what's going on with the whole

China debate I'm gonna be getting into

the debate very fast but there's some

stuff we got to catch up on as far as

how's everyone's Christmas was

and Reflections I wanted to reflect on

something

before I begin the China debate and the

so-called oyer genocide debate the the

so-called

oyger genocide

anyway

before we get in get into that

uh I was prompted to experience

a certain level of reflection and

contemplation about a few things

so I will do this thank you so much

voidberg appreciate you

here's a donation to The Recovery Fund

for your santa-induced injury

thank you so much boy burn Merry

Christmas thank you

danar thank you so much guys holy fuck

speedrun of how many donations in the

first two minutes wow I appreciate it

guys thank you I really appreciate it

I was uh

engaging in some reflection

uh don't worry we're gonna get right

into the China debate but I just want to

talk about this and I'm probably going

to be making a video a standalone video

on this topic clarifying my thoughts

but because I was kind of away from the

stream for a long time and I've been

away from Twitter for a very long time

I thought about

you know putting it into perspective

what do we want to offer the people of

this country

as Communists the capital c

how are we to distinguish ourselves and

make ourselves stand out

what kind of leadership and guidance

should we offer our neighbors in our

communities

and

I guess uh

Jesus Christ who is a

very I mean central figure in

Christianity but also a very revered

figure in Islam

is also a figure of forgiveness

a symbol of forgiveness

so these thoughts

um I guess I used Christmas as an

opportunity to reflect

on these thoughts

and I wanna maybe touch base a little

bit

because I know I've kind of gotten into

a direction where I just I'm very much

like memeing and joking about a lot of

things

and that much I will not compromise on

anymore but I feel like maybe that has

led to a certain lack of clarity

uh as far as where infrared stands

on the issue of wokism and all the woke

stuff and the LGBT stuff and things of

that nature

so I want to take this opportunity to

reflect on that because

I think as Communists we have a

responsibility and we have a mature

responsibility and duty to the people

that we embody the principles of being

the most patient mature

um you know

foreign

types of human beings

if we're going to constitute ourselves

as Leaders because what I've been really

thinking about actually is how much we

have a responsibility to be leaders as

Communists people who people look toward

for guidance and for help

and for wisdom

and in that sense we shouldn't just

emulate

whatever sentiments Prevail among common

people and just hide behind the people

that is kind of a Sentimental terrorism

which I don't think could be justified

I think we can get back

through all of the propaganda all the

ways the media is promoting

the LGBT agenda

among other things

we can look at we can follow the money

and all of it is very clear

but at the same time

we're also dealing with a crisis in this

country

where people and individuals are losing

faith

in any meaning right and they're losing

a connection to their families

and they're losing a connection to the

basic human sensibilities that we have

always taken for granted as human beings

across history

there is a lot of confusion about gender

there is a lot of confusion about what

manhood is

and you know many people

um even above and beyond the amount of

propaganda that's being directed against

them

we should face soberly the fact

that many of this stems from the absence

of manhood

it's not simply a deliberate and

targeted attempt by the powers that be

to destroy

Norms Norms are breaking down because

even conservative men don't know how to

be men anymore

and there is just a very open very

unambiguous lack of leadership lack of

clarity

and lack of manhood

and this prompts me to kind of think

about something

which is

simply

making fun of people

or the Deep mental anguish they have

well I'm not against jokes I'm comedy to

me off limits you know you'll never see

me compromise when it comes to Comedy

that'll never go anywhere thank you so

much Farrakhan bogs will always be here

for the infrared Collective the most

interesting subgroup of any political

streamer that's ever existed thank you

so much America appreciate you man

but at the same time

I've noticed a tendency in society being

around and on the one hand

you do have an LGBT

Insanity that's plaguing this country

but on the other hand you also have

an inverse Fascination among common

Ordinary People

which you can witness in everyday

interactions even now

where people don't understand any sense

of privacy thank you so much practically

appreciate you

because they're confused you know what

mods can you ban okay from the chat can

you please ban that fucking guy from the

chat let's get rid of the retards get

those in my chat fucking get rid of them

um

there's a

lack of an ability to respect the

privacy of others

so that people take their inability to

comprehend a very strange foreign thing

that they can't make sense of and it's

kind of a becomes

a blank check to just kind of like you

know bother other people I guess

and believe it or not it's more common

than you would think you know

I am losing rapidly I am rapidly losing

patience

for a mentality that is supposedly

against wokeness

but cannot inspire people

to provide an alternative to wokeness

if you could not Inspire human beings

with an alternative

you can't sit here and and and wage war

against wokeness and Signal against

wokeness if you're unable to provide an

alternative

if you're unable to address the root

cause simply sitting here and taking for

granted the fact that you haven't been

mentally traumatized and that you

haven't suffered the Deep level of

mental anguish that pushes people to

that point of insanity

this does not make you a leader you're

not fit to be a fucking leader the only

people in this country who are fit to be

leaders are the people who can withstand

and understand the Deep level of Anguish

and Trauma

and confusion that underlies this

insanity

you are supposed to be a leader you're

not supposed to be like an ordinary

person who just doesn't understand this

shit

and responds in a and I don't want to

sound like a liberal but frankly bigoted

way

I mean bigoted in the sense of a Vogue

the vulgar kind of knee-jerk reaction

you need to be patient enough to be

someone who inspires people and you

can't inspire people unless you're

patient enough to understand their

situation because believe it or not

all this LGBT stuff and all this

confusion all this liberalism it's not

just something that's happening

in the isolated privileged Urban America

deep in Rural America you'll find the

blue-haired youth you'll find them

deep and Rural working class America

you'll find young people rebelling

against their parents and adopting the

mold of liberalism

through and through

if you're going to be a communist you

need to have patience with the Youth of

this country you can't simply sit here

and look down on people

it's not your job to look down on people

you need to be able to distill and make

sense of what's going on

in a way that elevates you above

your knee-jerk reactions you need to

have the patience and Clarity to inspire

people

and I've been thinking about this

because I know what's going on with

DeSantis

and I know it's just

I've thought about my role in all of it

really

and

you have to consider

where is this getting us

if you have half of people in this

country

who are brainwashed by the liberal

establishment

we are constantly knocking and knocking

and knocking

it's not getting anywhere it's

aggravating

it's aggravating the uh

the Discord

DeSantis is not going to solve the

wokeness problem he's going to aggravate

the problem

and I'm not talking about the

propagators and ideologists I'm not

talking about the people writing medium

articles and the journalists and they

think tank policy makers and the

academics I mean those people can all

burn in hell I don't give a fuck about

them and I don't have any forgiveness

for them

but what I am talking about are the

Ordinary People the normal regular

people

who

have used this to make sense of their

deep anguish

and traumas

we have a responsibility to forgive

those people

you have a responsibility

as communists we have the responsibility

to

Elevate ourselves above

the way these people discussed us

disgust us and uh you know are an

affront to our sensibilities

I guess what I mean to say is

I'm not one of those people who believes

the culture war is just a distraction

because it's not

but at the same time

we should adopt

a perspective that addresses the root

cause of the problem among the people

and if we're not capable of doing that

there's no worth and there's no

significance

and being able to call ourselves

Communists there's simply nothing we

have to offer may as well join DeSantis

may as well join the Republicans

the GOP we're not here to do that

we are here to build a movement and

build a party for the working class of

this country

we need to be able to find a way to

address this problem

and um

the only way we're going to take

leadership with this country

is if we rise above the current

polarization some kind of way

we have to take the mantle of a real

American Center

because the root cause of for example

the decline of masculinity decline of

manhood

simply a lack

men and male leaders who can inspire

people

I mean there's Andrew Tate

Andrew Tate isn't going to solve our

problems I promise you

I personally have nothing against the

guy

but

the truth is you're not going to become

billionaires you're not going to become

rich promise majority of you

mean

maybe one percent of you

good luck

this is not the job of Communists to

offer people these implausible and

impossible promises

that you know oh you gotta

follow my financial advice and you'll

get rich I mean we don't we're not here

to sell people anything really you know

we're here to be leaders people

that

those around you in your communities

will look toward for guidance and

inspiration and Leadership

I think that's an important theme we

should think about going forward

because a lot of people ask me how we're

going to take Maga communism to the next

level

we're gonna take it to the next level

when you start having a foothold in your

communities and when Maga communism in

Practical terms

is something that people can concretely

understand through your good works

the first step is becoming leaders

when you become a leader you have to do

what Xi Jinping did when he was young go

down to the country

and you work with the people and it's

not going to be as romantic and

glamorous as it looks like on the books

because you look at the working class of

this country they're facing addiction

problems there's domestic abuse there's

all manner of confusion there's all

manner of depravity

you need to be able to withstand these

problems

and help people really

and be a leader

so this is my Earnest and honest to you

I think you should be a living example

of what it means to be a communist with

a Capital C

I see where this DeSantis shit is going

and frankly

I'm not really interested in hopping on

board and maybe that's because I take

for granted the fact that I mean I don't

care about wokeness I'm not affected by

it

I'm personally not affected by it I mean

I'm just not I don't give a fuck about

it maybe I'm getting ready getting

banned and all these institutions won't

accept me I don't care about these

institutions you know let's let's really

think about this right

wokeness is an Institutional problem

now when it comes to what they're

pushing in these public education

institutions I commend all the parents

that are standing up and going to these

public schools to help their children

right I commend them

but beyond that lokeness is a paper

tiger

I don't care what the institutions of

higher education impose I want to

destroy the institutions of higher

education I don't care what the

mainstream media

is saying I don't I don't watch the

mainstream media I want to destroy the

mainstream media and how do you destroy

these things you outmode them you render

them irrelevant you provide an

alternative that's what's exactly what's

going on in this new historical era

uh the internet is destroying higher

education

in in Practical terms and how people are

acquiring knowledge

as far as the mainstream media it's the

same problem

now there's alternative media

because of the digital and information

age

so to me Wellness is a paper tiger even

Barry Weiss will talk about wokeness

I'm not particularly interested

in focusing I mean I I it's a point of

comedy and the comedy is not going to

end so don't worry about that but many

people don't really know where I stand

on the issue so I want to just make it

clear

and I want to also make something else

clear is that

for all of those

members for all of my viewers and for

all of my followers

who

are not

considered

um

part of the normal mold of a human being

I mean

unless you're abusing miners

which I doubt

you are

your privacy should be respected to the

utmost degree

thank you so much Johnny appreciate you

patience is the toughest part of being a

communist

um

thank you so much appreciate you

know I'm preaching patience but don't

know it's taking forever man

uh

yeah I'm just gonna go on my spiel

for a second

for those followers and viewers of the

community

who may be lacking

um clarity as far as

what where they stand and you know well

if they're welcome or whatever

I earnestly and

um really believe in respecting the

privacy

of each individual

as long as they are not abusing minors

or abusing others

or as long as they are not you know

sexually harassing people I mean again I

don't see this really happening if you

are actually technically part I hate the

acronym you are actually part of the

LGBT community

some capacity all I mean by that is that

if you're not straight or if even if

you're transgender or whatever

we as Communists have an obligation to

take it upon ourselves

to respect you as human beings

and to not engage in any abuse or you

know

any uh

any disrespect over this to be honest

again you know the things

you know we as a community when we're

allowed to we may use certain words

we may joke in certain ways

but when we get to the serious core of

these things we are not

actually here to um hate people

we're not here to abuse people or

disrespect people for their sexual

privacy

I want to make that clear

we are against mostly most of us I am

certainly against the LGBT movement I'm

against the LGBT movement I genuinely am

but

the LGBT movement

doesn't necessarily represent

human beings who do not conform to the

mold of what we would consider normal

sexuality what I would consider normal

straight heterosexuality

there have always been exceptions to

that in history and there will continue

to always be exceptions to that and

those people

deserve respect

and they deserve their Humanity to be

acknowledged

because

on the internet it seems like

we are living in the dictatorship of the

LGBT but I can promise you on the ground

these people you know

still face problems

and I'm not talking about problems in

terms of

you know all being all the Neo pronouns

and all this fucking stupid shit I mean

like

you know getting harassed for who they

are

we don't I think it's a it's such an

important part

of civilization

to be able to acknowledge and respect

the privacy of others

that's what civilization means it means

you're a stranger to me

but you're still human but you're a

stranger and you're also human

means you're not familiar to me your way

of life is not familiar to me your

understanding I mean that's not familiar

to me

but you're still a human being

I think that's so important

because many people cannot acknowledge

the humanity of others

without making them familiar to them

you need to be able to acknowledge

your distance from others and the

privacy of others

especially in a country like America I

can't sympathize too much

with I'll see this is my problem it's

almost like I hate the guy you know the

term the expression I hate the guy who

coined it but if you're not willing to

critique capitalism shut up about

fascism

and I feel like it's something similar

it's like America's a country with no

civilization no community no stable

community

and yet we sit here

and

some not most but some still do believe

they can judge people

for deviating from the norms

look at DeSantis DeSantis is a neocon

and a neolib and he's

DeSantis is controlled by the fucking

people

the financial institutions and the

capitalist ruling class who devastated

America's communities

devastated any semblance of common

civilization among Americans

and then attacks the symptoms

I can't sympathize with that I just

can't

in some sense with limits of course

everything has limits

we need to forgive the symptoms

we need to forgive the symptoms

because there's a root cause

there is a root cause

the symptoms come from that cause sure

do I believe 35 percent of Americans are

trans I don't I'm sorry I mean is it

possible that one percent are

authentically trans I mean I don't know

I'm not God no no you're not God either

we don't know these things I'm willing

to accept

that phenomena as not a crisis though

that's okay that's fine there's always

been that in history

I'm just not willing to accept that 50

of people are not straight for example I

mean that's ridiculous right

but

it's so strange because on the internet

75 percent of people are LGBT but in

real life

you have such an intense

opposite extreme a lot of the times

where you know these LGBT people

get kicked out of their homes and they

go through all this bullshit and

you know you could say in a conservative

country to be LGBT oh you have to be an

extreme transgressive deviationist I

can't speak for all countries but

America is a broken country man it's a

broken country

you need to be able to forgive people

for not

you know you need you need to because

this is the country we fucking live in

man we don't live in some ancient

conservative civilization live in a

country that is devoid of the

civilizational bonds that unite people

in an organic way

you don't have the privilege of looking

down on anyone that's what I think you

just don't

you only have the ability as a communist

to inspire people and lead people

by the example of your actions and by

the

thank you so much John these blue hair

teenagers are not the problem the Ford

Foundation is that's what I mean that's

what I mean

you need to be able to

have the wisdom to kind of address these

problems in a way that makes sense to

people you're not supposed to be here

avoiding the problem you're supposed to

be here being able to understand the

problem and being a leader because this

is a fucking crisis in this country this

country is plagued by a real level of

confusion

and the people the perpetrators are a

small minority I get it there's these

leftist ideologists

they are malign and evil fucking people

I'm not telling you to forgive leftists

who are the like ideologists

you know going out of their way to

destroy people's lives I'm just telling

you to forgive

normal people who dedicate maybe five

percent of their

consideration to politics most people

are not political I mean

a blue-haired teenager who's a leftist

it's not really a leftist that's just

that's still just somebody's

kid you know it's someone's daughter

that's someone's son

that's someone trying to live their life

and maybe they've bought into the

leftist shit you got to be able to

forgive them for that

but the people who have fully dedicated

their lives to leftism almost and like

I'm not telling you to forgive those

people I'm not they are our enemies we

are at war with them we're not going to

show them any fucking Mercy that hasn't

changed

I haven't forgotten what those people

said about Daria

but I have an obligation as a Muslim and

as a human being

to have the faith

that most people

are not that fucking evil

including most of the people caught on

the other side of the aisle who are in

within the blue pill they're not fucking

evil

they're not evil people

a lot of the time their heart is in the

right fucking place they just lost trust

in the humanity of others

that's what it means to become a liberal

or a leftist in a casual sense you've

you've lost faith in the humanity of

others

and so you know you believe you need to

have a some kind of like

you know contractual

replacement for the basic human trust

that's the foundation of a civilization

so I usually joke about this stuff and

it's always a light-hearted thing but I

just wanted to clarify this for people

who um

want to know where I seriously stand on

this issue

and then the final thing I want to talk

about

uh before we get into the China debate

which we're going to get into very like

immediately after

is

we're regarding the misogyny thing okay

now as a man

as a man

in some sense I will always make fun of

women I will always

joke about it I will always be uh in

some sense a misogynist

and I hope

in some sense women are the opposite and

they make fun of and they don't like men

either

and I've said this

for years I just think men and women are

inherently different I'm not here

when I'm joking around being a

misogynist I'm not really here

to be

um to speak for women that's just I

don't care to do that because I'm not a

woman

but at the same time

if you are a communist with a Capital C

you do need to be a leader of people

so if you're giving a speech

let's say you're in a small town and you

have the privilege of giving a speech in

a small town you know town hall or

something can you act like I do on

stream or can you act like Andrew said

you can't fucking do that you need to be

mature

because there's a 50 year old you know

there's 50 year old moms and mothers in

the crowd and you're

it's it's an absurdity right

there's there's

50 year old mothers in the crowd

and you say oh yeah women is

you know I'm I speak when I'm being

misogynistic

talking as a 26 year old man

about other young

women in the dating scene and all this

shit like it's not serious it's not like

a serious political statement

um

about what I think about the woman

question

and Communists I have to remind you guys

this because we're being serious right

now Communists have always

uh understood there is a woman question

it's always been there

I mean there is a serious reality of the

day-to-day concerns of the everyday

woman

who's a mother or even the you can even

say it's a crisis of young women

who

don't know how to be mothers or don't

know what motherhood means and they

don't have any guidance or anything like

that I mean

as a communist you do need to be more

like a father

and as we know fathers don't take the

side of the Sun or the daughter

you want to be a leader you need to be

more like a father and not

uh a brother who's joking all the time

now you can you can joke and all this

stuff you just need to know the proper

context for them

I'm not here to fucking be like um

okay guys

this is bad I'm not saying that shit I'm

just saying no the proper context

because I know there's I remember all

the fucking woke scolds in our community

especially now who are like

who don't understand that it's like

there's a time and place for everything

right

because a lot of you guys I feel like

don't know the time and place one or the

other either a woke soldier's gonna be

like how can you joke like that or

you're gonna be like

super

like super whatever doing the misogyny

shit and I really inappropriate setting

there's no formal setting where that's

appropriate this is not a formal setting

so it's fine it's just like it's all

jokes it's all personal shit

put in a formal setting where you're

wearing a suit and tie and you're giving

a speech I'm sorry dude it's cringe you

got to be fucking professional

yeah be like Stalin that's what I

believe

so

I am not here to take the fun away from

the streams I'll never do that there

will always be comedy I'm always going

to be the same but I'm saying this now

for future reference

because people need to understand

what's serious and what's not serious

if 50 of people are women 50 percent

politically a Communist party is

probably going to have a lot of women

in it

as a communist you're not gonna be

uh you know you're not gonna act like

you do at the club you're not gonna act

like you do

as a

you know what I mean like you need to be

very professional you need to almost be

robotic and very formal

look at how the Chinese Communists roll

look at how the Soviet Communists used

to roll you I'm not saying be a fucking

simp I will never

don't be a don't ever be a fucking simp

but

a Communist Party well this is not a

Communist party so we're good but I'm

just letting you know a Communist party

will never be a locker room it's never

going to be a boy's locker room that's a

professional party

um

of with with a very strong sense of

formality

you know

it's a very strong sense of business

oriented formality yes talking suits and

ties and just business-like attitude I

mean you don't even have to have suits

and ties but you do I'm not saying it

has to be political correctness I'm not

saying that

I'm saying it's like

it's a level of maturity where you're

dealing with Society at such a level of

scale that the day-to-day issues of the

people and in particular the working

class is of utmost concern all of our

personal sex lives and all of our

personal

gender lives where the fuck you want

when you're going to the club you're

doing I mean that doesn't matter right

your personal dating life oh it doesn't

matter it's not important within a

political context it means nothing it

has no importance

I

you you're focused on the business of

winning political power right you need

you need to be very mature when it comes

to that

I am not here to

bring to

the political future a generation of

manchildren we're not going to know how

to grow the fuck up

I'm not if you're I'm not saying you're

guilty for joking around a Discord and

fucking around in chat I'm not saying

that shit I'm just warning you guys and

letting you guys know

when if we're gonna take this Maga

communism thing to the next level which

we have to

you need to have the maturity to fucking

do that and I think that's the hardest

thing of all it's like this is what I

would say the Pyramid of Enlightenment

for a man right first

you start out

as a little simp bitch okay you're the

worm you're at the bottom of the cast

you're like a little simp worm bitch

okay

and then the next step you can take is

Andrew Tate you're gonna do this Hustler

you're a Playboy all this kind of shit

you're the dude in the Miami Club you're

fighting people you got tattoos that's

Layer Two okay that's Layer Two

layer three which is the highest fucking

layer

is when you've started to understand

formality maturity that's when you start

looking more like a father right that's

layer three

Layer Three is how you're gonna be a

leader of a communist movement

Layer Three is how you're going to be a

leader to normal people

Layer Two is a doggy dog world every man

for himself

Layer Three is when you're in

communities you're dealing with ordinary

normal people

and you're a leader

that's layer three

okay

again

Andrew Taylor is Layer Two

being a Sim bitch is layer one

we don't end that layer two we're here

for layer three

that's all we're here for

so I wanted to make that clear it's just

not clear for a lot of people

I feel like you're only talking to men

Haas this is what I mean

this is what I mean that's that layer

one simp bitch approach

okay

that's that layer one simp bitch

approach

it's not my job to talk to women

it's not my job

I am a fucking man what do you mean

you're only good you're only talking to

men right now

yeah I am only talking to men

all right I'll I'll give women I'll do

the three layers of women too then fine

Bucky you want me to do that shit I'll

do it

layer one

a stinky asshole

that's layer one

Layer Two

um

the Trad conservative type of woman

thing right

layer three

I feel like layer three

is when you're both a kind of

traditional type of mother

but you also have that aspect in you

where

you pull out the knife for the cause

I can't explain it the knife Grandma

hides under her

it lowers some shit I can't explain it

uh fucking

when the babushka's gotta take out the

AK-47 that's layer three when they

understand that

I feel like that's layer three

Layer Three is like

layer 3 is like a fucking you know

I don't know when when those Iranian

revolutionary guards

women with batons are beating the shit

out of people that's that's like the

highest form of woman you can be when

you're both Trad but you're also

somehow

not just that

but not in the sense of being a stanky

ass hoe but in the sense of like

being like having a strong contribution

to society not just the household

so that's my approximation of the three

layers of women

and layer one has layers like like this

layer one is like you start out a stinky

asshole

then the second layer is like you're

like I don't know

you're some kind of like bitter you know

feminist or some shit and then Layer Two

is when you're kind of

sorry there's like three layers within

layer one like start out as stanky

asshole and become a conscious feminist

who's defending that shit consciously

then you become

um

like a basic lip tart then you become

like a more

uh

puritanical type of feminist where

you're like actually

like all men are raped this or whatever

and then Layer Three is kind of like

probably a rad femme but then above the

rad Femme is Layer Two

which is the Trad thing like the Trad

like embracing the Trad value type of

thing that's like above layer three

I think

I don't know this is all an

approximation I I'm not exactly certain

but about the three layers of women but

the three layers of men I do understand

okay

I do understand that

okay now we're gonna get into the China

debate and I'm gonna give you the full

context of what's going on with this

China debate

so

um I I'm gonna unpause these donations

thank you so much PJ appreciate you man

holy fuck the only problem is that these

institutions are still parasiting off of

us and they will do everything they can

to get children

baby yeah you're right but those are

interested we got people have family and

friends affected by the woke agenda they

will not appreciate seeing them being

treated cruelly exactly

that's exactly emila thank you so much

emotional support can't feel strong man

thank you so much emila appreciate you

based thank you swaggy are you turning

to telling us you watched Avatar too and

enjoyed it I'm watching it in two days

I'm watching that on Thursday I have not

watched that yet

on Thursday thank you so much PJ LGBT

individuals who stand with the right

slash truth are actual Heroes

unfortunately there will be backlash

because most are the opposite of that

Rotten Tomatoes that left us tied to

polls in public I'm disappointed

disappointed face I mean it's got

nothing to do with leftists leftists are

fuck leftists right I'm just talking

about

ordinary people affected by woke shit

right all right guys we're gonna get

right into this China debate and here's

the context

so here's something really weird that's

going on

um

in my community

there's this new phenomena that's been

going on

and the new phenomena is that apparently

it's been brought to my attention that

it's kind of become a thing in some

corners of the Discord

among some people I'm not gonna name

names

that you know they're starting to say oh

yeah China's oppressing it's the whole

oyer genocide shit

which I thought we just kind of like

that was over over a year ago remember

the sansoi debate remember the death the

destiny debate

but it's come back

and we're not gonna ban people

for believing retarded shit we've never

done that in the community but

I am gonna lay down the implicit law and

say

come in VC and let's settle it once and

for all because

we got Heroes peddling this anti-china

propaganda

merciful thank you so much hote

appreciate you man we got Heroes of

infrared in the community that are

peddling this fucking bullshit okay

so I'm here to just lay down the law

and we're gonna have a communal

confrontation the whole community

we're gonna be here and we're gonna

judge for ourselves

if this is an acceptable

thing that's going on

is this acceptable

I don't think it's acceptable I don't

consider it acceptable is this

acceptable

in the community

I don't think it is

I don't think it is

and that's what we're here to to get

get down we is this you know we're not

gonna ban anyone

but

it's gonna be a community confrontation

so all of y'all because I was I was

debating them in the

Discord General chat Channel

but now it's gonna we're taking it to VC

let's get let's get right into it

everyone get in VC

everybody get in VC

where are they at

where are they at based getting so cute

thank you so much

Blaze holy fuck thank you man thank you

so much Farrakhan did you see Bronze Age

pervert brag about spending lots of

money on prostitute Sealy

no I didn't I got so weird

you know I did see something by bat

where he was saying some shit

I couldn't believe it it was like

he was like uh

yeah the female form is inherently ugly

and there's no Beauty in the female form

because it's just so workmen-like

because it's all for child rearing and

something that's utilitarian could never

be beautiful therefore actually

men's bodies are what's beautiful not

women

now speaking of patience intolerance

if this dude was just gay

like whatever he's gay whatever you know

that's his business

but this dude is pretending to be this

like

you know

just

super ancient traditional whatever

fucking

he's pretending to be he's pretending to

be like the real man like the true

manhood right

this guy was trying to be Andrew Tate

before Andrew Tate he's basically saying

that women are

not beautiful women's bodies are not

beautiful and men's are

but what you mean though you know what I

mean like

but what do you but what are you saying

you know I mean well what does that mean

though you know what I mean like but

what does that mean you know

but what does that mean

but what does that actually mean

you know

what do you mean it's not beautiful like

what what

that's that's okay

all right dude's like yeah man yeah I'm

listening I'm I'm Bronze Age pervert

the truth is according to schopenhauer

the most manly thing you can do is suck

dick

yeah let's all just suck dick

yeah women's bodies are not beautiful

and yeah a man I mean pussy is basically

a the woke agenda

a real man is sucking dick

that's the truth that's what you want to

be a true Trad Warrior

male Trad Warrior

you're just kind of like slobbing the

scepter of manhood

true men do I'm Bronze Age pervert

that's real manhood

all right dude

you could just come out as gay all right

you know I mean you don't gotta you

don't gotta be all that

it don't got to be all that you could

just come out as gay I mean that's fine

you can do that and then you can do your

homoerotic fan fiction as long as it's

for adults and you're not targeting

Elementary School students with it

that's your right go ahead and do that I

don't give a fuck but why is this dude

pretending like he's like this dissident

you're not a dissident dude you're not

oppressed in any kind of fucking way at

all

in fact Bank of America is regularly

holding Pride parades and all this I

mean you're fine dude you're great I

don't know what political significance

you have

you know what I mean

so yeah that's my response to that

so

all right here's Kareem go ahead Kareem

hello yeah yeah

um

so basically I think the problem is that

there's a theocracy Community that's

going in your Discord Okay and like we

have people that are bringing up the

things and stuff because we think

there's a little problem you know so

basically there's the conflict between

Islamic

had a point about fascism cigarette my

first fucking point I'm gonna bring up

like what is the problem exactly based

uh

Bronze Age perfect and he opened it by

saying thank you so much

they started like cracking down on

Muslims you know that's why we have the

jingling population like revolting right

now what's the main problem right now

okay so if they're cracking on Muslims

are you saying the Hui Muslims are being

cracked down on

no another window just like uh the

freaking

um population because they have like uh

more teleky ideology so they're more

revolutionary you know

um

I mean but what makes that different

from when a Muslim country cracks down

on extremism

it makes a difference because uh China

has approaches with Islam and it has

many like it had many problems with this

land before and like all Communist

States that's like a common problem what

about the Hui Muslims

but the majority of Muslims in China who

and by the way they've been there for

they're some of the oldest Muslims in

the world

it doesn't seem like yeah I know that

yeah but the thing is there would never

have been like a revolutionary Islamic

movement if China never did anything to

uh where does where does Islam give you

the right

to overthrow these state

when you're getting depressed bro what

when you're getting a breath

so people in xinjiang

were separatists before they were

Muslims I'm sure you're aware that the

etim has origins in being an atheist

soviet-backed communist

uh party

yeah the thing is uh it started when the

final Bank

definitely if you look up the how is

China corrected down on Islam when you

just admitted the Hui Muslims are not

being cracked down on and the majority

of Muslims in China

yeah but I'm talking like in the past

you know if you look at the changing

incident for example you see that like

kind of like they killed many Muslims

messages

okay what happened then

so basically China had like a freaking

degenerate part of the the army that was

like super atheists right and they were

like commanded by like some leaders like

this basically like destroyed civilians

they're doing Muslims what what year was

this

it was the 74 to 75

okay well that was during the cultural

revolution I'm sure you're aware of that

exactly yes yes well even my argument

basically is that during the cultural

revolution China like did some bad stuff

to like religion in general so now you

have you have the root of the problem in

China is basically caused by China

itself because in the cultural

revolution it did some things

that's why the CIA can even get into

China to like fund all these separatist

movements yeah but during the cultural

revolution

there was also an attack on traditional

Chinese culture as well to the same

extent of course yeah yeah I know all

religions yeah I know that and

traditional Chinese culture so yeah I

know that but like my point is like

China like basically created the the

sentiment the emotional uh basis for uh

revolutionary Islamic movements that the

CIA after like why wasn't there any

Islamic movement during or in the

immediate aftermath of the cultural

revolution

I mean no no it started in the 80s no

way bro

sure even if I could conceded to it

started in the mid to late 80s yes

why why did it take so long why wasn't

there an Islamic moment bro they were

they were teaching like they were like

teaching instead of the ideology

becoming revolutionary organizing you

know it's love oh crini

okay

and what and and they were doing that

why

because China brought the massacred bro

look at the pictures bro it's fucking

disgusting

who is Mastercard

bro Muslims Muslims yeah Allah look at

the pictures

are these pictures to us what pictures

oh yeah they're very possible go on the

wiki article

and you see like the first picture bro

like that's that's picking

that's that bro and what is the picture

for

it's uh they killed them I think they

ate them

I did they did some things bro they did

some disgusting things you know

can you please specify who is eaten

I mean look bro if you look at the

picture

I'm not going to look at the picture I'm

not going to look at the pictures

because I picture on it anyways anyways

so the picture like is really is violent

you know but you'll know that some the

point is they did some horrible stuff

right who who did it and when

yeah okay so the the party the army that

did this is called the four old if you

probably know of it so what is it it's

the sadian massacre

s h a d i a n

is Shady an incident

yeah yeah

so it was an uprising of gay people

during the cultural revolution that was

not even the people in xinjiang the we

people

are are have not since taken you you

just claimed that Hui people are not

revolutionary

no no I'm saying right now they're not

but like obviously so you can't you

can't explain why there's terrorism in

xinjiang based on what happened in the

Shady an incident

I mean yeah you could use it as an

example of China cranking no you can't

because there's no connection look bro

look dude there's no connection between

those two events oh yo yo this is kind

of angle box my point is is the general

Point like the shading incident is an

example of what China was doing so

obviously they probably did like so I'm

looking at the Wikipedia I'm looking at

the Wikipedia article for the Shady an

incident yeah and I cannot really say

anything about this because I had

there's no independent study of this

that I can get I mean I could look on

Wikipedia and look at the crimes of

Stalin and how he killed a billion

people yeah so you're not really giving

me anything

I mean bro look the point is even if you

don't judge the numbers even if you're

going through the specific like uh

details the point is there was

anti-religion sentiments during the

cultural revolution everyone knows that

and I'm saying because so don't do this

thing look at the pictures look at the

pictures I mean what is that

what is that supposed to do

it's supposed to get you emotional you

know yeah that's how that's that's

literally how you're arguing you're just

arguing uh just based purely on emotion

and that's the fucking problem actually

yeah bro that's that's how you win

debates we win the race by emotions

anyways but my general points it's true

though like they were they created this

sentiment this revolutely sentiment and

now they're thanking Bell on it but

they're completed it and it's the same

thing with the Soviets by the way so

like this argument goes deep because if

you go like further you're gonna have

like there's a conflict between Islam

and communism that needs to get resolved

in my opinion is my opinion is that

communism cannot be a paradigm that's

the main problem of Communism communism

is a science it's a tool right that you

can use but it can now be a paradigm and

that's why

Paradigm is like uh when you have

communism communism as your main

ideology or your main belief or the main

thing leading your country because uh

communism is nothing in itself it's like

Imperial it's empiricism it needs

something else it presupposes being so

you actually need something like God to

uh found communism you know that's why

you have like a quote of personality of

Stalin for example nah this is nonsense

communism bro that's how it works like

communism cannot be the main leading

thing of a country

it most certainly can

no I cannot it always it always needs a

cult of personality for example for

Stalin or that's part of the organism

no it's not it's not actually bro you

know what it's not in the original uh

point of Communism which is if you're

treating communism like a fucking

religion and then saying oh yeah I'll

tell you something it's not a religion

communism is objective it doesn't deal

with emotions but a cult of personality

is something new emotional so something

that's added to Communism it's not

communism in itself

it's part of communism

Nana it just got added historically

because when you deal with it you're

dealing with jibber jabber now you're

just doing Jimmy what do you do with

matter when you do with matter you're

gonna have some some things that get

added along the way that's why so where

are you getting the fucking idea as

someone who's in the community and who's

watching me for as long as you fucking

have shouldn't you know better that's

communism is not some kind of empiricist

or materialist reductionism shouldn't

you just fucking know that by now I'm

not thinking in the community if you

don't know that yet I'm not seeing

Productions I'm saying that if you take

communism and you're removing you you

sound stupid your childhood you're

telling me you're telling me you're

telling me Oh communism is just like

mechanical matter and then like you need

like you need like a spiritual side like

when that's what I'm doing it was never

just mechanical materialism okay okay

look okay do you agree that communism

has a spiritual side yes okay okay nice

my point is that spiritual side is

undefined under communism under

religious theocracy it is defined and

that's right because it's combined by

reality a religious theocracy can sit

there wearing hats sitting down

declaring how they're gonna fucking

Define it it's not how it's actually

defined in practice because in practice

because in practice everybody is fucking

um violating the religious prescriptions

and and buying hookers and snorting

cocaine name me one theocracy where

people don't fucking get into a person

snort cocaine

what

communism did a much better job at

cracking down at immorality than

theocracies ever could there's got to be

kept

what that's good bro

yes they have look at them okay compare

the rate of gambling okay compare

compare the rate of how many people are

buying hookers and doing cocaine in the

Soviet Union and Stalin years versus in

theocracy

bro freaking T obviously wins hands down

that's so easy that's so easy look at

the words from reality your divorce from

reality Islamic states that in the

history

okay

in a theocracy there's a very strict

harsh separation between

the scriptural whatever the clerics are

saying and the actual feelings people

have materially there's a very harsh

separation between those things no no at

least in a communist state

those two are put into some kind of

relationship where

it's not you don't just fucking have the

spirituality defined by someone wearing

a hat cast out the songs

it's defined by belief in Universe no

it's defined by the actual fucking

history of the people themselves

unfolding in real time

exactly it's good for it to be undefined

it's good for it to be undefined if it's

undefined that means reality

in communism it doesn't exist so there's

a problem here

your communism is an incomplete look my

point is communism is

an ideology

because its spiritual side is undefined

belief

possible which is God you're gonna have

a sense

shut up if you believe

in a complete ideology

yes you are a pagan

shut the fuck up okay okay

if you believe in a complete ideology

you are a fucking pagan who worships

ideas instead of God

communism is an incomplete ideology it's

not supposed to be

it's not something that's going to

predict the future and tell you how it's

gonna fucking be

all communism entails is a commitment by

men to humanity what that commitment

actually looks like depends

on space and time

two things that in all of their infinite

being

cannot be accounted for beforehand

everything universally and he was still

talking even when he was fucking muted I

love having people on debating like this

where they can never shut the fuck up

and they're muted and they're still

talking

let's unmute him again and see if he's

still talking

all right he's not ready

hello yeah

okay okay so basically what I'm saying

is that in communism the the main idea

is undefined right

that's what I was saying are you

mentally retarded

look the main idea is understand just

like me saying science is in itself like

as a worldview is incomplete because

believe like like you said like you said

look like you said I'm not giving me the

patience

no fucking come on shut the fuck up you

fucking donkey retard you don't shut the

fuck up I just fucking explained it to

you but you wouldn't shut the fuck up so

you couldn't hear me I explained it to

you I was getting to the main points

I was explaining it to you but you

wouldn't he's still talking he's still

talking

to you but you wouldn't shut the fuck up

okay

I'm gonna tell you something okay you

said communism is the contract between

the humanity and the people okay but

that contract presupposes a positive

Claim about being and what I'm saying is

that religion has that but not communism

because communism decides to keep it

abstract and say oh no we don't believe

in God we're atheists no but you have to

believe in God there's no way get the

hell out here

so this is your idea of a debate you're

going to scream and then when I explain

things to you with utmost Clarity you

just continue saying what you're saying

before and there's no debate I just

scream when other people

why don't you roll black roll back my

stream so you can get the evidence of

what I said and show me the part where I

fucking said a contract

okay so what did I actually say

bro I you said something like a contract

a synonym synonym

no I said a commitment you stupid

well I hate to send him I'm gonna go up

look uh look it up right now contract

synonym

no a contract

go on Google

I'm about to leave Islam I'm about to

leave Islam I'm about to leave Islam I'm

about to leave Islam

because I hate you because you're a

fucking retard you're an empty-headed

retard and maybe Islam deserves to lose

to Europe because you're such a retard

you can't even fucking think about how a

fucking contract already implies being

formally defined a commitment does not

necessarily imply a formal definition a

contract

my point is that that contract is

formally defined but that contract

principles nobody fucking mentioned a

contract nobody mentioned a contract all

I said was a commitment

no it's not the same thing a contract is

formally defined a commitment is not

formally defined so there is a fucking

difference but it doesn't matter you

know why you know why because I said

that before the commitments

thus I don't even care about the

commencement why do you need what why do

you need a presupposition of thought

that's just the meaning of a Concepts

he and there you go talking about a

contract

oh that's okay commitment Contracting

things no it's not the same thing it's

not

you know what why is my fucking mic why

is my it's not the same fucking thing

actually it's not huh

[Music]

shut up it's not the same because a

contract implies it being formally

defined written somewhere formally

established a commitment does not imply

that

oh I can commit to wiping my ass without

anything shut up

give me the main point give me the juice

and butter

I can commit to wiping my fucking ass

without making it a contract

okay look look give me the name the

juice butter uh peanut uh what's it

called meatballs

a contract is not the same as a

commitment so shut the fuck up about

contracts okay bro okay

this is why why

okay look you got my point though no I

don't you're saying you're saying if

there's a commitment it has to be

completely formally defined beforehand

no it doesn't no I'm seeing I'm saying

contract or commitment presupposes a pre

supposes this thing positive all it

would have to presuppose is the real

existence of humanity yes it does no it

please

a universal meaning sure that universal

meaning does not have to be reduced

exactly that's my that's my I can't lead

you to that argument

okay

universities is denying God but it needs

God to exist

even if that's true

it doesn't yeah shut up that doesn't

mean it has to be formally established

before the fact you fucking idiot

because the minute you finally establish

it you have communism okay is still

making a negative blame about God he's

like oh we don't think there are that

proposal man man oh my God he's the same

for man bro he said he forgets that man

needs me

you know what

you don't know a goddamn thing about

Marx you're an illiterate ignorant

retard who's never read a fucking word

of Marx you've never actually taken the

time to commit you've never actually

educated I don't care you're not

educated you're not educated you're not

educated

you're not educated you don't know

anything about it I am not educated yes

I agree

so don't talk about Marx when you don't

understand

and I'll still win the argument bro

that's how crazy I am bro

why do you even debate are you just who

you're trying to convince yourself

the audience

no the you have not convinced the

audience of anything

I have yes I have what did you convince

the office what did you convince the

audience of

I think you even made that point before

bill I I don't know why you're debating

me right now

you claim the problem with Communism is

that it's undefined I claim you're full

of shit because that lack of definition

that lack of definition is part of the

commitment to the openness of what

humanity is and not having the arrogance

like Iblis had the arrogance of thinking

you know it before the fact you don't

know what humanity is going to be before

the fact of actively and practically

committing to humanity negatively

defined based on your ignorance

do you know what the belief in God is

yeah keep posturing to the world how you

believe in God keep posturing

I'm not posturing but I'm making a

belief in God is not going on Discord

and talking fucking nonsense

okay look look I'm gonna tell you

something bro all the people that were

supposed to debate from the light on

they're all left okay I was the only one

I was the only one staying to give you a

debate I was like all right I'll do the

Devil's Advocate I don't care even

though I'm not that married

I'll do the debate I don't care

so you're just trolling

no no no no no no no no no no no

you used to be grateful to me bro I gave

you the debate you know like everyone

left you imagine why did everyone leave

I don't know bro they left they left

they got scared or something bro I stood

up I stayed okay

what do you believe

oh I want to I want to debate the Retard

deaf guy on xinjiang okay yo why are you

recording me bro

all right so basically in xinjiang

there's there's like a terrorist problem

you know yeah yes

and um

you know how in society there's like

poor Class People middle class people

like high class I mean wealthy people

yeah so in uyghurs there's also like

wealthy uyghurs middle class leakers

poor weakers

they're the main Victors I mean they're

the main victims

of uh being affiliated with like Isis

because yes in Jang it borders

Afghanistan

and you know okay okay yeah there's like

accusations that Isis is funded by like

the West you know that bro I know all

that bro yeah I know all that what's

your response

well and all the the things that China

did anti-religion in the culture that's

that's my main argument and you have to

like give me something I guess

well I really don't know any of that I

only I only know you don't know anything

but why are you doing no I only know I

only knows

oh I only know from the

from the end and ahead

okay don't don't debate me bye

oh shit I won I won

by the glory of God

increase the next

what's up

what's up what's your argument

about argument all right listen have you

guys have you guys seen Dimitri

bedfordev's tweet

if this is not related to the topic

you're getting banned from the server

I'm just warning you

is it is it about the uh the

xinjiang stuff yup yes

uh Xi Jinping is based uh

get the hell I heard it you're bad it's

your best you're banned you don't know

what you were talking about why are you

joining

because person told me to join okay bye

bye bye all right peace out

bye I won again two wins in a row two

wins in a row

I'm beating the whole Dojo bro that's

like Bruce Lee in the temple oh hello

hello hello

okay so this is about the the xinjiang

the xinjiang and the East Pakistan

it's ring jing

um

okay fuck okay so like what I was going

to say about this is that you know all

you need to know is that China was

created by the Rockefellers and Chinese

history is completely fake and was made

by the Jesuits

okay what where's your can you provide

some uh credibility for why we should

believe you

I oh I should um well she should believe

that China like the Jesuits were the

main people who were in China and

they're the primary documentation

can you show me the evidence that the

Rockefellers created modern China

oh the Rockefellers created uh the uh

modern China well dude dude you are

aware of uh I think let me look it up I

I have to find this way though don't

worry don't worry German Mao uh John

Dewey

hey

where the fuck do they put this

fuck

what the fuck did they put chairman

Mound

because you know

is this where is this

there it is here it is here it is so

shit

shit

fuck

something about okay okay okay here

I have to have to read this full thing

out because it may not be prove what I'm

trying to say for versus

John Dewey grew up in a bit of better

better better

oh fuck it's not even shit shit shit

because he if he officially denounced

Dewey right

that's official but you know fuck where

was it

is John Dewey was what the founder of

pragmatism and education

well yeah but like that he was uh

educated and all like uh Rockefeller

funded School in China sure as well as

some other Communists can you prove that

you prove the connection between the

Rockefellers and Chinese communism

Chinese communism back when it first

started okay uh

um

honorate Karim three W's in a row

oh my God holy fuck

dementor thank you so much man holy shit

holy fuck dementor Jesus Christ

holy fuck Merry Christmas to me thank

you man that's a Merry Christmas

thank you man holy shit

appreciate you man

thank you dementia looking for it don't

worry I'm don't worry I'm just

researching

I know bro take your time nope take your

time researching

I'm sorry I'm doing this all from memory

I'm sorry

no problem waste

I've been convinced of tonight is that

autism is a crisis

much

be

no no no this one's cool shit so

now this one's shit so true

all right

foreign

all right

I just want to let anyone else know uh I

know feel free to please

so I can um completely eliminate this

guy

uh there's there's there's no way for

him to be removed unless someone comes

in to show Q to replace him just letting

you know he's gonna we're gonna be stuck

with him unless someone a new Challenger

comes in

places

if you don't we're stuck with him I

don't know what to tell you

we are um very much stuck with him and

we're just gonna have to deal with him

unless there's gonna be a a new

Challenger right

just letting you know

Andrew

yep

autism the final stage of liberalism oh

thank you so much blackback appreciate

you man

thank you so much

one second one second one second

uh oh wait I want to debate about uh the

Medford everything is that okay well

make your debate

all right I think Medvedev is schizo

basically right

like his whole thing I know I know it's

supposed to be like schizo but like it's

actually schizo okay go ahead

all right let's put aside the money

stuff like okay oil prices will rise to

150 a barrel have you seen a tweet have

you seen this tweet

you mean the Tweed where he's just

deliberately making implausible

predictions to rock yes is it supposed

to be that

yes it is because he's mocking the way

that westerners make predictions and

he's making a ridiculous prediction he's

like Texas secessionist

no but like the uh the one that I was

like uh really confused about was the

Bretton Woods one because

um okay well it's not gonna happen in

2023 but that is something that's

happening it's possible like uh that's

that's where I'm going in I'm thinking

like this is really really long term

stuff right

and I I did not know the context of this

I will be 100 yeah

I just thought he was like entirely

schizo going schizo mode

yeah but is is that okay if we can uh

debate the Bretton Woods Point number 10

I guess uh because I'm kind of like a um

what do you call it black build on the

whole uh bricks vibe

okay what's your Blackpool

my black pill

is that

perhaps atlanticism is necessary to

control Global Finance

what

so isn't it whole point of global

Finance being destroyed

yes I guess that is the point right but

uh is is the point of the uh destruction

to destroy it or to replace it

obviously to replace it

but if I'm what I'm saying is like I

don't think it can be replaced in the

same form or as functional period it

won't be replaced into the same form

what would how could any historical

change happen if it's going to be the

same thing again

good point

but uh do you think it's going to be

effective like uh let's say let's say

bricks right let's pretend bricks

actually succeeds current form uh Brazil

Russia India China South Africa uh who

else was uh talking about joining it

right

all of these countries have their own

Sovereign interests right

why would they create one single

currency that controls Finance

what makes you think there's going to be

one single Reserve currency

it'd just be more efficient right

not necessarily no

what would what would be more efficient

than that just

you know efficient

efficient for who but based on what what

do you mean efficient

you got global trade going on more

efficient for the current status quo

probably not

more efficient for people who are

importers and exporters right

you've got a shipping container you're

like hey I want to uh sell this for a

hundred billion uh dollars right

and then some guy in China's like okay

yeah this is a good 100 billion dollars

works but you're saying how is there

going to be the stability

yeah probably gold or some kind of oil

or some kind of natural resource some

kind of like real thing probably I would

be my guess probably energy

I mean or I mean the dollar is just

based on the that's just based on

petroleum

that's just based on the denomination of

oil you know that right

the stability of the dollar comes from

Energy prices so you could have

literally anything replace that

I guess so I guess so but I think that

like um I think it's more to it you know

I think there's something like uh

totally uh

uh like there's a like

Essence Gap right there's a there's the

essence of the dollar that you can't

just replace it with

like the ruble cannot be the dollar

right

or else okay

or something you know you realize that

China already has a dual currency system

it has a foreign exchange currency and

it has a domestic circulating current

I think you're just thinking of this in

a really narrow-minded way currencies

there could be dual currency systems in

which

there are different ways of denominating

oil there could be a digital currency

like a blockchain

that's not

centralized by any Central Bank at all

I mean that probably seems likely why

why couldn't it be a blockchain

well uh

uh I just it could be I don't know like

a blockchain somehow related to oil

I'm not really up to date on the

blockchain man there's just a lot of pot

if you're not update on that I mean it's

like there are a lot of possibilities my

update on it is like the same bankman

freed stuff I'm like a boomer in this

regard you know okay that's that's

that's those are specific

cryptocurrencies but the underlying

technology

is it's decentralized not based on

a central bank you don't need a central

institution at all

necessarily

to control it like you do with the

Federal Reserve unless you have the

problem with the US is the dollar

uh you know the whole interest rates for

the US I mean that's on the one hand you

have three factors you have the global

price of oil

you have the interest rates that are

sent by the federal reserve military no

and then you have the domestic

um function of the dollar Beyond being a

reserve currency for the domestic

economy of the us all those things are

contradicting each other so instead of

instead of saying I don't know if it can

be efficiently replaced

that's presupposing there's a choice

the rule of the US dollar is

fundamentally unsustainable like

you have to be arguing somehow that it's

possible

for Bretton Woods to be rescued

for the dollar to survive I don't see

that possibility

a question of can something more

efficient it's like relevant like you

don't it's like if you're sinking in a

ship and you're like do we have a more

efficient boat it's like well your ship

is sinking

there was water in the ship right now it

kind of presupposes that the Bretton

Woods system is collapsing well that's

what I believe yes okay

well I I really disagree that's uh I

guess that's what I'm getting at I think

that's the essence of my argument I

don't think it's necessarily collapsing

at all now what I'll uh pause you on or

put some caveats on myself right I think

there's problems with it especially with

uh global commodity prices right now

which you and I agree on this right oil

is a major contributor to the stability

of the dollar

um and European and fucking I don't know

winter that's that's literally the tip

of the iceberg yeah no I know that's the

50 Iceberg but this is a good point to

like kind of say okay we agree on this

um I don't think Russia in that energy

uh export Supply whatever

is capable of threatening uh

really the the Monopoly of like aramco

right

what I think well Saudi Arabia disagrees

no I think that's all posturing I think

it's all posturing to get better when

there was a price War but Saudi Arabia

and Russia yeah that was just like 2020.

yeah

yeah I don't know I think a lot of what

Saudi does is uh posturing they do a lot

of diplomatic posturing in order to get

better weapons in the U.S

so um apparently

there is no oil Market it's just a ramco

it's not like there's competitors uh

there is no threat to the international

oil monopolies coming from Russia Iran

Venezuela or other or Iraq under Saddam

all these oil exporting Sovereign

countries let me pause you let me pause

no threat to the oil monopolies that

Prevail in the case of Venezuela uh also

I think that there's a huge potential in

Brazil that's uh that's when my schizo

takes for a long time I think that like

Brazil is the future of oil

um but that's beyond the point that's

beyond the point with Venezuela uh

recently I don't know how recent this

was I think it's this year sometime June

July whatever uh Lincoln or somebody

went over to

talk to Maduro right like some under

secretary

uh and they were like okay well can we

put uh Chevron back in Venezuela I think

that's about to happen right

like chevron's about to go back to

Venezuela to work for a beta Vista

okay so so from the period of Chavez's

Ascension to power up until that point

uh the reason Venezuela was such a like

problem for the U.S

that was just like you know that wasn't

that had nothing to do with the oil

Market

right

no it did I agree it did okay but now

are you bringing up some irrelevant

bullshit that has nothing to do with it

because it's the current stuff right no

it is irrelevant if Venezuela

capitulates to imperialism I think they

will capitulate okay that's fine but

what's your point you think so are you

trying to say that um all the other oil

exporting countries are just going to

uh sell off all of their assets to

the American Oil monopolies is that what

you're saying

I wouldn't say that Iran would do that I

don't think Iran would do that I don't

think uh

what was another one like there's

Turkmenistan Turkmenistan will hold down

so so almost none of them are gonna do

it but since Venezuela did it what's the

significance Venezuela is the largest

oil reserves to have the largest oil

reserves in the world okay that's that

can easily replace Russia I mean so I

don't I think that the uh you can

replace Russia really yeah

the transport of oil doesn't matter it's

just like

oh not in natural gas no Russia they

can't replace Russia natural gas I'll

agree with you on that what about the

Arctic

oh that's a good that's interesting I.E

that is an interesting point holy shit

now that's that's uh a question I've not

even thought about so

yeah what what's your opinion on the

Arctic like uh

like how many how much oil do you

think's up there

probably more than Venezuela

but doesn't Canada exist

well can Canada's

there's more

Russia covers more

but then you have uh Alaska if Canada

you have Norway

right

there's no way

that all of these developing countries

are going to exclusively buy their oil

and gas Western monopolies

there's also no way that China

is going to deal with

um Washington sanctions and strings all

the strings it attaches I mean you don't

even understand this is also a political

crisis you're neglecting the aspect of

how countries that aren't politically

aligned with the US have to be

sanctioned

oh I acknowledge that yeah so it's like

why

like if given the developmental needs of

countries

going forward I mean you're saying

there's no threat to Bretton Woods

because they're just going to replace

the oil that's not even how it works

for all intensive purposes oil is

infinite there may be some problems with

the logistics of getting it to Europe

right now to replace the restaurant

that's really the problem the problem is

not scarce supply of oil the problem is

that there's an international market

where different actors are competing

with each other different actors who all

have good supplies of oil are com are

able to compete with each other and

undercut each other and that's why if as

long as Russia exists

it's going to be able to compete with

oil monopolies and it's always going to

have the pressure placed on them to

reduce the costs of the price of oil

because it's going to just keep

competing with them the problem is the

fact there's a market

there is a market it's not there's a

scarce resources

scarcity has nothing to do with it I

don't know why you're even bringing it

up even if they take all of Venezuela's

oil which won't happen there's still

going to be an oil Market

yes

no but uh it's not bait oil the price of

oil has nothing to do with Supply

I mean beginning from there is a

non-starter it's got nothing to do with

Supply

it has everything to do with the oil

Market

and the means of extraction yes it has a

lot to do with the means of extraction

that's based on the macro economy there

you go I like that one means of

extraction all right so productive

capabilities we agree on this uh if you

can produce the oil and if you can

export it that's good right

so I'm saying these are the things that

affect the price of oil scarce resources

or not all right number one exporter of

crude is Russia number two is Saudi

Arabia number three is like I don't know

where we're honestly say Russia is not

threatening aramco's Monopoly

they're not

but it exports more oil than a ramco

that doesn't matter I mean the the point

of aramco is not that it's owned by the

US it's that it sells in dollars

that it doesn't matter who the fuck owns

it like it could be owned by well now

it's selling and you want

it's not selling anyone that's bullshit

news I don't know where you got that

they will never sell anyone there's no

Metro you want

there's not it's never gonna happen

fine okay so

it's it's posturing that happens every

five years that the Saudis do in order

to get better weapons from the US

there's a Riff Raff right now about uh

Jamal kasoji shit it's been going on for

the past two and a half years with Biden

right

uh

MBs is pissed and he wants his guns

all right that that's my opinion I don't

think that it's going to be a petrol

yawn if there is it's a joke

um so you just doubt that it's going to

happen

I doubt that it will ever happen yes

okay well Saudi Arabia can continue

um trading its oil in dollars

and that's the source of its Monopoly

according to you yes

that's that's the source of what the U.S

uh Breton Woods works is because they

sell in dollars

do you realize you're just engaging in a

form of circular reasoning it is

circularism yeah

but you don't see the contradiction

where it's all collapsing you don't see

the construction

in order for the Monopoly that China

won't have a Carter Doctrine to fucking

say Okay Saudi Arabia if you are if

you're people ever fucking protest

against you we'll go in and kill them

all that's the that's the contradiction

you're not getting that all right the US

has the card or doctrine China will

never do that hold on you're saying

because the the Carter Doctrine being

what

if there's any protest against the uh

leaders of Saudi Arabia

uh Bahrain and Emirates any of these

fucking places

the US is their daddy and they'll go in

and they'll defend them against their

people

so you're saying the US's um need to

constantly get entangled and expensive

inefficient and dragged out foreign

conflicts ensures the longevity of the

Brentwood system just like the Iraq War

was a huge that was a huge win for the

Brentwood system according to you

so while the U.S has to spend so much on

defense

and China can spend so much on internal

development

making you know basically creating an

alternative

um

multilateral trade system

it's like the US is the one that's

winning absolutely that's crazy it's a

crazy look at it never never encompassed

the Saudis it will never truly Encompass

the Saudis

if Saudi Arabia continues selling do you

think the only reason Saudi Arabia is

considering ditching the dollar is

because of

um

is because of uh the politics

you don't think there's an economic

Dimension to the fact that the thing

they're not even considering it

okay

so you think you think

where does the stability of the dollar

come from

it comes from as I said

aramco

basically no it doesn't come from

fucking a ramco because the stability of

the dollar

is that's that's the price that the

Saudis have to denominate the sale of

their oil yeah so let's go back so you

don't think that you don't think that

that that's a hindrance to the Saudis in

any way that they have to do that

you don't think that could hurt their

Competitive Edge

that is their Competitive Edge why

because fucking 80 of their economy is

oil

eighty percent of their economy is oil

if they have a military to fucking back

them up at any given moment can you can

you explain to me the aspect of the

Competitive Edge

the Competitive Edge is that the U.S

military protects this monarchy how does

that establish a Competitive Edge okay

fine you're safe

you're not going to be overthrown so

show me the Competitive Edge fucking

tons like millions and millions of

millions of barrels of oil just in the

desert and the ocean and the fucking

Persian gold fly has nothing to do with

it

so supply has nothing to do with it just

barely Russia has exported more for a

few years so it doesn't matter supply

has nothing to do with it nothing

it's not just Saudi Arabia you don't

know what competition means you don't

know what competition means why is it

that Saudi Arabia is able to sell its

oil cheaper it's a monopoly this this

whole thing is talking about monopolies

it's not talking about markets where you

can just magically step in and say oh

well this one works here and this one

works there oh let's see what the

fucking uh game works and let them fight

it out it's not fucking uh what's the

word game theory it's not Game Theory

Game Theory doesn't work in the case of

oil markets there's no oil Market it is

military protectors

well that wow that's news there's no oil

Market

yeah that's my schizo take there are no

competing actors

there are no competing

um oil Industries

no I'ma drop the larouche bill holy shit

okay so there's no oil Market a little

Roost pill on this man this is the roost

bill so what what is the basis of um

the conflict between

the axis of Evil in the American

International System what's the material

basis of that if there's no oil Market

what accessible

Rogue States

Rogue States

China

Russia Iran Venezuela Libya Iraq what is

the basis of that

wait okay hold up a rock today is a

rogue state

I'm talking about in history there's a

term axis of Evil where you most of the

world seems like it's politically

aligned with the US and there's a few

that are not so how do you fucking

explain that

I don't know what you're asking

I don't know how that relates what's the

basis why is Putin fighting with America

why is Putin fighting with America

I don't know

but it's not it has nothing to do with

the oil market right I don't think he is

fighting with America no it's all so

it's all conspiracy

this is listen I said I have a religious

bill on this I said is there is there do

we live in a unipolars um

system yes so you're not going to sit

here and be like oh yeah America's equal

with everyone else right

absolutely Washington consensus right

there's a Washington Kansas does Russia

since Putin took power regularly Clash

with the Washington consensus

let me phrase this why the fuck do you

need time to answer that when Russia

invaded Georgia when Russia invaded

Georgia was that was that lauded and

approved everything that Russia does

somehow fucking benefits the US that's

not a coincidence how in the hell if you

go so you're saying it's not a real

you're saying it's not a real conflict

That's My Lou Rouge pill

okay do your so you're you're having the

schizoid conspiracists take that there

is no point of tension between

unipolarity and multi-polarity they're

all secretly working behind the scenes

yes and what is your evidence

I have no evidence because it's an

unscientific way of thinking you can

clearly see you can clearly observe

that whatever your schizoid conspiracy

theory is whenever there's a novel

historical event this underlying tension

always seems to be at the cause it

always seems to be an evident and real

phenomenal reality but you're gonna sit

here and look at this reality okay if

you if you have a scientific conspiracy

it should be able to make predictions

what predictive power has it when it

comes to the new conflicts all right

predict the next conflict the next phony

proxy conflict between uh the

multi-polar system in the unipolar

system where is the next fake

um conflict gonna be because right now

Ukraine's a fake conflict it's all fake

okay so when's the next fake one gonna

be because if your conspiracy theory is

valid it also means it has to be

scientific and it should have predictive

power so it can you explain where the

next one's gonna be

are you act are you asking for Anglo it

can uh empiricism sorry

um no no a predictability is not just a

feature of an empiricist view of science

what I'm saying what I'm getting at is I

think that these clashes these clashes

every single time every single time the

US benefits I don't know how does the

U.S benefit

okay look at the price of the dollar

right now

like

dude

oh you know what you're right all that

means so much and forget about the

underlying productive forces you've

revalued against the Euro the Yen every

fucking

the fucking you want wow

so be so hold on so in the unipolar

Bretton Woods system where the dollar is

the reserve currency oh my God looks

like the dollar is rapidly and

worryingly if you ask the people at the

Federal Reserve

um

uh deflating or whatever there's a huge

deflation it's not inflating at all it's

actually appreciating yeah it's

appreciating rapidly relative to all the

other

why did you look at me why did you

interrupt me

you're acting like I'm full of shit

no retard I'm making the fucking point

yes it is appreciating but you're so

fucking stupid you somehow think that

means it's a w it's a not a fucking W

when your currency is supposed to be the

global Reserve currency and it is

unsustainably appreciating against all

the other fucking currencies how is that

a w why do you think because the numbers

bigger that that's a win for the system

how

stick for Russia isn't it

what China okay for example for years

China spent years keeping its currency

artificially lower that's what it's

supposed to be

was that an L for China for that its

currency was lower that's a massive dub

yeah so when the U.S dollar is doing so

well right now that's not good for the

American economy that means inflation

and that's what we're fucking

experiencing right now

that's not a good thing I don't know why

you would think it's a fucking good

thing for the USD to be doing well

relative to other currencies I mean I

guess if you're trading Forex and you

know you were betting on that outcome I

guess you're doing fine but for everyone

else I mean if you're if you're holding

a reserve of what is the ruble

appreciating to fucking 70 to the dollar

a good thing for Russia

are you now contradicting yourself

no I'm going to ask you the question

stabilizing relative to an extreme uh

depreciation that was caused by external

factors is a good thing yes

even with the 20 interest rates

again I'm gonna repeat myself the ruble

getting back to where it was before

according to the Russian Central Bank is

a good thing

it's not necessarily because it's 70 or

or 170 percent it's because it's

stabilizing to the point that the

central bank is comfortable with it

being at

even with the 20 interest rates

why not

it's kind of a damaging for the economy

don't you think that prevents investment

well investment from where

from internal Investments why is Russia

why would Russia be focusing on that

right now rather than just stabilizing

the bare minimum of stabilizing its

economy so that people could buy

everyday goods and necessities

I mean wouldn't extreme inflation

created like an immediate economic isn't

this just an immediate form of relief

and not a long-term economic strategy

why do you think this is a long-term

economic strategy for Russia's

development

I didn't say that so who care oh yes

they have to resort to Extreme Measures

to provide immediately relief to their

economy and by their economy I mean the

way ordinary fucking citizens are

getting by that doesn't fucking mean

that says nothing about the long-term

strategy for the development of the

Russian economy let me let me let me ask

thank you so much for the rain Jackson

appreciate it let me phrase this let me

phrase this

so at the beginning of the war right

Jackson was posing this uh like okay the

ruble going to like 80 or whatever as

like a massive dub right

like it's it's this is a massive dub

that the Russians have a uh 82. no I

think Jackson was just saying that

relative to how much people were

politicizing and celebrating how rapidly

the ruble depreciated something I also

remember so in that context the ability

for the ruble to get bigger than it than

even projected and expected is a dub

okay it doesn't necessarily mean that in

a vacuum it being 80 is a good thing it

just means so many people were

celebrating its depreciation well looks

like the Russians were able to get out

of that

through it 20 interest rates

what different

20 interest rates have that has problems

for the developmental prospects of

Russia if that's a long-term policy but

in terms of the immediate problem that

rapid inflation entails for Russian

people

they're solving the problem so what's

wrong with that

actually the way I understand it that's

not really solved the problem because a

lot of uh what Russia has is imported

they have to import a lot of goods so so

that's mostly from sanctions then yeah I

mean but you know since the 90s they

kind of haven't really uh what's the

word

uh Diversified there you know this is an

incredible form of gaslighting Russia's

currency

depreciates a fuck ton rapidly right

then it stabilizes then it stabilizes

and then you sit here and you go

actually it's not about the currency

being uh deflated it's about the

sanctions now what do you want then

I want it into the war just like you no

you're basically

refusing to give Russia credit for

anything even though even though you you

agreed with the nafo retards that Russia

took a huge L because its currency

depreciated right then Russia

appreciated its currency and now you

want to talk about sanctions well why

don't you focus on the fact that Russia

stabilized its currency you go to my

Twitter right now I have no people on

nafo that I follow there uh I don't I

don't care I'm just saying what I think

I think you're you're coping you're like

you're in this mentality we're like I

can't let go of American unipolarity and

I'm just gonna like pretend it's

invincible and there's there's no

threats to it at all and I mean it's to

the point of like irrationally making

these circular arguments of yeah aramco

is going to maintain its oil Monopoly uh

because it's denominated in dollars uh

okay why is the dollar going to be a

long-term stable uh because it's

denominated in uh and Saudi Arabia's oil

okay so there's no oil Market where

there's threats to Saudi Arabia's yeah

there's no oil Market because it's been

on a million dollars so you seem to

think the US dollar is God and that it

can premise it can be both the premise

and conclusion of the global economy

Perhaps it is that was horrible thank

you so much PJ no again that's not how

it fucking works you can't say oh yeah

okay Saudi aramco the dollar strength

comes from the fact it's denominated in

oil and then you go okay

so aramco is going to keep its Monopoly

why well because it's denominated in

dollars but the only reason the dollar

is the only reason a dollar the only

reason the dollar has any value the only

reason the dollar has any value to

fucking begin with is because of that

fucking oil and there are competitors to

Saudi Arabia as a ramco why are you

talking while I'm talking why why are

you talking like a like an idiot I mean

come on I'm talking like a fucking idiot

you're a fucking retard dude Saudi

Arabia you fucking retard you literally

made the retarded argument that Saudi

Arabia's Saudi Arabia's oil Monopoly is

secure because it's so nominated in

dollars even though the US dollar only

gets its fucking value from oil in the

first place

who's the fucking daddy who's got a

bigger military than the US that doesn't

matter anyone can nuke the world retard

Russia to Nuke the world many times over

it means nothing the airplanes who's got

the fucking F-150 shove them up your ass

it means nothing if you think if you're

gonna measure things in terms of

military might let's just say everyone

can nuke everything who give fuck

nobody bring up fucking airplanes to

shut the fuck up about airplanes shut

the fuck up about airplanes yeah

airplanes only destroy things it's not

impressive to be able to destroy things

it's not

it's it's scary though no it's not it's

not scary

oh it's not scary no it's it's not

impressive to be able to destroy things

it's just not because every Russia China

and the US can all destroy the world

many times over it means nothing it

means nothing

so that's the Saudi Arabia they don't

want a fucking j-20

they don't want to what they don't want

to j-20 is a Chinese chat

it's a what a Chinese jet who cares if

they don't want the Chinese Jets who

cares what so you're saying the U.S

defense industry will be fine okay

what's the basis of the U.S defense

industry what's the base of the U.S

defense industry sure let's talk about

that dude you failed to see the

circularity of your reasoning what is

the basis of the U.S defense industry

where does that come from where does the

ability for that industry to be

maintained and sustained where does that

actually come from

the Third okay where does the power of

the FED come from

the fact comes from the military the

power of the fight comes from the

military and the oil so this is why you

will never be a Marxist you have the

voluntaristic theory of political

economy According to which the military

industry comes from thin air

and not and that's it

there's it's just thin air

you're claiming the FED gets its power

from the military and the military gets

its power to from the FED there is no

point in this circularity where you see

any flaw it's a it's God to you this is

a perfect circle

yes it's a perfect fucking Circle

you're a retard there's no more there's

nothing else I could tell you you

worship this circle you think it's a

Divine Circle you failed you fail to

actually see that

the interdependence of the fed and the

military was in within the wider context

of a global economic system which needs

to be consistent for the whole fucking

thing to be fueled in the first place

brother did you fucking not hear me

idiot can you not hear me every fucking

idiot

fucking prick okay your guy no ass

cannot fucking hear okay I know ads

cannot hear your guy no ads cannot hear

keep talking with your fucking lesbian

little bitch bitch you fucking listen I

said bitch you fucking listen who are

you intimidating you fucking little

nerdy boy

forever and yeah yeah what a fucking

cold little bitch shut the fuck up

shut your little bitch ass up our

military is not a fucking National thing

it's not a national it's not domestic

yeah the military is also uh fueled by

its solar-powered military right I don't

give a fuck I don't give a fuck man I

don't mom and dad I don't care is our

military solar powered by the way I

don't give a fuck what lubricates

industry in general where what is the

lubrication of any industry let alone a

military one you have a fucking

Greenpeace cock I'm just trying to tell

you you failed to see that your argument

rests on circular reasoning

yes

it's a logical flaw you cannot have

circular reasoning look up why circular

reasoning is fallacious do you not know

why that's inherently fallacious dude do

you think I care about logic

okay well you certainly don't care about

winning debates yeah I don't I'm not a

debate bro okay in order for an argument

to be coherent it can't be circular you

need to actually introduce a variable

that makes the difference that actually

is your is like the actual cause you

can't just say oh yeah get back to the

fucking subject okay listen my point is

that the military is not National it's

International and that ability creates

protectorates and these protectors are

specifically oil protectorates right so

these oil protectors give value to the

Petro dollar right

no how does it give value to the dollar

how does the protectorate give value to

the dollar

if Kuwait

Saudi Arabia

the Emirates Qatar Bahrain all of these

countries right Jordan too

all these countries uh set aside maybe

Oman I don't know much about Amman uh if

all these countries have a Carter

Doctrine or something similar which says

if our people rise up against us okay

and we got it the us is going to protect

them you see how you jibber jabber

continue yeah but they have military

they have U.S military bases in them too

right no nobody okay what's your point

my point is that that's really the power

of the military is that it's in these

specific areas

right with the oil

can you can you explain why

I it seems pretty because you somehow

think that oil

um derives its value from Supply or

geography when it does not it's about it

derives its value from the demand its

use in Industry

there you're getting you're getting

somewhere now you're getting somewhere

now

yeah it comes from the demand and the

demand comes from industry you're right

so if you're going to explain the

invincibility of the Bretton Woods

system using a circular reasoning based

on the military might of the US is not

going to get you anywhere I don't care

how many fucking bases the U.S has in

the oil fields in the fucking desert

with the sand people I don't give a fuck

about that I care about how can you

explain then that this entails the

invincibility of the dollar based on the

fact that oil is based in demand not

based in dollars

dollars are based in oil oil is not

based in dollars this is what you don't

fucking understand

English is not my strong suit I'm sorry

okay clearly not

yeah

uh dollars rely on oil oil does not rely

on dollars you claim that oil relies on

dollars in the form of the US's military

might well that might be true if there

wasn't an oil Market there is a fucking

oil Market I can't fucking believe how

you could deny that when countries like

Russia Iran and Venezuela at least in

the past or Libya and Iraq in the past

existed there are plenty of ways in

which oil is leveraged and in Central

Asian countries as a form of sovereignty

to undercut

uh the sovereignty of the unipolar

system and there's it's like the most

it's literally a uh and then you and

then then we're not even and then you

know what's hilarious we're not even

talking about the internal political

contradictions of the US Empire but how

the Saudis

are used leveraging their position in

relation to the internal domestic

politics between the Democrats and the

Republicans you're not even addressing

that aspect you say oh the Saudis are

just fucking with the Americans for more

weapons really is that not political

though is it not political how Democrats

are less likely to want to work with the

new bin Salman a king in Saudi Arabia

what about the whole khashoggi thing

none of these internal things mean

anything to you there's no internal

contradictions at all within the system

either even if I were to Grant to you

that there's just this invincible

Behemoth which is the U.S petroleum it

has no competitors not true by the way

but even if I conceded that to you

you make it seem like it doesn't have

internal contradictions it does I I do

think there's internal contradictions

yeah

so on many counts your point is invalid

what was my point okay your point was

that the you the unit polarity is not

going anywhere that was your point well

I don't think it will yeah

uh again because you're stupid you're

just like am I have no explanation for

this other than the fact that you have

and to be Earnest about this you have a

pathological reason for you have an

ideological or pathological reason

copium is what I think it is or for

believing that you're you're like you're

in the know about some like real wisdom

about how unipolarity is not going

anywhere man America like this is just

the arrogance of an emeritard completely

oblivious to what's happening in the

world around them you're coping you're

like oh I'm Marxist and everything

but I think unipolarity isn't going

anywhere the reason I don't is because

here's the real reason multi-polarity

creates ideological confusions for you

that you just are not smart enough to

deal with

no like like if you're if you're a

unipolar coper you could be like oh yeah

my 20th century classical Marxism is

completely viable and it's Invincible I

can now rely on the uh the immortality

of the Anglo-Saxon modernity that forms

the foundation of my dogmatic 20th

century Marxism but if you actually have

to if you actually embrace the facts of

unit polarity you have to be like wait a

second I have to completely reevaluate

the complete metaphysical and

philosophical foundations of what

Marxism is

okay

remember that point we were talking

about demand gives value to uh oil and

dollars and shit right

demand from industry specifically made

from oil for oil not dollars for oil

all right the dollar derives its value

from this

okay let's go back just a minute

um you brought this up uh the yuan is

artificially devalued right yes why

to prop up internal Chinese industry

internal Chinese industry made for

eign markets for Mark which foreign

market

not just the United States but also the

developing countries in Africa South

America which is the number one trading

partner with China mind you the Middle

East and Europe

[Music]

really wait wait South America is the

number one trading partner when did this

happen South America's number one uh

import partner is from China

wow but with this uh is China's number

one export Market South American

countries why does that matter you don't

think the developing countries can

easily replace the U.S demand

uh

it could no it's not it could it will

I think in a few decades yeah but uh

like just right now let's Okay well we

were already China so you don't so China

already has a dual circulation system

China is already dealing with both the

effects of Trump's trade Wars and the

supply chain crisis that came with covid

and the dent on the foreign Reliance on

you you are like what you're saying

applies to like 20 years ago or some

shit you're like way behind as far as

the like real orientation of where

things are going right now it's like the

idea that the Chinese leadership alone

can't foresee this idea of huh we're

trying to overthrow the us as the global

hegemon but

uh most of our exports are going to

America could that be a problem no only

Grayson's smart enough to have thought

of that the Chinese leadership never

thought about that like 40 years ago no

no I acknowledged I acknowledge that

it's like fucking common knowledge yeah

okay so but you don't think they have a

strategy for that you think they just

like believe America will just be for

the leader forever

um

I think they have a strategy right and

that's uh probably the Belton Road but

um I'm of the opinion

uh that I just don't think that this is

uh what's the word

get to the Y

because the countries that they're going

to go through in the Belton Road are

just not economically developed to the

point where the US is and because they

don't have the import capacity that the

US does so this is the Anglo this is

anglo-brain

um on display it is they are currently

not in a state of being rather than in a

process because you can't you can't

possibly think about the process I think

about the process you think about you

think about a steady state of being

you've got a steady state of being

okay okay so so this is your argument

you're willing to use circular reasoning

when it comes to the military but when

it comes to the belt and Road initiative

China is investing in countries which in

turn through that investment are going

to develop their productive forces which

in turn Okay is going to um you know

create a new source of demand for the

Chinese domestic industry the Chinese

market now that that process is

impossible for you to Fathom but you

literally Twisted yourself into a

pretzel you literally twist yourselves

into a pretzel trying to make the

argument that the USD is Invincible

because of the circular reasoning of the

military you're jumping 30 fucking

sentences okay let me get back to why

all right because you asked why I'll

tell you why I think why

none of these countries that China is

going through right now

have a trade like they don't want to be

systemic deficit countries

they just don't want to be systemic

deficit countries like the US's right

and that's even temporarily are you sure

about that it'd be in deficit relation

to China right but they want to be

export uh Surplus countries okay

I mean look at Russia Russia do you

think that they want to be import uh

colony

no okay

so

even if these countries have future

aspirations once they reach a certain

point of development for being

export-driven countries and they don't

want to trade deficit with China

can you please explain to me in what

material sense is that a threat to the

Belton Road initiative

that's a threat to the Belton Road

initiative because in order for Chinese

factories to be humming and going and

for those Yuan to stay stable they need

to have massive massive massive

surpluses with their current development

models are they not acquiring that

already with the belt and Road

initiative and the deals they're making

now they are they are acquiring that and

that's why the US is really a key factor

in that as well because their biggest

Surplus is with the US

are you mentally retarded

their biggest Surplus is with the US so

China

is going to engage in the Belton Road

initiative to find new sources uh for

exporting its goods

now the problem with that according to

you is that China

trades with the us already

damn why didn't the Chinese think of

that it's like the Chinese leadership

woke up one day and they were like oh I

forgot we trade with America let's do

the belts and Road initiative by the way

which has nothing to do with that fact

and this is your argument are you like

stupid what is wrong with you are you

empty-headed can you actually like

actually coherently arrive at what what

are what is actually your position

everything I've pinned you down on is

retarded you're claiming the Belton Road

initiative is going to fail

because of the very reason why the

Belterra and Road initiative is

happening in the first place which is

because that China which by the way is

very well aware of the fact that much of

its surpluses are going toward America

they're very aware of it I want to

assure you they're very already aware of

that fact just so we're not just work

like they already know that dude they

already know that it's why they're doing

the belts and Road initiative so why

can't the Belton Road initiative

be a viable path China takes why can't

that overthrow the unipolar system

because none of the other countries are

going to do what the US did

what is it what do you mean do what the

US did

none of them okay to be generous with

you you're claiming none of these

countries will ever absorb a significant

amount of demand from the U.S

well no pause pause

what I'm saying is that none of these

countries will be willing to have in the

case of the US right we have like a 800

billion dollars they don't need to have

a trade deficit they just need to absorb

Chinese China's exports by the way that

is not a necessary

um conclusion of that they could very

well develop an extra no they could very

well develop an export-driven economy

while also absorbing huge amounts of

Chinese machinery and capital and goods

very well and easily do that there's not

a necessary connection between the two

they don't export machinery and capital

right now like they don't do that

significantly well China the Belgian

Road initiative does not significantly

entail the export of infrastructure

but yes the infrastructure okay roads

trains okay don't you mean like capital

I mean all the things that are

presuppositions for being able to import

machinery

how do you even import Goods if you

can't even transport them what a stupid

thing you're saying

all right

um what was I saying none of these okay

so none of these countries in my opinion

they don't want to be deficit countries

to the extent that the US does why is

that a problem

I think that's uh

there's no explanation for it in

classical economics so I'm asking you to

ex the floor is yours explain it

it's the most post-modern weird schizo

fucking bullshit I don't know how to

explain it I don't okay besides besides

your anglo-spidy senses can you please

ex like justify your argument justify my

argument yes can you like back your

argument up with anything

no country

all right let's go back to the the

dollar right

let me try to explain this uh in good

faith right will you give me some good

faith for just five minutes okay

for five minutes I don't after this you

can call it retarded just five minutes

when we were talking about the demand

for oil that created value for the

dollar right part of that was that the

Man created the price of the good right

in the same way the US's demand

right

somehow inversely creates value for the

dollar

the US's demand for what

for for like in the case of china I

don't know bicycles or fucking uh phones

iPhones shit like that right that

creates

uh uh value for the dollar somehow

um

but but because significantly it doesn't

devalue the domestic Yuan only the

foreign exchange you want

I think that the Chinese Central Bank

devalues it

um I think that's that's really the

they're they're doing they kind of want

to keep that sorry it doesn't appreciate

yeah

because the Chinese Central Bank

okay we know that if the US is importing

Goods the the dollar is appreciating

what's your point

uh

in theory the dollar should be

depreciating right no it shouldn't no it

shouldn't according to classical basic

bitch economics if you're importing

Goods

um

your currency should be that's creating

a demand for your currency

yeah but it your currency would be

devaluing because you're in a deficit

right

um because you're in a trade deficit

yeah your currency is supposed to

devalue so that it can go back and so it

can't do that when it's also the global

Reserve currency exactly exactly okay

so

it doesn't devalue

even though we have this massive deficit

and that's because of the oil thing

right it's because of the global Reserve

currency thing yeah the global Reserve

currency the oil thing the military

thing it's fucking five goddamn prongs

in one

uh uh Colossus right

so I don't know how to explain that

maybe you should just be humble and

think about the fact that many people

many people have thought about this

and have explained it

no I I agree many people have thought

about this uh Hudson verifocus plenty of

people have explained this

and what are they wrong about where's

the where where for example is Michael

Hudson was wrong

I well I don't think Hudson is wrong

with any of his analysis I think he's

only thinking that he's wrong on is like

his schizo take that uh uh like Ross has

been posting a lot about it recently

like uh oh the us directly caused World

War II like I think that schizo like

germanophile which a file I think that's

weird about him but that's it you can

say it's weird

yeah I don't I don't think he's wrong

but much

uh and also like the gold stuff I am not

like one of these gold Bros

yeah well we're not talking about that

we're talking about his analysis of how

these this five lock system whatever you

said works and why it's collapsing and

how bricks is overtaking it's collapsing

that's that's my uh so why is Michael

Hudson's analysis wrong then

I

there's been some points where uh

I've had to like have double takes with

the war in Ukraine because it's so it's

like uh

one of those things yeah I'm for Russia

right you know but like there's double

takes uh you can say like uh there's

things in this war that make me think

twice like the privatization of land

right

okay uh zielinski having to buy all

these weapons

uh makes that Ukraine have to sell off

all this land this Farmland tutu fucking

American agriculture right Hudson brings

this up uh in super imperialism about

um like the US owning all the food

markets that's another one of these uh

special prong things right

um and that that's one of the like uh

things I think Russia has a chance at

like uh competing with is uh wheat

they're good at making wheat right

um but I I just uh

and this is where I kind of get to the

point where I'm like maybe larouche is

right the US and uh the Russians are

working together because there's no way

uh like this just works out so that

Ukraine sells all its land it's Black

Earth you know so I I don't know there's

things why why is the US and Russia

working together

I don't know well can you how why would

we be led to believe that

that's a that's a larouche question

that's a that's something it's it's

really not because the current

successors of the larouche movement

don't believe that so

I don't want you to just talk about

larouche even if larouche is believing

that from Beyond the Grave why should I

believe it

I don't know I I don't see you saying I

don't know but where's the dogmatism

coming from then

me or my dogmatism

because you have a very dogmatic like

20th century Marxist skepticism of the

future

because you want things to just return

to like the 20th century so but where is

that coming from if you can't justify it

in anything you can't make any arguments

you can't explain anything you're just

it's just your Spidey senses

okay somebody in the chat saying that I

made it up there's uh pesto can find you

that uh where where's the pepper guy in

the fucking uh Discord

um

I'm not making it up about the lures

bill but uh the justification yeah why

does Russia want Ukraine to sell its

farmland

I don't know

I don't I I don't know why anyone would

believe that either I don't know either

why why what makes you okay if you tell

me hey

there's a pink unicorn that's gonna

attack you oh my God it's really why and

you're saying oh I don't know

why are you saying that

the question

um

I think that the uh the peak unicorn

is everywhere

right

if the peak unicorn is the U.S right or

uh I'm sorry I think of the analogy you

know

what what makes you believe Russia wants

Ukraine to sell its farmland

that's that's the just it's kind of a

meme it's a meme

that's the meme

uh well I'm not laughing

yeah

um yeah no there's no evidence I have no

evidence

yeah so okay I have some some lessons

I've drawn from this conversation

one

there is no oil Market reasoning

I don't know two

the U.S dollar is invincible

reasoning circular

three

um

there is no threat to the Brenton Wood

system

uh the the Belton Road initiative will

not threaten the Brentwood system

reasoning

it's too complicated for you to think

about I don't know what your reasoning

is playing to make it fun none of these

countries

it doesn't matter that does matter no it

doesn't it does why does it matter for

the countries to that that they don't in

the future want to be deficit

um

because these countries are also not

going to be some of these countries have

a HDI that is worth talking about

like none of them have oh it's almost

like the Belton Road initiative is for

to fucking develop them

yeah you can't develop okay yeah yeah it

has has the Belgium our initiative is

gonna fail because these countries

aren't already at the same developmental

level as fucking Singapore that's why

it's gonna fail

it's not like the whole fucking point of

the Belton Road initiative is to

actually develop them

I I don't what a stupid arrogant

retarded thing to say

yeah but uh but who cares about these

countries who cares about fucking

backward rice China look you're a retard

from the 1970s you'd be like

um

yeah I know like they shook hands with

MAO and Kissinger but like China's just

like a poor country with rice and it's

like the HDI is so I mean it's

irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant are you

retard

do not see that the countries that are

involved in the do you not understand I

don't have a exports uh export deficit

to import Surplus why do they need one

they don't need one

they don't want one they want their

factories to be afloat right

okay let me I'm gonna explain to you

something very carefully listen I mean

I'm gonna explain this to you do you

want these questions the countries in

the Belgian Road initiative the

countries in the Belton Road initiative

their National currencies are not going

to be Global Reserve currencies that

means their currencies aren't going to

be kept artificially High that's going

to hamper their own Industrial

Development did you know that

because you know the only fucking reason

the U.S beautiful glorious equilibrium

of the market is going to save all these

countries yeah markets actually do work

sometimes you know that

they actually do work sometimes yeah

yeah yeah and this is actually a case

where markets may just work on an

international level why is that so hard

to think about

they're not going to be Global Reserve

currencies they're National currencies

will not be kept artificially high and

they're therefore there will be room for

a International Market of currencies to

kick in where their level of currency

their value of their currencies May Aid

their Industrial Development what is so

wrong with that

do you not think that the Chinese

Central Bank will step in and say well

uh we need to keep the Juan exporting at

X you know whatever no I think I think

the problem is this I think you

actually you mentioned Game Theory

before but you're the one who's thinking

of this in terms of a zero-sum game

because ultimately your world view

hinges on the idea of scarcity that

there can somehow not be an infinite

level of Developmental process where

these countries develop and in turn

their Industrial

surpluses can help develop other markets

and other countries whose development

you don't believe that this can actually

happen you think there's a scarce you

have a degrowth

mentality that's ultimately what it is

like you think there's like a glass

ceiling on development

what is the glass ceiling of development

in every country being Surplus

simple logic question at a certain point

in time yeah

it can forever no

so actually actually technically

technically

if we're talking in terms of a vacuum

like a logical vacuum actually yes

every country can be in a surplus as a

thought experiment yes they can at the

same time as long as there is a process

of development that is not ending yes it

can be like a human centipede yes it can

it could be a circular you can actually

have a circular Human Centipede where

there is actually a surplus for every

single country

and

one's country Surplus does not

necessarily entail another country's

deficit because these countries are all

a part of a process of constant

development of the productive forces

that actually is possible in a vacuum is

it plausible probably not but I mean

just just as a thought experiment yes

it's possible

I

need to sleep okay if there are only if

there are only two countries

no it's not possible

but

if you were 26 150 countries something

like that right yeah I mean

in a vacuum it is like a thought

experiment sure it's possible

but look like nitty-gritty no right

it doesn't matter it doesn't have to be

to the point of being a problem like the

United States it doesn't have to be

my uh the other point of my schizo

theory is that like the US's deficit

actually industrialized the whole world

okay the the one problem with that

Grayson

there's one problem with that

which is that the most the world is not

industrialized

oh but you know like Singapore not

Singapore uh Indonesia and like Malaysia

example some of these countries right

okay maybe I could I could throw you the

bone of Japan South Korea and Europe how

about China no

why not because like the massive Surplus

to us they're able to keep their

factories afloat because you know U.S

demand and what would have happened to

the US if they didn't have

uh the Chinese economy

oh it would be terrible yeah exactly

because the the US company so you don't

you you actually don't understand you

don't actually understand how any of

this fucking works what you had going on

when China opened up was that they were

making the prices for U.S companies

competitive because if their goods are

being manufactured in China the prices

for those goods can regain their

Competitive Edge over country's other

countries like Mexico for example Mexico

was starting to become a competitor with

the United States other countries were

too so China was used in that way but

the problem with today's China which is

not the China in the 1980s or 90s is

that China is not manufacturing mainly

manufacturing anymore the goods of other

companies

it's manufacturing its own Goods which

its itself is exporting and because it

has this dual circulation

this is based yeah and because it has

its own dual uh currency system

it's not running into the same problem

the US did when it comes to balancing

it's foreign its currency for purposes

of Foreign Exchange and its currency for

purposes domestic Industrial Development

it doesn't have that problem

that's why the belter road initiative is

able to happen in the first place China

can balance developing other countries

with its own internal developmental

needs in a way the US was never able to

as a side note um what do you recommend

uh but therefore therefore the concept

that the US is definitely industrialized

the world is standard there's no way

except it never worked thank you so much

I wasn't able to think thank you guys so

much

the problem is is that

the um

you can't say the U.S deficit is what

industrialized China

when it was China's own methodical

policy of planned industrialization like

cognizant of all those things that were

going to happen in the first place that

actually industrialized China

it wasn't like it was the U.S that went

and

you know established I mean if if that

was true China would not be a sovereign

industrial country it is China's

factories are part of China's own

industrial system it's not a system that

was propped up by the U.S

the system was not some of the capital

the investment Capital came to the U.S

from the U.S certainly

a lot of a lot of investors yeah yeah

certainly certainly but without the

system in place that would have never

translated into a sovereign that would

have never became an industrial country

if that wasn't the case

yeah maybe

probably right I mean I mean and and

countries like Britain sorry not Britain

in uh Germany and South Korea and Japan

you realize the U.S was the one that had

political ownership of how they

established their industrial system so

in addition to the foreign investment

capital

of the Brentwood system right what Asian

type countries a lot of them yeah yeah

well in addition to that no we're not

talking about the same thing okay we're

not okay so if you're talking about

something that happened in 70s

afterwards versus something that

happened the post-war period two totally

different things

uh yeah I agree

okay Japan

and Germany let's just talk about them

their industrial system was created by

the US

the Chinese industrial system was not

it's that simple

do you think that um

it's kind of a side note do you think

that uh

how do I phrase this do you think that

Germany and Japan

they're uh bourgeoisie

um Financial whatever

oligarchs do you think that those guys

are lap dogs to the US uh I don't know

how is the phrase that do you think that

they are like beholden to the US's

interests

you're saying they're Financial

oligarchs

yeah no do you think that those like

their industrial guys and their uh

Financial guys in those countries do you

think that they're like beholden to the

U.S

to some extent

that's extremely vague I would say that

[Music]

um

German and Japanese industry definitely

the more relevant thing is that there

have been contradictions that have

emerged

between them and the uh policy makers

leading the American Empire right now

yeah that's it like especially in Japan

since like the plaza Accords right

um

what am I trying to think what am I

trying to say okay Japan had a lot of

investment in China right uh Alibaba was

owned for a very long time by uh

I wanna I don't know some Bank some big

Japanese Bank

um they owned like a fucking crazy

majority share 20 I think

um isn't Alibaba state owned

kind of

kind of

it's like 50 say don't it's a it's a one

of those soes where it's like 50 50.

right

it's a lot of Chinese companies a lot of

Japan Japanese Banks own

Jack ma went to Japan and asked for

investment he has for like a million

dollars and they gave him 10.

okay

yeah back in like the fucking 90s and uh

they built Alibaba so the Japanese built

Alibaba well they didn't build it they

just gave them the investment money yeah

the base capital is that the word

doesn't mean they that they built it

oh that means they were responsible for

building

infrastructure of the company I where's

the evidence for that

10 million dollars goes a long way

um yeah you can throw 10 million dollars

at anything that doesn't mean they're

good you're gonna get Alibaba as a

result

they got it

um okay

for a while at least um

all right what am I trying to say my

point is uh a lot of investment in China

a lot of the factories in China you have

some major manufacturers in China like

Volkswagen right

um

like they're fucking all of Tianjin

there's multiple Volkswagen factories in

that City

I mean there German capitals everywhere

Japanese capitals everywhere and if

we're going back to like the Marshall

Aid plan like these are nothing but the

US's uh

chosen

um manufacturing hubs

right Japan and Germany

right

um so like why why should we like limit

ourselves and say China is

uh

the word independence of the US when

a lot of their capital is from the US or

U.S oriented countries

like a crazy amounts like

Volkswagen Toyota

yeah why should we why should we limit

ourselves and say that they're

independent of what did I say before you

decided to waste 10 minutes talking

about that

I don't remember

yeah

didn't I say there's a difference

between getting investment capital and

building your own industrial system

there's there's getting money and then

there's how you structure the investment

the U.S played no part in structuring

the investment in terms of what that

resulted in that's not the same for

Germany and Japan whose institutions not

just their Economic Institutions but

their political institutions were also

created by the US so that's a huge

difference

okay

what do you mean can you can you explain

like the uh the structure

um I mean the political and Economic

Institutions of Japan and Germany were

made by the US and the post-war period

that's what I mean

okay yeah the Constitution for example

China is a capital trap money goes in it

never yeah

it's a capital trap money goes into

China never gets to ownership level

and China can just basically extract

according to where smog the Surplus

value of the West

it's a it's a it's not

it doesn't speak to any level of

dependency uh the initial investment

speaks to no level of dependency

of China on the uh the west or America

okay

uh well I don't really have much of

anything else to talk about is that okay

if I head out yeah

all right you have a good night uh take

it easy okay bye

who what is this

hello Haws

I want to

I want to speak with you on on China's

foreign policy

okay

all right all right so

so I think China is playing too safe in

in the whole Taiwan and xinjiang

situation like

like you're doing the song doing the

Song Dynasty China

there was this concept Called Peace

disease so like I don't care

hello

yeah hi can you hear me yeah

hi can you hear me yes yeah I'm echoing

I'm echoing I'm echoing yeah yeah sorry

about that

um I just had a quick I mean would it be

all right if I asked something outside

of China or is it only China debate

today debate what you want

um I just wanted to ask it's more of a

question

of I remember watching a stream with you

in logo as well as with clampbot and um

you're talking about Mongol modernity

and I Remember You also mentioned there

was a video that I was supposed to be

coming out soon

um I was just kind of confused of what

do you mean by Mongol maternity because

my understanding what is the debate

because I'm not here to be a professor

I'm here to debate so what do you want

to debate

oh sorry I'm not going to debate then

I'll just excuse myself okay

why are you talking shit about me

foreign

yeah I was talking shit about your

primary because I had different grief

you on some things that time

and what did you disagree with me on

um

what

obviously done okay hold on

dollarization and all that

dollarization

yeah yeah yeah yeah

so what did you disagree with me on

night

wait I'm echoing no

uh basically I disagree with you on

things like the constant contact money

like somehow like

I think my mind just Associated certain

people of here with the entire of

inference so I was confused that time

of what to Germany

um

the dollar

yeah I was confused that time when I

debated and talked with people like

prison and Grandson Intel

well Grayson don't speak for me so

whatever he was saying has nothing to do

with me

okay so yes

yeah but in general

that is the only minor disagreement but

for the rest I'm okay

yeah wait so you you thought I agreed

with Grayson

I thought I agree I mean I thought you'd

agreed with Grayson on the dollarization

or constant dollarization or like you

know this type no uh a unipolar

communism or whatever oh hell yeah

yeah yeah that was this topic coming out

and I also confused that I can't even

talk during the time so I tried my best

to stay away but when I accidentally I

got this topic that's a that's a form of

mental retardation where there's the the

unipolar communism thing is just that's

just um mental illness and retardation

date of foot there's really nothing else

to it yeah yeah yeah I'm glad I'm glad

the confusion is

all right well you're excused okay so

let's have this guy

hello

I can hear you yeah yeah one sec I have

your stream playing one sec I can still

hear the girl okay

okay can you hear me yep

yeah I just wanted to ask why is it you

you think that Islam and communism are

compatible when Marxism is based upon

dialectical materialism

and you are a Muslim right

yeah I guess

sorry what yeah sure I guess

what do you mean I guess are you are you

not a Muslim I I just like I don't care

about Muslim gatekeeper I decided I

don't care about them so I'm not

interested in uh

gate kept ver if you want to ask me am I

Muslim yeah I'm Muslim but am I gonna am

I gonna you know am I here to I'm not

here to prove it to anybody I don't

really

no no I believe I mean if you say you're

Muslim you pray five times a day

whatever I believe that I don't pray

five times a day

okay whatever if you if you're Muslim

you came up in a Muslim operating I just

want to know why you think your ideology

of Islam is compatible with Communism

when it's based upon materialism

because I don't see I think I think

philosophical idealism

uh is

incompatible with the Revelation

tradition of religions religions are

based on Revelation that means they're

materialist uh idealism is based on

philosophical Pagan worship of thoughts

okay I'm not seeing how Revelation which

is basically God revealing himself

through some means through religious

scripture I don't see how that's

materialism can you explain

yeah materialism places Primacy on

content over form

and Revelation is a is a type of content

to me actually no I don't think so and I

think materialism just says that there

is only content and form doesn't exist

then how could it be dialectical

what do you mean how was their

contradiction between those two views

well then what how is it dialectical if

there's only by the way if there's only

content doesn't that just make it

formally oh no no you just said

materialism you didn't say dialectical

material

well you said religion you said

Revelation is materialist not

dialectically materialist well it's

oriented toward content it places

Primacy on content I mean sure sure okay

go ahead

yeah materialism is just about the

Primacy of content

yeah but materialism also proposes that

the only things that exist in the

universe are material I mean that's the

whole purpose that's just

I mean that's just metaphysics it's like

okay the only things that exist in the

oh that's not metaphysics the only thing

that exists in a universe of practical

consideration for people living in the

universe is that's what we call matter I

mean that's it's like a circular

definition

matter is just

what matters I guess you know it's just

like that's it no no no no no no like

Engel said that matter is the only thing

that exists in the universe materialism

is the belief and the proposition what

else could exist in the like abstract

object no no for example I'll explain

I'll explain like for example like it

originates partly with Plato's theory of

forms that abstract objects

Plato's just some people what does Plato

have to do with Islam he's just yeah I'm

explaining I'm explaining he didn't give

me a chance come on come on okay so I'm

saying that idealist because you said

what else could exist so I'm explaining

what else could exist for example for

idealism I don't want to sound like a

nerd or anything here but idealists

would say that abstract objects exist

but materials reject that they think

that only

material things exist as it's in the

name and for example God would be an

abstract concept you're not you're

dealing with a very

bizarre form of metaphysics that has

nothing to do with the distinction

idealism not metaphysical idealist Place

idealist Place Primacy on form they

think form premises reality material is

believe that content is primary over

form and that form is secondary to some

no more primary reality no no materials

think that content and by content and

form what you're taking to mean there is

like abstract things and concrete things

like what Hegel said in his

philosophical abstraction

I I don't know where you're getting the

relevance of abstraction here yeah

because no because when you say form and

content that's kind of a vague nebulous

term so I'm saying when you say that are

you referring to things that are

concrete and things that are abstract to

literally

the essence of things versus the

appearance or the form of things versus

the content it's simple as that well

actually materials wouldn't hold that

there's a distinction there idealist

hole that there is a distinction like

when you're saying that material is

called Primacy above content over form I

reject that notion materials think that

the only thing that exists is content

right so in that sense I'm asking how it

is that it's um conceivable

can I please consult the Rel

um relevant literature by the founders

of the materialist School of thinking

that claim I mean materialism goes a

long way back I mean like we have like

Hume do you want me to like specifically

cite the definition of materialism from

his work or do you want me to just what

about you or do you want me to just one

thing because because you're being very

disingenuous here because materialism is

something that even someone who's not

well versed you're asking me to justify

your

prejudiced

um preconceptions it's not Prejudice no

yeah you're basically you're basically

asking me to ascend to your like

extremely

second hand colloquial

impression on whatever actually no hold

up hold up no that's blatantly false

because when you say colloquial that

means that I'm using these terms in an

informal manner in which they're not

properly sure they're formalizing please

formalize it please show me cite me

literature cites me the relevant

literature that justifies the very

common misconception that materialism

posits that only content exists

yeah okay sure do you want me when you

say formalize it you want me to give you

a formal definition no I want you to

fucking show me materialist thinkers

across history okay doesn't mean you're

right pause screaming I know like it's a

rhetorical yeah stop wasting time listen

I know you think

I'm gonna ban you if you don't shut the

fuck up and get to the point you're

getting better cite me the relevant

fucking uh literature that establishes

by materialists historically that only

content exists

so you want me to get a quote from

hume's book inside you from like three

days of humanity it'd be too bad for you

because you're being because listen I

can explain it Hume is not the first

materialist that's not what I said I

didn't say that you dumbass I didn't

fucking say that idiot idiot

so where are you doing this okay what

are you getting the idea where I'll make

it easier for you where are you getting

the idea that materialism says only

content exists yeah I never said that I

said because you're not defining content

I said materialism is and here I am

formalizing it materialism is the

proposition that all that exists is

matter

an abstract and it basically rejects the

notion of that that's right metaphysical

materialism that's just metaphysical

materialism that's literally a fucking

dumbass term because metaphysics refers

to things Beyond physics which

materialism rejects but that's

metaphysical materialism which is

basically just trying to say

yeah there's only matter yeah which

angles angles was if you want to call it

manifestical materialism Engels was that

dumbass because he said only things that

exist are matter do you want me to quote

you on that dumb bitch you want me to

get to the quote because listen we know

you're being disingenuous you want me to

cool people beat the shit out of you I

don't know why you're talking I promise

you couldn't you couldn't you couldn't I

promise you couldn't how much what do

you bet what do you bet because I can

send a video of me benching 285 in here

right now what are you 285 is like piss

that's like do you know how much I weigh

170. so so shut the fuck up bitch it's

not impressive at all I'm why wait one

okay what have you been you fucking

midget I can I can by the way I love how

you're diverting this to personal sex

because I fucked your skull you're

getting so emotionally little bitch

you're diverting because I fucked your

skull no you claim that materialism is

just the claim that only matter exists

that's tautological that means nothing

even if you're super yeah

okay listen definition

logical so even if you're a metaphysical

idealist or a supernatural person who

believes in ghosts and all this shit

that is still going to be part of a

universe in which that is matter

that is the content of existence

according if you claim ghosts exist or

Spirits exist you are still placing that

within some plane of existence and

therefore within that realm wait that's

just propositional realism which I

reject

I don't take it that propositions are

actually things that exists so why are

you defining materialism and idealism

around the question of the existence of

specific different kinds of things if

you're claiming materials says no but it

is if you're saying materialism is just

about what exists

then either

idealism ideas exist

okay so in idealism so an idealism no

we're continuing is so in idealism ideas

exist right

yeah my ideas I mean abstract didn't you

just claim that you reject propositional

realism I'm not an idealist you fucking

retard holy okay you're done so you're

not a materialist and you're not an

idealist so what are you

I'm a dialectical materialist

okay you're listening

so okay let me ask you a question let me

explain something I am a Marxist and I

am a communist right and I'm not a

Muslim I just talk to my Muslim friends

about this and I'm trying to see how a

so-called Marxist expert can justify

this time being compatible that's okay

we we welcome LGBT but you can't you

can't justify shit you haven't talked

about Islam once this whole debate

because you don't know shit about itself

you don't know anything about Marxism or

materialism that's the problem

okay justify that proposition because I

fucked your skull in this debate but

just by that proposition I fucked your

whole mother's family your sister your

mother everything in your life this is a

real Muslim thing he's saying here you

know you're really you're not dealing

with the pious I will fuck you up you

little bitch

I will fuck your mother like a wild

atheist don't sit here and expect me to

be a piece of Saint little bitch talking

all that fucking shit to me you little

fucking bitch talking about fucking

skulls I was bitch slap you back into

the fucking fourth Century little bitch

about fucking my skull and expect me to

be a Pious fucking muslim you little

bitch now let's get to the actual topic

at hand

go ahead and that according to idealists

ideas exist well even if ideas exist

according to idealists again it's the

same thing as saying Spirits exist or

any other metaphysical proposition that

is the claim then that that's within

some some kind of plane of existence and

therefore we're back to square one of

only matter existing how does it

transcend matter so how does the idea

transcend matter physical is the only

plane of existence for someone who's an

idealist that's literally a

contradiction to Ideal but matters when

where has it been established where has

it been established that matter only

refers to physical things you fucking

retard wait what do you think matter is

you fucking retard

matter definition I'll look it up at the

same time and by the way I know you like

scream for the rhetorical shit but I've

been fucking you in this conversation go

on well we'll let the chat decide then

I'll even do a point yeah

because we have to test it you want to

be scientific right why haven't you we

have to test it

do I have a YouTube channel of course

they're gonna side with you they're

literally your subscribers you fucking

dimw they're not actually all my

subscribers a lot of these okay so

that's the definition of matter okay

matter physical substance in general as

distinct from Mind and Spirit you

fucking idiot that's one of that's only

one of the definitions of the other

definition an Affairs okay and I can

tell you're uneducated about this topic

so I'll just educating no I'm not it no

I'm not literally within philosophy

within philosophy there is no necessary

equivalence between matter and physical

substances give a citation on that

because by the way by the way you asked

me to search up the definition you lost

on that point right take the L no I

didn't know because the first definition

of matter because the first definition

of matter according to the Merriam okay

according to the Miriam according to the

Merriam-Webster definition the first

definition of matter is a subject under

consideration

only one of these definitions

um

hey dumb apply to what you're saying and

then and then look like b b yeah look

look look with the physical object how

much and then and then even even the

definition of two which is what you're

referring to the substance of which a

physical object is composed uh C

definitions C here under two says a

material substance of a particular kind

or for a particular purpose yeah and a

material substance is defined in

definition the indeterminate the

indeterminate subject of reality the

indeterminate subject to reality is more

or less definite amount or quantity

okay so are you done reading or are you

gonna actually engage in the topic

because I fucked you do you wait so I

preemptively declaring Victory you just

get by preemptively declaring Victory by

preemptively declaring Victory all

you're proving to me is that you're

scared about how the reason

yeah you're scared about how the real

outcome of this debate is gonna go

you're scared about the real fucking

outcome of this debate you're trying to

preemptively win something that isn't it

I'm scared about how this is actually

going to happen very clearly but listen

it's not preemptive because we already

engaged in the discourse and I fucked

you on multiple points but I'm still

doing it so let's go on no actually on

one name one point you prevailed on just

okay so you asked me to search up the

definition of matter as if it

contradicts my proposition that I've

asserted but yeah we'll search it up

yeah no if you actually look at the

Merriam-Webster if you look at the

Merriam-Webster definitions of matter

there are more definitions of matter

than just physical something that can be

reduced something referring to is

obviously not when you say there's a

matter at hand there's a matter yes it

is actually I will say it is because

etymologically

etymologically matter

is a synonym for Content you think when

marks and Engels refer to matters

they're talking about the first

definition or the second one you dumbass

bitch sometimes they're talking about

all the destinations go ahead you're

talking about all of them

oh okay give me a citation on that

no you give me a citation

pause you told me that in philosophy

matter does not refer to uh no I said it

does not necessarily yeah yeah not

necessarily so give me a citation on

that because you want the citation on me

right so give me a citation on that give

me the philosophy give me the book and

give me the quote go ahead

you want me to give you an example of a

oh so now when I asked you for a

citation you can't do it you're not

specifying what you want

so wait how come you were asking me

because I was specifying what I wanted

from you you gave me everything

specified what I wanted no you didn't no

you didn't he knows why because I

classified the human mind is the highest

because the mind is the source of ideas

no you want me to re-specify because

it's not going through that dumbass

brain of yours I asked you I asked you

to show me where you're getting this

idea that materialism entails only

content is real okay now you're trying

to say now you're claiming no it's not

no it's not now you're trying to say

because I'm saying because I'm saying

because I'm saying physical things are

not the only sense in which matter is

being referred to Something in

materialism

citation okay fine I'll give you I'll

give you a fucking citation Marx's

theory of class struggle in the 18th

Premiere Marxist theory of historical

materialism what physical substances uh

metaphysical substances are referring to

I can literally give you citation like

when angle said the only thing that

exists is matter you want me to get the

citation but that's

the expert I'm a Marxist expert yet I

didn't know this about angles that March

and angles or materials

now let's get to the substance of the

debate okay every time you run away

let's just get back we're not we're not

running we're not running away from

anything every time I say anything you

mock by the way that would beat the

fucking shit out of you okay listen go

ahead listen to me every time I say

something you won't shut the you keep

making mocking sounds and mocking my

voice if you want to focus on the

substance then shut the fuck up and

focus on the substance if you don't want

this other ugliness then you're not then

don't fucking make your noises and uh

with your insults now first of all let's

okay okay that's agreeable okay formally

stick to the topic get a hand okay okay

perfect perfect when one says that only

when one says that only matter exists

one is not referring to a metaphysical

substance

no no it is but here's the problem when

you claim when you claim that

materialism is a form of physical

reductionism you are implying a supreme

physical substance but that's

metaphysical and that's something

rejected

why is it true

so if materialism means only matter

exists what is the positive content of

matter what is matter then

like we went over and we literally

thought that you find physical things

what's a physical thing what is a

physical thing then something that's

composed of mass and atoms

and what are what are atoms what is mass

and what are atoms something that has

electron orbitals I don't know you

fucking idiot do you know you're getting

into metaphysics all of that is

literally physics that's literally

physics though

hey retard

calm down calm down when you start

saying when you start defining it in

terms of this is the thing your audience

probably thinks you're winning yes

that's the sad yeah yeah you here's the

problem you just said electrons all of

that is contingent upon and inherently

according to Lenin incomplete knowledge

of reality so when you claim the

electron for example is the Supreme

metaphysical science is not a deductive

field that's true dumbass that's trivial

science is inductance

you know what you know what see we both

seem to have made the commitment that

we're just going to focus on the

substance at hand but you keep veering

off and jeering and making these sounds

sounds like you're getting fucked little

boy sounds like you guys today sounds

like you're getting fucked up right now

to me

when you claim that the electron is

somehow the Supreme meta Supreme

physical substance okay if you claim the

electron is the Supreme physical

substance of matter that's metaphysical

okay so what is matter what is matter

what is matter

yes something that's physical and

composable that is physical

something that has mass what is mass

what is that

it's a measurement of measurement is the

Supreme reality that's idealism

that's not true that's not true

measurement does not have a physical

existence

that means the form is supreme you

fucking definition

I know you want your audience to think

you win because you screamed but let me

actually a boy let me explain let me

explain what you're saying wrong idiot

let me explain why you're wrong explain

okay let's go when I Define something

that definition is not something actual

like I said that's propositional realism

which material is reject so your entire

Point here is fucking retarded because

when I Define weight and I say weight is

X it doesn't mean that X actually exists

in reality or is this supreme so what

does it matter tell me what matter is

yeah I already defined it no you didn't

you said it's right so to you come on

weight is matter that's what you're

saying no that's not what I said but

weight is only one of the ways we can

interactivity physical substance like as

this thing as opposed to something

that's spiritual can you write to me

where Marx writes that matter is

physical substances because I can write

to you where Mark oh okay so so when

when Engel said nothing exists except

matter what was he referring to these

fucking disingenuous prick

if you don't interrupt me don't

interrupt me little bitch if you

actually want me to answer that yeah

I will actually answer that if you don't

interrupt me okay go ahead when Engel

says that only matter exists he's simply

referring to the fact that a

metaphysical object which can in no way

be tested in the real world or have any

practical bearing or real significance

in any either intelligible or practical

or material way you cannot have an idol

belief in any kind of metaphysical thing

that doesn't prove itself or reveal

itself in any kind of way in the world

so that's all it means the saying that

only matter exists is just a blanket

rejection of Idols of the Mind a

metaphysics says okay this thing exists

this thing exists but it exists in the

Aether it'll never have any practical

relevance in relation to anything

okay so no okay so when anglos makes a

positive affirmation of materialism

that's not just a positive affirmation

of materialism it's also a rejection of

idealism which is all that you've

summarized here it's not only a

rejection of idealism as you described

it by the way it's also an affirmation

of materialism

fucking interrupt me dumbass you didn't

didn't you say you were not interrupting

each other finish your point finish your

point okay then shut up and let me

finish you don't tell me to shut up

you're here my good graces so finish

your point

okay okay that's fair that's fair okay

anyways so when I get back to that it's

the proposition that angles is a

materialist and he believes that the

only things that exist for material

objects and idealistic things don't

exist right which goes back to this

thing you have two contradicting

ideologies you say you're a Muslim which

believes in the existence of Allah which

is not a material object yet you say

you're a Marxist which is a materialist

philosophy so you're just contradicting

yourself um idiot so go ahead okay well

you just completely ignored my point all

English

I did not interrupt you so let's not

play this game

when angles claims that only matter

exists all he's saying is that there are

no metaphysical things that are not in

the world or that are not somehow I

literally addressed this let me explain

no don't interrupt me okay but I

addressed it no you didn't you didn't

address this you didn't you didn't

actually understand what I said only a

rejection of idealism it's also no I'm

gonna explain why it's only a rejection

of medicine because when you say

something is cold you're not only saying

it's not hot okay okay listen listen

listen if you interrupt me one more time

you're getting muted

go ahead

materialism as angles defined it in that

context that's not the only way it's

defined but in that context is a simple

rejection of metaphysics when you say

that only matter exists you're rejecting

the investment by the mind in mental

Idols by be they in the form of thoughts

oh my God

the Retard can't control

okay he's muted either in the form of

thought or in the form of some

investment in a untestable supernatural

belief such as for example there's a

ghost right next to me but God is not a

metaphysical object God is just

referring to the Supreme reality so when

if I say there's an invisible ghost

right next to me I'm investing some

mental capacity in the belief of

something that I mean whether it exists

or not has no practical significance or

relevance right that's what makes it

metaphysical in no way does it interact

with the world in any kind of way in no

way is it necessary for living in the

world or

um participating in the development of

the world it's a metaphysical belief

that's an example of Supernatural

metaphysical beliefs when it comes to

idealism the platonic Primacy of form is

also metaphysical why because what is

form right where does form prove itself

where does it reveal itself where does

it have any bearing or significance

anywhere

now to claim that this means now you're

saying that angles is not saying this

right you're claiming that angles is

saying no I'm affirming positive I'm

making a positive claim that there are

only physical substances

but that implies some kind of form of

physical substances otherwise we're back

to square one and all physical substance

means is just matter right so a physical

substance to you means something more

than matter and it's just like a Spinoza

substance

then what you're actually talking about

is something metaphysical you claimed

for example that it's electrons or it's

some other kind of product of

measurement or some kind of units of

measurement that is metaphysics that's

idealism and angles

very clearly very clearly rejects this

across the whole body of his work

a very unambiguously rejects this

and if you want citations there I can

give them to you angles rejects any kind

of view of a supreme physical substance

so when you talk about physical things

or when you talk about matter you're

referring to something inherently

negative

what matter is

is can only be um

consequential at the level of reality

not thought you don't first say this is

my Declaration of what reality is you

participate in reality either through

the political class struggle or through

science or so even through ART you can

even say right that's where matter is

going to have relevance that's what

reality is that's what matter is

but to claim that Engels is making a

metaphysical claim and making a positive

Claim about physical substances is

unfounded

now I'll unmute you you little bitch

can't even keep your fucking mouth shut

so you have to be muted like a fucking

dog like a little woman little bitch

yeah let's just cope you know rhetorical

devices to make you think your fans

think you want but listen I'm hot

um I already addressed literally

everything you said there okay

no no you don't have any powers

no no because you interrupted me so I

can interrupt you whenever I want you

interrupted me like a little fucking dog

like the bitch you are yeah what a

little bitch

my cock is in your fucking mouth

I want and I can interrupt you when I

don't know

so go ahead go ahead and make your

response okay right before I respond

house we both know like you got fucked

here right no no okay actually just

respond and then we'll see just

genuinely do you actually think you won

I think I fucked you to the next century

and back yes I did I think you're coping

for your fans but okay one's in the chat

if he got fucked one's in the chat it's

literally your fans what do you mean

so here's why I think I won

I think I want to because as soon as I

unmute you I just asked you for what

your argument was and the first thing

you said was oh hi do you think you won

do you think you won I mean who cares if

you're actually confident in your

arguments you would just focus on them

you wouldn't care about who has the

bigger dick and who has bigger balls I

mean it's clearly me

and you've proven it's me because you're

not even confident in your own arguments

enough to just say them and make them

you're not even focusing on that you're

focusing on the Optics of because you're

really insecure about looking like a

dumb bitch who's losing which you are by

the way I want to remind you of that

you're right to be insecure about it

because you are a stupid fuck who's

losing you're overly confident in these

dogmas and these stupid beliefs you have

which are unfounded and I'm destroying

and shredding your world you I'm doing

more than winning the debate Pablo

I am mentally traumatizing you with

ideas that you will never

I'm literally inflicting upon you things

that you will confirm the more you study

and learn

and you're always going to remember my

face

that's going to remind you like trauma

does you're gonna remind you can't

you'll never be able

to forget about the L you took

when reality itself proves me correct

you'll worship me like a fucking God

because as you continue to learn about

Marxism if you do you're gonna see that

I'm correct

and there's no way for you to avoid that

it was me who popped your fucking cherry

now that my friend is worse than just

losing a debate

I'll unmute you you stupid bitch

are you done coping okay let me address

it so um so Marx was not an ontological

materialist like that should be obvious

because he was a Jew right but angles

was in ontological materials and if you

call yourself a Marxist that presumably

means you agree with that angles on this

topic right so all of you literally said

in your dumbass response was that angles

is only rejecting the existence of two

things Hey Hey listen I know you're

afraid of me fucking you but just shut

up and let me make your argument you

just said two wrong things

first of all you claim Marx wasn't a

materialist in the same way angles was

because Mark no dumbass no dumbass I

said Marx wasn't an ontological

materialist go ahead I said the same

kind that Engels was which to you is

yeah that's the second prong that's

gonna get that's the second prong we're

focusing on the first prong the first

prong is the claim that Marx was a

theological Jew there's no evidence for

that the second prong is the claim wait

so do you think he's an atheist

he was not a theological Jew he

converted do you think he was an atheist

no I wouldn't call him that either

I would call Marx a materialist

okay it's not a theological stance dumb

fuck

I'm you are the one who claimed he was a

theological dude you said he's not a Jew

and he said he's not an atheist so what

is he he's a materialist yeah I said

theologically you fucking idiot

theologically he was religiously

Christian if anything okay so he's

Christian right so I'm right he's not

enough no but Engels is also Christian

then Marx and Engels are of one mind on

this

was not an ontological materialist

because he's a Jew Marx and Engels

co-authored listen if you're Christian

and you're Jew you both believe in God

so you're obviously not an ontological

angles co-authored the foundational text

defining their philosophy the German

ideology the holy family they were both

written by two people like how can you

claim that anger dumbass that's not the

text in which angles asserted

ontological material you're talking

about the dialectics of nature

this is why this is why this is why the

Middle East will never be great I love

how you're fucking I love how you're

nitpicking that I didn't know the text

yeah you didn't even know the name of

the text and you didn't even know the

history

can you please show me evidence that

Marx uh disagrees with angles on

materialism yeah he's a Christian

can you show me evidence that Marx

Christianity is the belief in God

can you show me evidence that angles

you're such a fucking retard can you

show me he's gonna muting he's a retard

can't he he's like a dog he has to be

beaten into submission he can't be a

human being who's just civil okay can

you please show me evidence

that Marx and angles disagreed on this

and if you're gonna claim that Marx is a

Christian how is Marx a Christian in a

way that Engels was not

please provide evidence for that because

I don't think Marx was a traditional

Christian or a traditional Jew

you claimed he was a Jew first now you

switched your argument okay where are

you getting the idea let's just simplify

it Christian or Jew

in what way is Mark's theological

Inno or religious in a way that Engels

isn't please explain that

yeah I'm taking it to be that if you

hold to the proposition that Marx is a

Christian then that's definitely

conscious

I know you're afraid of getting fucked

hard but let me talk I'm not holding to

that proposition I know you're afraid of

getting fucked you literally said he was

a Christian you literally no I said if

anything according to your logic you

would probably be better at saying what

logical system

the claim that the claim that he was a

Jew well Marx converted to Christianity

before he was a young higel he was the

Christian dumbass so he was a Christian

no no I'm saying

no you fucking idiot he became a young

hegelian which means he rejected all

religion at a point but before he did

that he was a Christian meaning Marx

just because he was ethnically Jewish

wasn't recording religion it's coming

from a religiously Jewish background it

was my point

yeah listen hey when I say it's a Jew

right it's not a claim that's really

important to the matter the only claim

is that he believes in God because

that's a contradiction to ontological

materialism I don't think there's

evidence that Marx affirmed God okay so

he's an atheist

no I don't that's not nice

because you know if you commit to The

Stance you're going to get fucked right

no I can no I've clarified my stance on

it multiple times before Marx never

affirmed any kind of God but I think he

left room for God but he also wasn't an

atheist who found it necessary to

preemptatively deny one in any

metaphysical sense Mark's never affirm

God but he also didn't not affirm God so

I just don't know what the fuck marks

was but I call myself a Marx's expert

and I just want to dilly dally around

this point because I started you're

saying it in a different voice but

what's your argument

yeah my argument is that if Marx

believes in God that he's not an

ontological materialist he doesn't he

doesn't directly show evidence of

believing in God

he doesn't like commit to an idea of god

let's just say that Marx never commits

to any idea of God

yeah where are you getting this from

what's can you show me evidence of the

contrary

sure I mean if I if I looked yeah show

me where Marx commits to the idea of God

on it not when he's like by the way 15

when like when he becomes a Marxist Marx

you know

can you show me evidence of that let's

just say like after the year

1840.

yeah

go ahead yeah 1843 and that's what I'm

looking at one side yeah

yeah

and by the way um while I'm looking for

this it'll take a couple minutes I just

want to mention you've never at all

explained how they're compatible Islam

and communism no I've explained it

multiple times in the past yes I have

okay in the past you're not doing it

right now before we do that though we

have to like become as you keep coping

I'm looking for this don't worry okay we

have to be clear about our presumptions

yeah by the way has do you think that

Marx um

both to the proposition that religion

will fade away it's a communist Society

is actualized

he does say something like that a lot

yeah yeah so basically what I think Marx

thought was that once the material

conditions in which um belief in God

uh that caused belief in God to arise

fade away like things like poverty for

example then um belief in God will be

unnecessary and religion will fade away

itself do you agree with him

I would not agree with that paraphrasing

no no okay okay so what can you

paraphrase it yeah okay for example Marx

brought up things like poverty like

extreme poverty someone will look like

the basis of religious estrangement will

disappear as soon as man has come to uh

affirm his own Essence and realize

himself in the world then he uses a

specific quote that'll be like the air

around him something like that and this

is what he wrote in the Jewish question

so no it's not simple yeah it's not

because of poverty or illiteracy or

ignorance it's because of a root

estrangement and alienation from

Humanity that gives rise to what he

understands as religious estrangement

now whether or not said that um that

once people understand the world they're

going to give up something like it has

most people understand the whole

building nothing to do with

understanding anything

no because for Marx the alienation is

material it's not based in the mind it's

not based in thoughts or I understand no

no that's not what I said here it's not

based on knowledge it's not based in

knowledge it's based on something

material yeah I understand I understand

why you think that listen the thing is

he said if people are to know and

understand the real world they must give

up superstitious beliefs because they

have a narcotic effect on the mind

that's his book you want the citation

from literature no no the narcotic thing

the Opium of the masses according to

Marx is specifically referring to the

Primacy of the material basis of the

religious destruction that's what I said

once the material basis for religion

ceases to exist once communism comes

into power right then um religion itself

will cease to exist because the reasons

for a religion existing cease to

existence he defines it as religious

estrangement specifically

yeah where are you getting this from can

you quote the Jewish question yes I can

quote it yeah on the Jewish question in

1843 but can you give me the quote sure

okay go ahead

an organization of society which would

precondition which would abolish the

preconditions for huckstering and

therefore the possibility of huckstering

would make the Jew impossible his

religious Consciousness would be

dissipated like a thin Haze in the real

vital era of society on the other hand

if he recognizes that his practical

nature of his is futile and works to

abolish it he extricates himself from

his previous development and works for

human emancipation as such and turns

against the Supreme practical expression

of human self-estrangement

I'm trying to see where this is in on

the Jewish question one sec

is it like near the start no

it's at the end

yeah whatever I can't find it but um you

can't find any quote uh my quote listen

I'm on my phone looking through on the

Jewish question on Marxist org I can't

find Facebook

well you can just control F Vital Air of

society

yeah I'm on my phone okay control F air

of Society come on my phone you can

control F on your fucking phone you

idiot

I don't think so

oh I don't know how but what I've been

find on page find on page

okay that's it okay I found it okay and

what do you want me to search

air of society

okay okay

organization started with uh which would

call it's the preconditions Pakistan

there for the possibility possible

so now that you see that what I quoted

was real I provide you the quote

yeah I don't think this contradicts what

I said thing the Jew is going to be made

impossible once this human estrangement

ceases to exist yeah they can't I take

it that not only the key word is

estrangement

because Marx only ever considers

religion within the realm of what it is

in philosophy he never considers

religion in its actual like material

reality he only considers it in one kind

of way which is the significance it has

for philosophical thinking

okay

so to say that Marx was talking about

all religion

would be unjustified because Marx was

not looking at religion in that way

wait where are you getting that he's

talking about it in a philosophical

sense I don't see how you're concluding

that from the estrangement part like

what do you think is human because

because for the young hegelians and for

foyerbach and this is Marx's responding

to one of these young hegelians religion

is a form of alienated Humanity

okay and

it's a way in which for them God is just

some form of alienated human Essence

that's separate from us

and that God is just this kind of

investment in some metaphysical idea

and so these young hegelians think that

well we simply have to awaken to the

true Consciousness and become aware of

the fact that religion is Just an

Illusion as you alluded before is just a

opium or something

and Mark says no because the basis of

religious estrangement the way in which

religion serves yes all you're saying is

that Marx isn't against like theological

religious belief he's just against

organized religion Marx was not against

anything he was describing the way in

which religion did yeah it in fact

served the purpose of isolating and

separating human beings from their

material reality which is the function

it actually did serve uh in the context

of the post uh Napoleonic War Europe but

to say that this is all a religion is

would not be justifiable I think that'd

be too much

yeah it's not because the theological

self-belief in the position that like X

God is real is separate from organized

religion

no the proposition is exactly what

Marx's and the young hegelians that's

the only cons they're not dealing with

religion in the strict sense of how it

just makes sense of the world for people

okay so you think the prophet okay so

when you say the proposition I said the

proposition that X God is real so you're

saying what's going through this belongs

that belongs to the the brain not the

heart

what are you talking about okay because

for most people religion is not a

propositional Axiom

it's I didn't say it's an axiom okay

well it's not a propositional product

it's just yeah no for most people it's

not for mostly yes okay no okay let me

educate you on what propositions are

okay propositions are statements that

have truth value like when you say Allah

is real then that's a proposition no

proposition

propositions are logical forms

yeah there's yeah that's there okay I

don't know what's a logical form on a

form of thought a discrete form of

thought no it is a thought no it's not a

thought because thoughts can be more

thoughts can escape the boundaries of of

the variables relevant to logic because

the proposition and we can citation on

this right a proposition is just a

statement that has truth conditions

that's all it is yeah and those truth

conditions are either premised by The

Logical form itself or empirical reality

whereas actual thought and actions

they're not promised by anything they're

premised by the State of Affair and

whether it's true or not

and Truth within the context of

propositional logic is based on

consistency

that's how you're treating

truth in this context you're a fucking

analytical retard

this is called analytical robot

philosophy of the Anglo-Saxons stop

nerding out let me tell you what it is

right when you say I am a Christian

there's an underlying proposition there

that I believe that the Christian God is

real that's all I'm saying so when you

say that Marx was talking about the

proposition

no he wasn't a proposition is a

commitment in terms of knowledge and the

head whereas belief in God for ordinary

people is not based on a proposition of

thought that's based on a feeling of the

heart yeah hey dumbass I'm not saying

it's based upon a proposition I'm saying

they have this feeling they have this

intuition they've been born into this

Society why are you bringing that

proposition so why are you bringing up

propositions yeah because you said that

Marx is referring to the proposition the

thing no I'm not I'm I'm no I'm not no

it's not we can roll back the tape let's

roll back the tape I said Marx was only

dealing with religion as it was relevant

to philosophy that's what I said

no I asked you is Mark's referring to

organized religion or the proposition

you said the proposition no he's not

he's not contrasting organized religion

with prop the proposition of a god

existing because for Marx organized

religion is just the way in which this

metaphysical proposition you're talking

about is being organized but there's a

deeper reality to religion that I think

Marx neglected or didn't pay attention

to or just really said nothing about so

you can just disagree with Martha no I

don't I don't that's the beautiful thing

is I don't have to disagree with him

about something he never talked about

okay when he says the truth is made

impossible is he saying organized

schools of Jewish thought or is he

saying people that are Jewish

he what do you mean

okay let me get the quote

um what makes the dream possible he's

saying an organization he's talking

about the Jew as relevant to the Jewish

question

that he's responding to from Bruno Bower

or whatever yeah so you

say your question has

the Jew as relevant to Bruno Bauer is

that the Jew in general I don't think it

is I think there's more to Jews than

just the Jews as they're relevant to

Bruno Bauer

so what is he saying when he says the

Jew is impossible the Jew as relevant to

the topic at hand of what he was writing

the Jew as relevant to the topic at hand

of what he was writing I'll explain it

to you I'll explain it to you right

we therefore recognize in Judaism a

general anti-social element of the

present time an element which began

through historical development through

which in this harmful respect the Jews

have zealously contributed has been

brought to the present highest level now

why is Marx talking about that because

the Jewish question is precisely about

this kind of anti-social significance

Jews have posed for the political

question of emancipation for these young

European liberals at the time and that's

what Marx was talking about here that is

the only relevance and significance it's

the only angle he's looking at Judaism

at he's not actually dealing with the

deeper historical Judaism the deeper

kind of um

revelatory Judaism he's not even

touching that he's just talking about

the Jews as they are recognized by

Prussian civil society as a a subject of

of uh Civil Society in the state

but he's not actually dealing with

religion in any deeper sense he's just

dealing with it in the context of

secularism and yada yada

okay

so um I have to go soon so I just wanted

to ask this other question that I want

to ask you for a long time because we're

just going to keep arguing on this point

I'm not running away right I think there

you are I just want to ask this because

it's more important to me um what do you

think of the question of uh Kurdish

Independence in the Middle East

like do you believe that they have a

claim to um autonomous Independence in a

national state

the Kurds in Iraq actually support

Palestine for example

I don't believe in an unconditional

Kurdish sovereignty as far as autonomy

and self-governance that's probably

going to be inevitable at least okay so

when you say you don't believe in an

unconditional curd of sovereignty I'm

thinking that I mean geopolitical

sovereignty

like an independent Kurdish State no

yeah why not

um because I think that the peoples of

the Middle East have always coexisted

under the same state across ethnicities

and I don't believe they should be

divided any further beyond what Sykes

Pico already did

so you're a reactionary sure yeah I'm a

reactionary

and your Marxist I don't believe the

oyegers should have Independence in

China I don't believe the Chechen should

have Independence I'm interested in uh

civilizational development of people's

not building more you realize Kurdistan

does not exist due to British

imperialism right and federal

colonialism like for example like when

did I say it when did I say the Ottoman

Empire in Turkey in Britain signed a

treaty in which the Kurds were promised

geopolitical sovereignty and then it got

violated in their seemed genocide blah

blah blah sure so I don't understand why

you're not I'm not interested in more

nation-states I'm not

okay so you're not interested in the

victims of imperialism having a country

that was promised to them no

okay

and you and you are a reactionary to

make that share right and I'm an asshole

you gonna cry

no I'm not gonna cry it's just funny how

you remarks just in your reaction here I

don't I don't have to believe in uh I

don't believe in a I don't even believe

in Arab nationalism or I don't even

think the Arabs should have had

independent states so we don't believe

Palestinian geopolitical sovereignty

I believe the Israel is an illegitimate

state

okay that's not what I asked you

for purposes of the destruction of

Israel yes but let's say Palestine uh

becomes a state after Israel is

destroyed so for purposes of destruction

of turkey Kurdistan yes or no no I I

think turkey is a legitimate state in a

way that Israel is not

yeah they are legitimate state but

they're not legitimate and I think is I

think Israel's a fake country and

Kurdistan would be fake too

but it's not it was literally promised

like it was supposed to come and Israel

was the promised land of the Jews and in

Israel

right now Kurdistan doesn't exist right

now but a lot of declares are also

syrians a lot of Kurds are also Iraqis

and you're going to tell them that they

can't be those unions they're Kurds well

some of them some of them some of them

are more embedded in the countries that

they're in that's because that's where

they live their entire life what the

fuck are you on it well they're not all

committed not all Kurds are committed to

the idea of an independent Kurdistan I

have vast majority is okay well when you

can show me when you can show me

Kurdistan that doesn't involve U.S

imperialism we can start talking I can't

see wait wait wait wait how does that

answer the question I asked you because

we had a referendum in Iraq they do

believe in it show me okay when you show

me a curve it was voted a majority vast

majority when you show me an independent

Kurdistan that doesn't have to rely on

the U.S or Germany or Europe and we can

talk

okay so do you support an independent

career stand without the aid of U.S

imperialism if they manage to do it

without helping U.S imperialism I'm not

going to stand in their way yeah but

you're helping British imperialism by

saying you don't want Kurdistan right

you said British

yeah why

the Treaty of Versailles from a hundred

fucking years ago

uh from yeah around like 80.

this is funny what about it what about

it dumbass so

George Bush was fighting against British

imperialism when he invaded Iraq because

of the Sykes Pico agreement right

that's how stupid you sound when George

Bush went to Iraq to go fuck that

country up oh no yeah that violated 100

year old treaty created by Britain so

that means George W Bush was an

anti-british imperial you know

Anti-Imperialist no because the only

reason Kurdistan doesn't exist is

because of imperialism and you're

supporting their existence even though

that's true I think

I think you're an angry stupid I think

you're an angry stupid person

I'm not angry I do why would I be angry

I actually agree with you because like

all your arguments are just like so

stupid you don't even think before you

talk listen even though I'm being calm

right now I did fuck you on that prior

material with some stuff so I don't know

what you're saying is that why you ran

away

when did I run away

yeah yeah I literally specified that I

had to go soon so I wanted to get

something yeah like you don't know I

already know materialism is I think I

already definitively fucked you on that

thing like there's nothing more one's

ones yeah I don't know why you think

you're chat thinking you one means you

want I know you're insecure about losing

a debate but like come on come on I

think this is like when the fat girl

looks in the mirror and says I'm

beautiful you're just like doing it to

affirm your own confidence like why are

you doing that's literally what you're

doing by asking your chat to tell you no

I'm not I'm like I'm like why do you

keep saying you won because I've

logically fucked who are you who who is

that even if you were right

why are you saying it who is who's

supposed to because we're not because if

I'm debating someone like uh

um security around

him on the date then I wouldn't say that

but you tell people you've won every

single day okay

knowing that no one here is gonna like

care what you say or believe you why are

you even saying it

I just wanted to fuck you on live stream

but but nobody thinks that only you

think that so no nobody in your chat

thinks that okay you your small circle

of friends and people who hate me

already uh so everyone that agrees you

got fucked on a conversation where you

literally asked me to Define matter

um yeah they're just hate you they just

hate you and they're my friends right

yeah but you you define matter as weight

so let's really I didn't say that yes we

can roll it back you define it as late

right you ask me what matter is and I

said something that has math and you

said what is math and then it got to

wait right and I got to wait yeah that

doesn't mean the fucking thing is wait

like if you ask me to Define what a door

is and I see something that's made out

of wood and then I'd find wood like

doesn't mean that doors are wood are you

such a fucking idiot man wait if I ask

you to define a door and you say

something that's made out of wood yeah

you are incorrectly responding to the

question that's not sure yes it is if I

ask you hey what's a door you'd have to

say if you're saying something if you

said something that has wood that's too

specific that's not what I said though

that's not what I said I said if I could

find Jordan I say it took Contraption

with a lock and a steel and a door and

this is the land wood and then you asked

me to find wood it doesn't mean that the

door is wood

no you see you're stupid you mean if I

ask you no you mean if I ask you for an

example of a door yes you're right but

if I ask you to define the door like if

I if I asked you to Define what a door

is and you start talking about wood and

locks you just failed in a responding or

yeah you failed if I asked you for it

okay listen if I asked you or us if

somebody asked you to define the door in

front of you and then you say this

contraption in which you're Shifting the

goal posts from the doors so you just

shifted you just shifted the goal posts

you just shifted the goal post from

doors yeah you just shifted from doors

in general to the specific door in front

of me no no I said the fine door in

front of you just as a general no you

said doors no you you originally said

define no I said the door in front of

you so defining the door in front of you

is not the same as defining a door in

general you know that right no but I

said when I say door in front of you I

just mean sorry who are you trying I

don't know what your door looks like who

are you trying to deceive about what you

just said because we can roll no one

because I'm being completely honest

listen cause you're the person that

asked me to cite materialism in the

fucking debate I can ask you a question

are you gonna go to bed crying because

you lost so bad no no I'm actually gonna

go to bed very happy because I didn't

expect you to be this dumb honestly

because I like watch yourself I agree

with them the communism shit but like I

just got fucked I didn't see you you

just got fucked like I didn't think you

I just here's what happened I

actually thought you were well informed

about Marxism you don't even know

anything about materialism

yeah but why then why can't you debate

it then the debate materials

no you didn't I did you just started

like yelling and

listening you didn't debate it you

didn't debate it you claimed that you

claimed that Marx was not enough this is

what you said you said you said

materialism just means that only content

exists and I'm like what I didn't say

content I said material objects okay and

then I asked you what a material object

was and then you defined it

metaphysically so you just no no I

didn't dumbass I said something that's

physical substance composed of mass

okay again that's not a mess that's not

a metaphor you don't understand

materialism you're talking about saying

something is composed of mass is a

metaphysical definition and by the house

you told me my definition was

topological you know all definitions are

tautological because they're referring

not necessarily not necessarily no okay

give me a definition that's not

theological

yeah if I if I for example Define

materialism as giving Primacy to content

why is that tautological good because

guys I'm not defining content I'm not

defining I'm refer to one thing in two

statements then it's the same

propositions it's not tautological it's

only psychological hello in different

languages they refer to the same

proposition

if I defined content as the same thing

as the proposition of matter then it

would be tautological but that's the

thing when you say what is the

definition of matter or materialism and

you say the Primacy of content content

actually refers to something that

escapes the circularity of the

definition it refers to something that

can only have have intelligibility in

the actual World itself through actual

practical interventions or interactions

with it so no it's not tautological but

when you try to Define materialism it's

just logically fallacious it's stupid

if I say what is matter and you say oh

it's matter that is tautological

you can't describe matter in any way

beyond the ideal form of matter

because this is why I was shocked when I

debated you because I'm like no way

you're this stupid when you define

matter and then you say it's a physical

substance compose the mass that is

tonological because although they're two

different statements it's still the same

proposition but I don't Define matter

that way at all I don't Define matter as

a substance

what makes you think matter is a

substance I don't Define it that way at

all so you literally appeal to

Merriam-Webster which agrees with me no

I didn't I I don't know let's get the

facts Let's Get the facts straight I

asked you to look at this time I asked

you to look up the definition of matter

so that you could see that in no way is

the only sense in which that word is

used referring to it other sense is like

there's a matter at work which is

obviously no no there is actually like

five more other senses no no dumbass

there was one and two and then there was

a b and c you fucking idiot there was

plenty of other senses in which matter

was used no it was one two and only one

only one sense only one sense I have to

explain something to you only one sense

refer use the word physical only one

sense finally

um you realize the Merriam-Webster

Dictionary is a is a matter of diction

it's just referring to the different

ways this word is used which is I agree

no it's not a definition no a definition

means your definition a definitely

uneducated about philosophy it's shots

no no there's no objective definition

for words

a definition is not there's no mind

independent definition you claimed

you're a Marxist what did angles have to

say about definitions

what do you mean does angles believe

that books can define the meaning of a

word no because they're just reducible

to other strings of words if I'm correct

exactly because I've explained this many

times so when you appeal to the one of

the definitions

then why are you talking about the

definition all I wanted to show you is

that because when we have a definition

shut up for one second and we don't talk

about it being not objective we just use

it

shut up for one second

when I when I

all I meant to make the point of which

anyone can roll back and see is that

when philosophers use the word matter

they are not necessarily referring to

physical any physicality at all because

Jackson's calling you but yeah go ahead

again when people use the word matter

they are not necessarily referring to

any kind of physicality

not necessarily did I say they're never

referring to physicality no no okay

dumbass we're talking about it in the

context of angles which he was referring

to okay then in engels's case in

engels's case he is not reducing it to a

physical substance at all okay can you

prove that

no because it's a negative no no you

can't you fucking idiot no you can't

wait it's a negative if I say Engels is

not talking about pink unicorns can you

prove it can you prove he's not talking

about something dude he's not doing so

okay can you prove you don't have a uh

um a dildo in your ass right now

yeah

you can prove it yeah okay can you prove

that angles

can you prove that you never ever oh so

you couldn't like get you get your

little gotcha can you prove that you

never had a dildo in your ass ever

yeah how

by showing empirical data that suggests

otherwise you can you have empirical

data for every like I mean

you have empirical data for every living

moment in your life inserted Into My Ass

Like That by the way nice Muslim you

have you haven't I don't care about you

have empirical doubt I know you don't

care about Islam that's why I don't care

about virtue signaling religious people

I don't you don't you don't yeah I know

you're not biased but go ahead you don't

care about

um

you don't you have data for every like

living moment of your life

yeah the point I'm making is that you

can prove negatives

So when you say that you asked me you

said you you said okay prove to me

Engels never said this

all I can do is is

show you what he wrote all of it I guess

so I have to show you everything

yeah how can I prove to you Engels never

said this please explain what is the

chronological contradiction in the State

of Affairs

what do you mean

by throwing that angles having wrote

that as a logical contradiction now I

don't know how to do that but because I

have never seen him write that anywhere

yeah you can show a logical

contradiction in him having wrote that

which proves that he didn't write it

listen hi you don't know how basically

wait wait repeat that repeat that you

can show a lot for example

if you say that can you prove to me God

doesn't exist right that is a negative

in the same sense that the thing about

angles is a negative now you can

demonstrate a logical contradiction in

the existence of God which would

demonstrate that God does not exist so

you're proving a negative how could I

prove The Logical contradiction in

angles I'm saying you can do that I

don't know how I don't know the logical

contradiction there but you can do it

through those means

show me how I would do it

yep I'm telling you I don't know the

contradiction but you can pause it

positive one like for example angles

having wrote this contradicts this and

therefore no that's not that I would

that burden is not on me to do that

though yeah no no no this is another

mission no it's not when you cry why is

it the case that positives have burdens

and negatives don't

because you are the one who made a claim

and you said prove it and I said the

basis of what I'm saying hey the basis

okay I'm the one who made a claim and

said prove it yes can you listen to

yourself the basis of my God I'm going

in like five minutes yeah run away

little bitch the the basis what I'm

saying yeah the basis I think that's

like really manly right because I have

to go to sleep yeah because you're a

pussy yeah because okay yeah okay you're

really dominating the leftists yeah yeah

well I'm dominating you and that's

enough for me right now this is why

you're literally a joke yeah sure like

over every single political fear alive

sure except for like 300 like um sure

but the difference is Pablo only I will

mentally traumatize you

I'm not though I promise you we'll see

anyway

what do you mean we'll see you what do

you mean just live your life see if

you're not going to be traumatized by me

and you're going to have to I'm writing

my University application yeah go ahead

do it so yeah I am

so here's the problem I'm playing

Stanford um stop deviating from the

argument yeah no I already fucked you

but go ahead

claim if I claim that angles never wrote

something and you say prove it

all right so the burden is not on me to

prove that Engels never wrote it

unless I'm saying can you prove that

Engels didn't mean matter in this

context

oh yeah I can prove that go ahead

because angles rejects metaphysics

because angle doesn't believe matter can

take that dumbass materialism cannot be

a metaphysical standpoint because it

rejects metaphysics dumbass but

according to you matter is the Supreme

physical substance it's a physical

substance according to you according to

according to you matter hold on

according to you matter matter is a

physical substance according to you

hold on hold on anyways

um what was it saying uh yeah even if I

accepted that it was true that it's this

supreme physical substance which is your

proprietary like dumbass notion of

philosophy right even if I did accept

that that still means it's physical and

it's not Beyond physics so that still

means that materialism is a rejection of

metaphysics and therefore it's not a

metaphorical possession because

therefore you're wrong if you turn into

an idol if you make static any physical

thing

you are making it metaphysical because

you're reducing it to the mental

impression you have on something that is

inherently transitory and in the process

of changing and in the process of change

angles makes that clear in the

dialectics of nature where you don't

understand what metaphysics is or what

the materialist rejection of metaphysics

actually entails because you're a stupid

fuck you're just genuinely a stupid

person

who didn't even know that dialectics of

nature was the relevant book in which

this was being dealt in that's how no I

didn't remember the text in which it was

written but I remember the quote and

that's how you remember a quote that's

being circulated out of context

you you remember a quote that's being

circulated you remember a quote that

circulated out of context you fucked no

because I know the context he was

disgusting his dialectics no the context

is you're fishing for Discord wait wait

wait so he wasn't discussing his

dialectics what

so he wasn't discussing dialectics in

the context of the scope

in the context of the quote where he

says what

if you said the thing about the only

things that exist this matter

I mean of course everything he says is

in the context of dialogue okay so

you're fucking wrong about saying no no

that's not what I was saying no to

retard

just reject things even though they

contradict what I previously talk like I

wouldn't like slap the shit out of you I

literally slap you until next week where

do you live where do you live we can

link up where do you live

by me logically fucking you on every

Point okay how do you logically

demonstrate you won

yeah I logically fuck you and everything

like can we can we like get this in

writing The Logical um chain

because you would never concede even if

I like fucked your skull for like one

hour you'd never conceive right

you would never be like yeah I am wrong

I would I would concede if you never be

like yeah yeah if I ended up if I ended

up being inconsistent

what could I say I probably would have

lost at that point no you would never

concede it right you only used to

measure of debate without the only way

you have to maintain like the fake

masculinity no the only way the only way

to measure a debate save for an uh

external third party judging it is

consistency you were inconsistent

multiple times across the debate with

yourself you changed your position you

shifted the goal post multiple times

I didn't do that once not true well like

I said you wouldn't concede even if I

like did fuck you over in the skull like

wow why did you have such a belief that

you stood a chance you're like how old

are you

what makes you think what makes you

think you stood a chance against me

you're 17 I turned 17 a couple days ago

yeah what makes you think just get the

fuck out of here in an 18 plus disc

fucking fuck out of here a little bitch

fuck out of here

wasting my time with a fucking kid man

foreign

who the fuck let that guy in

what a waste of time man

a literal fucking high schooler debating

me for two hours

yeah that's how stupid people are man

you can't even fucking tell

people are fat fucking retarded

Louie Reeves is a retard I just want

everyone to know that in my chat I'm

baffled at how retarded that fucking guy

is

oh what a victory

what a victory

fucking

I destroyed a fucking 17.

Discord what a victory

what a victory

what an annoying fuck what a literal

annoying fuck though

God

so fucking stupid

fucking child abuse

we need to start doing more long-form

streams

honestly

I'm gonna start doing some uh long form

I gotta

I missed thank you so much Chris

appreciate you Vlog non-contradiction

and middle exclusion lol this guy is a

real dialectical materialist

thank you so much PJ just mute this dude

when you want to say something this guy

literally doesn't know how to S Plus f

you

baby so much voidberg Dennis Prager

keeps stuck in you

I love this when they're like Oh I

thought you were a Muslim has no I'm a

fucking demon when it comes to war the

one thing that stopped when people are

like how's why are you not a religious

person

and people try to say oh you have to

show mercy and oh I'm not bitch I'm

going to war I don't give a fuck I'll be

an atheist I don't give a fuck

I love when people say oh you're such a

Muslim Haas

you're such a Muslim house

fine then bitch I'm an atheist I don't

give a fuck

I'm not a social I'm not socially a

Muslim I'm not looking here to get

street cred or being fucking muslim if I

say I'm Muslim because it's coming from

my heart something I believe in in my

stomach

Chris

all right Chris get in my VC Chris how

about Chris is up next

Chris is up next

Chris should Chris should um

be up next and inform all of us

the riveting debate

so let's have Chris come into VC next

he's getting my point fucking stands

so to simplify the whole debate for you

guys because I kept getting interrupted

whatever

um if you want to know the distinction

the real distinction between materialism

and idealism

idealism is basically thank you so much

anonymous

first it was that New York Cox Zoomer

now it's a physicalist Marxist Zoomer

Unstoppable Force versus immovable

object

um

yeah you're basically dealing with

not a claim about metaphysics right most

people think oh it's about what does

exist what doesn't exist no it's it's

not relevant because even if

even if you're a metaphysical

materialist and you deny Supernatural I

mean very rarely our philosophers across

history entertaining

like super sensible

objects

um very rarely right

in the sense of like a like a like a

literal unicorn or something invisible

unicorn a lot of like Reddit atheists

are like oh

God Is Like An Invisible Man In The Sky

I mean like it's such a stupid argument

it's a that's a wild form of metaphysics

right

very rarely is that relevant in the

history of philosophy

what philosophy actually is about though

is um in terms of the distinction

between materialism and idealism

is not so much about the positioning the

existence of different things but how

that existence relates to itself

specifically through the mind because

it's through our mind that we access

reality and existence is intelligible to

us so it's you know it's a premise that

reality is intelligible to us through

the mind so the the question of idealism

versus materialism is a relational

question right like for example

is there some Transcendent theory of

four realm of forms that is responsible

for

the form of reality's intelligibility or

in kant's case for the trans

um German idealism

is there some kind of

transcendental

um

uh some kind of synthetic a priori some

Eternal infinite ideas of space and time

uh

the pure form of the discontinuity

in time and space

taking form so it's always about whether

form is the premise of reality

rather than the conclusion of it

That's the basis of the distinction

between materialism and idealism

I mean even foyerbach who thinks all

religion is just the projection of man's

Consciousness only the material world is

real and he is a materialist

but

in reality his representation

of the world is metaphysical

because the question comes is what is

the relationship between

that Consciousness and reality

and for foyerbach it's like

everyone who's not enlightened enough to

my consciousness

is therefore stupid and that grounds

himself in a relational

uh

a relational uh idealism even even

though his representation of the world

is materialist

so it's relational not just

representative or

propositional as he like to say

what's your name in the Discord Chris

I'll unban you right now

what's your name in the Discord let's go

right now

I think the the relationship I've drawn

between the religious tradition of

Revelation and materialism

is based on this view that

um the ideal form is something finite

whereas a true sense of the openness of

the infinite

is only possible

when you introduce something that is the

real equivalent to the god of Abraham

for example right

a god of Revelation

I don't think the god of Abraham is a

god of form it's not a philosopher's God

of thought

it's this kind of

god of the real

whose worldly manifestation

not only changes

um

but beginning within Judaism

can in no way be reducible to our

knowledge because in Judaism it's just

unknowable right at the outset

right

so let's wait for Chris to uh own up

stop being a pussy and tell us what

their Discord name is

based I'm ready to debate materialism

hey you Unknown Soldier

uh look I'm looking at the show cue and

there's no one there

Chris is going first

yeah we don't have all night Chris hurry

the fuck up

we don't have all night

oh my God

MJ thank you so much man holy fuck thank

you so much MJ holy shit let me uh

FaceTime Jackson back

while we wait for Chris to become a

fucking man

foreign

it's too late

I don't know why he was calling

maybe it was Discord he was calling on

no he wasn't

uh

waiting for Chris

all right Soldier what do we have to be

scared about go ahead

I want to debate on materialism versus

idealism all right go ahead

so materialism

is the belief in the

existence of objects outside of human

cognition

is that how you take materialism no

then what is materialism

thank you so much MJ appreciate the 50.

thank you so much

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

materialism is the orientation of the

human intellect

toward content

yeah

well you cut off for a second

okay to me you're I'm echoing

so to me materialism is simply the

orientation of the human intellect

toward the content of reality

and the content is material

you can call it content or you can call

it material it's the synonym it's the

same thing there's no content without

form you can't that no one can observe a

pure content that is devoid of form yeah

but to me form is a result of the

interaction the interaction between

being itself material and therefore form

does not premise anything

yeah the interaction is of Consciousness

giving form to objects which is idealism

so you're an idealist

no because that's not what the

interaction actually is then what would

your interaction be

the interaction is the torsion out of

which reality

um reflects back upon itself itself

first of all

that is what we will call Consciousness

or whatever

form is simply referring to the way in

which this contradiction this

fundamental difference is posited across

its particular instances

and what that means is that when most

people think of materialism they

um

focus on identity and they and that's

why they talk about substances and atoms

and things like that when in reality at

least materials dialectics focuses on

the materiality of differences and

contradictions

that makes no sense

that's just jargon

you still haven't described what gives

form to the objects that we perceive are

they coming from the form is just the

consistency of a inconsistency it's the

consistency of a difference the

consistency of the difference simply

refers to the way that a thing

constitutes itself consistently

in lieu of a fundamental difference the

fundamental difference being within

reality itself and being the difference

that gives rise to the distinction

between reality and Its Reflection

you still haven't described what gives

it its difference what gives it its

identity okay what gives it its

difference that's a good question the

difference is what's primary the

difference is the real that is the real

it's a contradiction

the what is the real that just sounds

like an abstraction

it's it's I literally just told you the

real is a contradiction it's a

difference

that's just tautological

you just said that distinction is the

difference

no the real is the diff is a distinction

yes so well not a distinction it's a

difference

it's it's an imminent difference

but what is the real

you still haven't described that what

what answer are you look are you looking

for a specific instance of the real or

what are you referring to

oh you're just you're just saying that

there's a real that gives difference two

things but you still haven't given no

things are no things

it gives difference to things from the

vantage point of what you call

Consciousness that exactly so it's

Consciousness so it's idealism no

because the difference is in reality too

it's just that what makes the what makes

different identities like coherently

different things not the difference

itself but the fact that they are

consistent formally consistent things is

because of a more fundamental difference

call it an absolute difference that

grounds the very distinctions themselves

it sounds like schizophrenic well okay

well the logic The Logical structure is

consistent for example with Kant

yeah but Khan says time and space are

ideal that they're forms of our

perception and that we give right but

time and space as you should already

know are just derivative of the fact

that there are discontinuities in the

fabric of being

according to Kant

the discontinuity the discontinuity

either takes the form of time or it

takes the form of space

and the spaces are out no it yes but it

becomes that only because of the thing

the transcendental thing the absolute

object no it will it could only we can

only recognize it when it's determined

by an object which gives which like

gives a limit to time and determines yes

but but all what's anchoring all of that

is the thing

no they it's not either the thing or the

form it's the interwovenness of the form

with the content with the thing

listen Khan talks about the particular

things that give limits to time and

space but the only reason time and space

are synthetic aprior in the first place

is because there's a transcendental

thing so I'm trying to tell you we can't

ever know the transcendental thing

that's the thing in itself I know we

can't know it but it's still what gives

ground to the synthetic our priori of

time and space

so it's what time and space time and

space are the the pure intuition of how

we perceive that thing yes yes

it's not knowable so it's just a pure

intuition

we don't know it but we have the pure

intuition of it in the form of time and

space

no the thing in itself is what is

impressing on our

on our perception and it's through time

and space that we give it a determinant

no you cannot give a determinate form to

the absolute object or the kantian thing

in itself that's that's how it becomes a

phenomena okay Kant describes the thing

as like God it's like he calls it God is

one of the synonyms for the thing it's a

transcendental thing oh that's just

hegelian like bullshit really okay let's

see where Kant defines it as God

himself

he said he says God is actually

unknowable

because it's an object outside of of

human knowledge yeah and he all that

also do you think God has to be knowable

no and that's why he makes room for

faith but that still doesn't give any

he's not saying God is a a

transcendental thing sure he is the

infinite the absolute infinite being

that's unknowable yes

but it can't be known for sure it's he

calls it an illusion listen it can't be

known

um synthetically hold on hold on it

can't be known as a creature of logic

but in terms of the absolute certainties

of faith it can be known because it is

known because our intuition of time and

space is proof of our uh this like

fundamental intuition that has no regard

for what you think you know or what you

don't know it's a synthetic apriori it's

not a synthetic um

whatever the other one is

it's the only synthetic our priori

that's why there's room for faith

the God is not the synthetic of priori I

didn't say he was I said he's the object

of the synthetic eye priori according to

Kant but he says we can't know God

because all things of our knowledge need

to be right just like we can't know the

object of the synthetic our priori we

can't

yeah we can't know the thing in itself

that yeah we can't but we still have a

fucking intuition of time and space

regardless of our lack of knowledge of

the thing because time and space our

synthetic apriori which means they're

not based in our fucking knowledge

they're more like unconscious they're

not according to he doesn't use that

word but it's like they're more like

that

they're preconditions for knowledge yes

yes the preconditions for knowledge are

based in God yes

no because he can't he says we can never

know God just like yeah you can't I

didn't say you can know God I didn't

fucking say you can know God I didn't

fucking say you could know him

yeah but there's a distinction because

we can know the thing in itself has to

exist unless it's just complete

solipsism

but God can't be known because it's an

object completely outside what what are

you saying why does that make it

different from the thing in itself

because the thing in itself he says does

exist it's just we can't make any

determinants just like God exists but we

can't make any determinant like what's

the difference no that's not he says God

he he talks about God as a as in terms

of faith that it's part of our practical

reason that if we're to have morality

that we need to believe in God we need

to believe in the immortality of the

soul but when it comes to our

theoretical knowledge we can't have any

we can't make any determinant I agree

but when it comes to our theoretical

knowledge

we also can't know

the object of the synthetic air priori

either

yes we can no we can't because it's a

pure thing in itself we can't know it

it's pure being it's the inner being

which we can't no we can't know that

though we can't know about any of its

qualities but we can know it has to

exist just like God

that's what faith means by the way it's

an unconditional Faith you it must exist

even if you can't know the specificities

of its existence

okay well that's just that's all still

in the realm of idealism so you've still

basically okay well we're okay I'm glad

we've passed that hurdle but you claim

that The Logical

um structure of what I was saying about

materialism was like nonsense but

logically it's pretty in parallel to the

logical it's not these same commitments

in terms of conceptual commitments but

the logical structure is very similar to

Kant it's just they're inversed just

like how Marx turns Hegel on his head

it's what I'm talking about here because

the difference in terms of Kant is that

Kant will posit

uh Concepts like things in themselves

for example or synthetic apriori which

is a kind of commitment to the

conceptual premise of being right

whereas what I'm talking about is just a

difference within being itself

um that is fundamentally irreducible to

any thoughts or ideas

uh whatsoever rooted in the

transcendental structure of our

knowledge no I mean um

that's

not no no it's not rooted in anything

transcendental yeah it has to be rooted

in our subjectivity in our unless you

that's why no no no subjectivity is a

relational subjectivity is just a

relational term describing something

going on in material reality

no that is what because we are the

subject of perception and of knowledge

that we can't know we can't even know of

an object outside of our own perception

yes we can because of in lieu of the

fact of historical novelty yes we can by

the way this is just pre this is not

even the Supreme form of idealism

because Hegel would reject that to you

because Hegel was a charlatan

okay well I just think you don't

understand him actually

I just think he said a bunch of bullshit

and didn't understand like comp or

anything about philosophy

well saying Hegel didn't understand

anything about philosophies a pretty

bold claim you must be like the next

Genius of the whole world to claim

something like that people didn't even

know about basic Natural Science

he thought he could prove the existence

of uh Opera using our priori that

there's how old are you how old are you

foreign

no what's your real age because you

sound very young claiming nonsense like

that

Psalm 21. okay well

you're old enough to be responsible for

your stupidity but you're still young

enough to say some stupid shit like

Eagle doesn't know anything about

realism

what

you don't know shit about philosophy if

you don't even know the distinction

between materialism and idealism I just

explained to you the difference

no but you've still affirmed idealism no

I haven't because I'm not relying on a

transcendental structure of the world

and moreover the claim that you cannot

know anything outside of the

transcendental structure is already

rejected by the idealist Hegel Hegel is

an idealist and he rejects that view so

it's you who doesn't know what idealism

is actually no because the pre the

previous debate you had the guy

mentioned how Engle said that the only

thing that exists is matter now you've

had to reject that point of view by

asserting that there is something of

human consciousness and subjectivity

that gives form to content okay roll

back the tape and and show me where I

said that

you said that I asked what is content

and you said that

content is the orientation of the no I

said materialism is being is its

identity and its identity is rooted in

the way that humans no I said most

people assume matter is about identity

and then I said that's wrong actually so

keep up with what I'm actually fucking

saying if you're gonna claim that I

don't know anything about idealism and

materialism

what there's some bullshit then you're

not making any part you're telling me if

you're saying I just said bullshit then

you have come to your limit as far as

your intellectual capacity for engaging

in this debate

you affirmed Khan's transcendental no I

did not because cons transcendental

idealism does ultimately have to make a

metaphysical commitment to the synthetic

a priori and the thing in itself

and that is ultimately a metaphysical

creature of the conceptual mind

so no

that is not an affirmation of Kant Kanti

and idealism

and the problem that I have right now is

that this is old stuff this has been

resolved in the past but you came here

and told me some something so stupid

that Hegel didn't know anything about

philosophy then you are not qualified to

talk about philosophy you're 21 years

old have you really read Hegel enough to

make that claim with any credibility or

authority that just sounds like a really

stupid thing to say you're an arrogant

kid who needs to fucking humble

themselves you have not figured out

you're not God you haven't figured out

the whole fucking keys to all knowledge

in the world I know you feel like you're

smart because it's your cope among your

peers

all I'm doing is committing I'm just

committing to my statements I'm not God

I could be wrong it's just you're going

to have to make an argument relating to

what I've said

let's prove calm

I we're not talking about disproving

Kant right now something Hagel already

did by the way

we can debate about Hegel versus Kant

another time I'd love to have that

debate

but right now we're talking about

idealism versus materialism and I've

explained to you what form actually is

form is not actually based in form which

means form has no essential reality that

means forms do not exist form is just

the affect whereupon the fundamental

material difference out of which arises

the reflection of matter back upon

itself is positioned across its

particular discontinuities in a way the

claim I said I just said there's a

logical parallel to kantian idealism not

that they're the same thing it's just a

logical parallel and kantian idealism

you're still dealing with eternal and

infinite forms in my case form is just

an affect of material difference okay so

they're not in any way the same thing

I'm not affirming cons transcendental

structure that posits the existential

reality of or the metaphysical reality

of forms or ideas I'm not fucking doing

that okay so

you need to actually engage with the

debate as it's developed so far you

haven't done that

you haven't actually explained what

gives the content its difference you've

just asserted that it's different is

what makes it what I I believe in the

ontological OR metaphysical Primacy of

difference

so that's idealism if you're asserting

metal it's not and the promises I'm

using metaphysics for purposes of

simplification I believe in the

ontological Primacy of difference yes

but that still doesn't give an account

for what makes what gives it its

difference

what gives what its difference the

content if you're if you're saying that

okay we have a substance content implies

difference already the word itself

implies difference

no it doesn't or yes it does no if you

are referring to it

Retard Retard you don't you don't know

retard

if you just claim only content exists

how how exactly is that a meaningful how

is that different from saying only form

exists what's the difference

power form and content defined separate

from one another

they imply the they imply the reality of

the other when you say content you're

saying something at the expense of form

otherwise there is no meaningful use of

the word content none

content just refers to the permanent

substance of reality which is no no I

reject that because if you claim that

content is referring to a permanent

substance that permanent substance it

begs the question

if it's going to be a consistent

permanent subject that you can speak

about you're giving it form that means

you believe in an eternal form of

reality and it's the same thing

it is a performance the Consciousness

that gives it its reality no it is the

same thing if you only look at Subs

content one-sidedly it's form if you

look at form one-sidedly it's content

it's the same exact thing there's no

difference actually I I take that back

if you look at only form you get form if

you look at only content you get form

the only way to arrive at content is at

the expense of form

the expensive form so without form you

arrive at content

no when you recognize that form is

either internally inconsistent

incomplete

or not actually

something that exists

existing is different from being I hope

you know that

then you can say

that this is the content of the thing

here's the form but this is the real key

to it this is the riddle solved this is

the essence of the matter that's what

the content means

the content is not the essence the four

yes it is yes it is this is a chair the

form is the chair the the content is the

substance of the chair which it shares

with all of the other hold on no if you

say there's a chair

and the form according to you is the

form of the chair the way it's shaped or

whatever the the mechanical whatever the

engineering that goes into a share and I

say okay then what is the content of a

chair you're referring to the

foundational basis out of which the form

is wrought like for example why is there

a chair well the content of a chair is

either the production the the means of

its production or the use the chair has

for why do we Define a chair as a chair

for example because we sit on it right

either way you are going not only beyond

the bounds of forms but at the content

of the form the basis

that's what it is you mean content in

terms of its practicality no it does ice

I only named that as one example of its

content another example of the content

of a chair or why do we Define chairs as

chairs is the means of its production

it means of its assembly the means of

its production the significance the

chair has of why it becomes an

intelligible thing to find apart from

the rest of reality

that is not reducible to its form if

it's not reducible to its form

it we're talking about its content

but that's still rooted in the human

subjectivity of the person you can cope

you can you can claim that you can claim

that it's a metaphysical claim yeah you

can cope about that but

how can you say that oh what is the

means of like the the means of

production you come to me you come to me

you come to me with a one-sided

definition of reality that's devoid of

human subjectivity and then you say oh

well look at human subjectivity is

involved in this oh it proves idealism

wait a second but my understanding of

material reality accounts for and

entails

something like subjectivity arising from

it

because in the materialist view the mind

is just brain it's just Madness

all the materials view entails is that

reality has to be real enough

and worthy enough to mind

what is the mind all it means is that

reality has to be real enough and worthy

enough to give rise to a mind

or to at least have a mind be a part of

it

or be compatible with its being be

compatible with its being

what is the account for the mind the

materialist worldview

it's just that it's brain the mind the

the okay the the the reality of the mind

says something about material being

that's what it means

you don't first say how does how do you

bury it you don't you don't you're

you're thinking in a reductionist way

you don't first say what um what can we

reduce the mind to you say if the mind

is something real or significant to us

that says something about material being

that's the only significance materialism

has it's not a reductionist or

metaphysical View

if it is it's not one shared by Marx and

Engels who explicitly Rejects

they reject reductionism and metaphysics

Google said that matter is everything so

the mind is just matter okay but you are

making an unjust just like my prior

debate opponent you are making the

unjustifiable assumption that matter is

some kind of substance

but matters flux it's motion and flux

that's what I think

yeah that that's a materialist Viewpoint

it's just everything's just in flux I do

believe everything's important it still

doesn't give an account for the

immaterial nature of the Mind

of being itself

what makes you think the mind or being

is not in flux it is

it's not it's not just motion and flux

there's an immaterial irreducible

quality to it that you can just the

problem is no all there is is a

contradiction and that contradiction

allows for states of being to arise out

of the Flux Of Being because the Flux Of

Being is nothing more than the flux

movement implies contradiction if

there's no contradiction there's no

movement so when you talk about a flux

you're already entailing an imminent

difference within the fabric of being

and that difference already implies that

out of the flux arises the identity of

the flux or the discrete being of the

flux the Oneness of the flux that

contradiction is what dialectical

materialism is about it has nothing it

has nothing to do with being unable to

account for minds or the intellect

it does because even how we describe

motion is still rooted

in how we view Consciousness and how

Consciousness gives rise to those things

that's the problem why why is why is

that necessary why is that a necessary

conclusion

because it's a

okay how does the physical sciences work

unless it's a mind that's perceiving the

phenomena I'm not talking about physical

sciences why does flux imply

the that that Consciousness creates

reality

because it implies it's just matter and

flux so why does that imply that it's

Consciousness that's creating reality

why can't there actually be matter in

flux as the actual pre-socratics

believed why do you have to have this

absurd view that it's a creation of

Consciousness or a projection of

consciousness

because they can't give account for we I

mean I agree that we can't describe it

without Consciousness but where do you

get to the view that

it owes its existence to consciousness

imminently

because you can't describe anything

outside of human consciousness okay the

inability to describe things outside of

the means of description

does not mean there are no things

outside of consciousness

so you're so you're saying that

if we can't describe reality without

describing it that means reality is

reducible to the description or the

means of the description

no I mean that is an incoherent

nonsensical claim we have to acknowledge

the Primacy of the way in which we are

even able to give descriptions of

reality why are why is that not itself

part of reality

why is that not imminent to reality as

an object why is that something apart

from reality

saying reality is saying listening

they're the transcendental forms of our

knowledge no that's a stupid cope and um

look that's an LGBT cope that's just

what it is okay

no that's Kant Kant and Marxism is

entirely LGBT fucking okay okay Ernest

wrong all right Earnest ROM well we they

didn't have that in the Soviet Union but

anyway

here's the thing

um what you're talking about is you're

saying reality itself

is not enough for reality

but if that all that implies is that an

imminent difference of not only an

imminent difference of reality with

regard to itself but any finite

projection of Reality by the intellect

not satisfying the being actual being I

think that gives more Credence to

materialism

why do you think Heidegger was a

continuation off of Khan because he's

talking he wasn't Heidegger rejects

can't

so he he affirms no he rejects him

phenomenology wouldn't be how do you

rejects phenomenology he listen you're

talking about uh Heidegger's

um

you're talking about uh

uh

being in time no uh who who the fuck am

I referring to I can't believe I forgot

him you're talking about her soul you're

talking about rehearsal

the Heidegger tooks a big big huge leap

from all of that Neo conti and shit I

mean even Herschel is not really a

neocontian but

Heidegger just completely takes an

Olympic leap sudden abrupt Dick's

continuity with all the neocontian

Origins

Heidegger sets on fire his neocontian

Origins completely it's the so-called

Marxist Western Marxist lukox which is

still a kantian Heidegger

thinks oh my God Kant gave us this

incredibly insane Marxism from Luke Cox

he must be burned not only him but Plato

not only khans but Descartes and then

even Plato

there needs to be a complete New

Beginning for all of thought

so no it's not materialism so I don't

know it's it's not maybe I actually I

actually will sit here and say Hydra is

a materialist I will he's not he he

rejects materialism plot out he rejects

all metaphysics and he cannot think he

does not acknowledge materialism Beyond

metaphysics granted but as far as what

Marx and Engel is meant by materialism

Heidegger is fulfilling

uh uh materialist thinking

uh in the 20th century yes

Heidegger is an ontological materialist

he is a materialist he's the first

materialist for the sphere of ontology

you should read his letters on humanism

because you're taking the basically song

I don't care what he's of course he

rejects humanism and so on and he

rejects this idea that oh it's just

about human uh okay Humanity dude

you don't understand jumping you're

jumping all over the place you're

jumping all over the place I know you

see these historical figures as action

figures on different teams and you're

trying to make it seem like I'm implying

Heidegger's a Marxist and therefore a

humanist Marxist what you're trying to

do and it doesn't work it just looks

fucking

you want to stop crying you're like

you're like you're in passion rage like

you're coping so hard dude because you

just got fucking destroyed because you

don't know you your nasal voice

you are you something in your nose or

something

listen you're trying you're trying to

make these historical figures action

figures and make it seem like I'm trying

to claim Heidegger as a Marxist I'm not

saying he's a fucking Marxist he said

he's the first Marxist in this in the

realm of ontology

you want you wanna okay while you had

shit stuffed up your nose and you have

some shit in your ass you have a stick

in your ass it seems like you couldn't

hear me correctly call him a materialist

not a Marxist

I never once called him a Marxist

he's not a materialist either I do think

his leap was a material asleep

away from the neocontianism

which ultimately culminates in um either

you know uh

some sh like Carl popper bullshit or Lou

Cox I mean yes he founds what we call

Continental philosophy

and Continental philosophy distinguishes

itself from the so-called Anglo-Saxon

analytical school because it rejects it

no because it rejects The View that

axioms and propositions of logic and

thought

are the only manner by which reality is

accessible to thought and they reject

this View and they reject the most

advanced form of idealism which is the

analytical retardation it literally has

zero to do with materialism at all yes

it does because because because what in

fact empiricists are the materialists

that's what Mark tried to do no bullshit

method of dialectics and then he took

British things of this like capital I

know how it works I've never read marks

I've never read remarks explicitly

rejects that view explicitly rejects

that soy science like we're gonna take

this Anglo like science and mix it with

like hegel's like method

um hey do you hey hey I have some

Farmland that needs come on I have some

Farmland that needs like fertilizer

because I know you're just digging in

your ass and getting random shit you're

pulling out of your ass can you at least

get some shit to fertilize my land

please because my crops need some more

shit from your ass to pull out I mean

you've never read a fucking word of Marx

Marx explicitly rejects one-sided

materialism and the Imperial he

literally calls empiricism a collection

of dead facts he rejects this few he

writes he even rejects the so-called

materialism of Spinoza Which is far more

sophisticated than the English kind he

ex thoroughly and unambiguously rejects

all hitherto forms of materialism and he

writes this in something as simple as

the thesis on foyerbach where he claims

thus far materialism has never afforded

consideration to the active side of

humanity it has always dealt with

reality in a one-sided mechanical or

metaphysical way

so calling it soy science calling it soy

science betrays such a retarded

ignorance a basic ignorance of the thing

you are so passionately trying to talk

about and exude knowledge of did he not

say that socialism is scientific that it

must be scientific what is okay all

science all science implies

is a form or a system of knowledge what

is what is wrong with that

oh it's uh it doesn't just imply that

yes it does it actually just implies

that yes

okay understand physics

just the most bullshit this is what

Heidegger was exactly against this

reduction of human humanity and being to

this technological give me one passage

from Karl Marx that proves he's a

reductionist just one

and he thinks that the entire no an

actual passage from Karl Marx himself

not you from your ass from Carl Marx

himself does he not talk about the bass

and the superstructure and not the base

give me one passage from Karl Marx

himself that can definitively ground him

as a reductionist one fucking passage

one passage just one

address the ideas that are mentioned not

some like no I am not I don't give a

fuck about your ignorance of reality and

your stupid prejudices and impressions

of things I want evidence this is coming

from Marx and not from your own ass or

your dumb Discord friend retard larpers

where does he say based on

superstructure is that what you're

asking

the manner by which Marx even talks

about base and superstructure excludes

the possibility of any reductionism so I

don't even think you want to go there so

please find me where he talks about any

reductionism

I don't read Marx's primary sources I

just read secondary sources he's not I

can tell I can tell I can actually tell

yeah but I can still understand the

ideas and the fact oh you can't you can

know nothing and say nothing about Mark

you can know nothing and say nothing of

Marx in a way that is not clouded by the

Prejudice of his opponents that is not

an objective or mature to me where he

did not talk where he did not talk about

the base of super structure

a thesis on foyerbach where he

explicitly rejects a one-sided

reductionist materialism

Ace and superstructure is not

necessarily one-sided hey talking about

a base and super okay how is a base in

superstructure

inherently reductionist

because it tries to premise the entire

culture and everything that is like

fundamental about culture and a people

and country is just rooted in there in

the relations of economic production

sure I'll um

I will uh

what if there's a quote by Frederick

Engels

which

very explicitly and unambiguously claims

Marx and I never implied this all we did

was say

no one before gave this fear of the

relations of production consideration we

wanted to give it consideration Beyond

this we have never said a thing and he

says this explicitly

okay let's find it and Morlock if you

know what I'm talking about or someone

in the chat if you want to I'm gonna

have to use Google you guys already have

the letter just link it so we can save

time

um

okay here it is first result

um here here okay here's one of them

right

um according to the materialist

conception of History the ultimate

determining element in history is the

production and reproduction of real life

other than this neither Marx nor I have

ever asserted hence if someone had

twists this into saying that the

economic element is the only determining

one he transforms that proposition into

a meaningless abstract senseless phrase

the economic situation is the basis but

the various elements of the

superstructure political form of the

class struggle and its results to it

constitutions established by the

Victorious class after a successful

battle judicial forms and even reflexes

of the actual struggles in the brains of

the participants political jurisdict

philosophical theories religious views

and the further development of systems

of dogmas also exercise their influence

upon the course of historical struggles

and in many cases preponderate in

determining their form

there is an interaction of all of these

elements and which amid the endless host

of accidents

the economic movement finally asserts

itself as necessary otherwise the

application of the theory to any period

of History would be an easier solution

of the simple equation of the first

degree

and then there's more I'll just read you

the end point Marx and I are partially

to blame for the fact that younger

people sometimes lay more stress on the

economic side than is due to it we had

to emphasize the main principle with

regard to our adversaries who denied it

and we didn't always have the time the

place or the opportunity to give their

due to the other elements involved in

the interaction

um

there you go so that is I don't see how

you can worm your way into the claim

that this implies any reductionism

when he explicitly talks about an

interaction of all of the elements

he still says that political the

political is just uh the extension of

the class struggle

he's still saying that it's based off of

production of real life all he says is

the production and reproduction of real

life

yeah that's the that's the whole

Paradigm so you're the one who's

reducing real life you're the one who's

reducing real life to just economics

not angles not Marx so he is by saying

that's production

the production and reproduction of real

life doesn't just fucking entail the

production of things it entails the

production of every aspect of humanity

the re production and reproduction of

real life

is what he said it doesn't account for

being

that's the it just says production not

the actual being production and

reproduction yes that's being

that's not being yes it is yes it is

being is the way people constitute

themselves and they reproduce them I

mean that is what being is yes

I mean even Heidegger uses the example

of like the fucking peasant in the black

forest or whatever that is a form of

reproducing oneself amidst the elements

of nature

that for Heidegger is a form of docile

they still have to dwell that's that's

an inauthentic mode of dials on if they

they have to dwell no no according to

Heidegger there's that's an authentic

form actually it's a peasant in the

Black Forest you think Heidegger would

use that example to illustrate

inauthenticity no you're just not

familiar with it I would say the marks

you'd say that marxists are uh because

all the only marxists Heidegger ever

dealt with were Lou Cox who was a

neocontian and not a real fucking

Marxist

he said that marxists were the same like

darkening of the world darkening of

spirit yeah because he's dealing with

Western Marxist there's no actual

interrogation

which other conservative revolutionaries

did

um later during the Cold War but there's

no real assessment of like what's going

on with stalinism what's going on with

maoism he doesn't ever deal with this

right you at least younger and Schmidt

kind of try to understand this and this

with the theory of the parties and all

this stuff they give the same critique

no they don't they don't actually no

they don't no they don't for example for

Carl Smith for Carl Smith

they don't even have a concept of

political because to them everything is

just economic well that's not true

because Carl Schmidt and his theory of

the partisan is assessing the phenomena

of maoism and even Lenin's uh Revolution

and he very clearly sees these are

demotic these are the opposite of The

Stereotype this is something deeply

Earthly and embedded in Rural Life

whereas for Heidegger he's only dealing

with the urban abstract kind of

contrived modernistic mechanical Marxism

of Lou Cox which is inauthentic and

divorced from the soil of the people

when you look at Carl Schmidt and how

he's describing Marxist gorillas in the

20th century it's the exact opposite

these are people who are to quote Mao

swimming

like fish in the sea of the people

they're from the soil of the people

not not because of their Marxism

that's a cope though that means I agree

Schmidt may have not appreciated that

fact because he didn't understand

Marxism not claiming he did I'm the one

who's making the connection of ha

there's a reason why all these marxists

you know we're there's a reason why that

was Marxism you know you know like the

thing you know the thing that gave

Marxism relevance wasn't Lou you know

Lou Cox the only reason he was ever

significant was because like

he was like trying to take credit for

real Marxism which was the Soviet Union

and China shit you know that's what

actually made Marxism real right not

theorists in the Frankfurt School or in

fucking Western universities but you

know the real thing like the real thing

like 25 of people were living under at

one point like the real one that's what

Marxism it's the only reason anyone

talks about it so if you want to say

it's not real Marxism

um I don't know we're talking about then

because what are we talking about that's

what Marxism how come Mark said that the

that socialism would first arrive in the

most um

the most industrialized and most uh like

why did mocks and Engels claim that

there's no hope okay are people not

allowed to change their mind because

about like 40 years later they said

there's no hope for the English

proletariat they're they're they're cons

they're bought out they're bribed and

that Russia shows more promise for where

the revolution is going to start and

both Marx

Marx and Engels both believed the

revolution would start in Russia toward

the end of their life

because their whole premise is that oh

we have a scientific uh theory that can

make predictions about how how like

history is going to develop and then all

their predictions just turned out to be

flat wrong did you know what first of

all two things you're wrong about

one is the claim that they have a

positivistic view of science they don't

the second claim is that did you not

hear me they were right that the

revolution would start in Russia because

it fucking did

that their prediction was correct it did

start in Russia

because it was already and you talk

about predictions Marx predicted the

long depression

angles predicted World War One and the

Russian Revolution

these are all predictions that came true

Marx and Engels didn't think there was

going to be a fucking Revolution in

England by the end of their life they

didn't think one was going to happen in

Germany either they weren't stupid they

had a very realistic appraisal of the

world they were living in capitalism

that the whole point was that capitalism

would come into a contradiction in

itself and would bring about socialism I

think it has and I think and I think it

has and I and I didn't arise both me

both me and both me and the Defenders of

capitalism agree they were right about

that

because the Defenders of capitalism say

we're not living in real capitalism

anymore because we don't have the gold

standard and we have the Federal Reserve

and we have Central planning

but I agree with them we don't live in

capitalism anymore that's not the

premise of capitalism

I think the premise of capitalism gold

standard equals capitalism that's like

your equation remarks kind of it is yeah

there needs to be commodity money

because the universal equivalent the

universal equivalent has to be measured

in terms of uh labor right

that's gold right well if it's not gold

what is it it's nothing it's just what

paper Fiat

it doesn't the numbers don't add up

we're not living in the capitalism marks

described we're not

this is your great uh socialism that

we're living under great system nope

it's a it's a historical era in crisis

and in transition and the superstructure

has not caught up to the base

you're accepting that this is a positive

development fiat currency and I mean

it's not it's neither positive it's

neither positive nor negative

it's the reality we're dealing with and

uh the state is a leftover from a

previous historical era just like the

aristocracies that rule us are from

dynastic Bloodlines and families that

have long

that's not based on any active

production of anything new it's just old

money ultimately that rules us right now

there's no such thing as new money it's

a fucking myth so

in terms of who's in power you know so

yeah we're dealing with a necrotic

system

a superstructure a necrotic rotting

superstructure that's Unworthy of the

material basis

uh that is socialism

that still doesn't explain how that

relates to Marx's predictions of how

well Engels use this okay okay well

angles

use the stock market as an example of

what he called the invading socialism

um

and is and a socialism invading from the

future

so I think they were just not only did

they predict it in somehow in the future

but they were describing what was

actually happening correctly

they were correctly describing what was

actually happening and the time that

they were living

how does that relate to socialism

I'll have angles described for you in

the trusts free competition changes into

Monopoly and the planless motion of

production of capitalist Society

capitulates before the planned

production of the invading socialist

society

that's what Engels thought

he says that's the essence of socialism

that is just planned planned capitalism

it sounds like you're unable to

interpret and read things correctly

when you talk about it okay you know

what when you talk when you talk about

the essence of a word

kind of like talking about a metaphysics

which angles

makes clear himself he rejects this view

that words have Essences and what do you

mean the essence of socialism the

essence of socialism can only be

described

in its particular senses and uses of the

word socialism there's no Universal

essence of socialism it's an absurdity

so socialism you can just keep adapting

the definition until it fits what you

want it to be no until it actually

describes until it until it describes

the reality of socialism which is the

object of consideration

okay well well you know what

we're not living in the mode of

production that Marx and Engels

described and saw a change this is

something else you don't want to call it

social and call whatever the fuck you

want it's not what we lived in before I

call it socialism because it's just

simple right but if you're gonna say wow

nah I don't care right call it what you

want it doesn't you don't even have to

call capitalism capitalism call

capitalism an elephant if you want but

at some point we have to be clear about

what we mean by the words we're using

and what we communicate and all I mean

by socialism

is you know not only it's not only I

mean where does Engel say it's only it's

such like a poor interpretation of

literature this means it's the essence

of socialism is just planning no it's an

example of

the changes in the productive forces

some of which include things like the

falling rate of profit and the breakdown

of the current capitalist crisis that

Marx describes there's all sorts of ways

in which capitalism collapses and

socialism emerges into basically I mean

all social means is the socialization of

the productive forces

that does imply planning but it also

implies that the productive forces are

no longer given to the Anarchy of

production

so

the profit is still in command and that

that I would say is the basis of

capitalism profit is not a profit profit

profit right now is not in command

it is nope

it's in command only of the state and of

politics not of the motor production

it is of the motor production because

you saw no problem no if you want to if

you if you ask me Haas what is if you

ask me something like Haas what commands

the current mode of production I'd

probably say something like information

I would I really wouldn't say profit I'd

be like information probably information

what what does that have to do with the

mode of production at all

what drives a business forward

the ability to a cure profit then why

did Amazon operate at a loss for 20

fucking years

because they were able to

and what does profit mean when it's just

printed what's the linchpin of the whole

fucking thing

okay I don't think you know how actual

like printed how the Federal Reserve

works but how does it work man how does

it work tell me how it works

they still need to take money from the

the uh the labor that they accumulate

from taxes that can pay off the debt

that they print from the money

yeah it's almost like we're like 20

trillion dollars in debt you know it's

like yeah it's almost like we are

experiencing runaway inflation at the

first stages and it's almost like the

FED is Raising interest rates and it's

not gonna solve the problem and then

they'd be crazy if that happened right

now they'll just take more taxes that's

that's the so you have you believe in

mmt and you believe like a tax theory of

value or like

so okay so where do the tax revenue come

from where does that come from

it comes from the productive

the the forces of production and what

drives those forces are what drives the

forces of production

there needs to be something produced and

what drives what drives the thing being

produced

you could say it's labor in the

Socialist sense but it's actually like

information it's probably information

that drives production yeah yeah and

Enterprise is going to be more Guided by

the information of sales than the profit

margin if you have incredible sales and

you have incredible interest and it even

forget about sales if you have a lot of

attention directed toward whatever the

fuck you're doing just attention right

just any kind of quantifiable indicator

of data that people are using the thing

you're using or they have their eyes on

it or somehow you've captured their

attention that is a more primary form of

capital than money is

so because information can't keep your

company afloat profit being able to yes

it can it can for a very long time

profit profit margins don't matter

because profit margins are based in um

government credited like it means

nothing it's profit margins are an

illusion they don't actually

um

they don't actually prove like any like

Direct

real material profit or efficiency they

just prove it's just like an index of

are you technically in debt right now or

not and most of the time

no no no you can you can you can grow

you can grow very rapidly without having

huge profit margins I mean most of the

growth most industrial growth today is

not proportionate to profit margins it's

proportionate to credit and investment

yeah the investment is capital they

invest Capital to occur more wealth

that's what capital is but they don't

actually get they don't actually get

wealth

it's the creation of money from money

but they don't get the material wealth

it's not Material wealth it's just money

from money from money it's just not at

some point it's just numbers

yeah it's based on usury which is still

like based the ultimate basis

information precedes profit in terms of

that yeah I know I get what you're

saying but even the most uterus

institutions of our society like

BlackRock are all based on information

they're not

I can take an oil company for example

when they extract the oil and they sell

the oil they're not basing that off of

like the information yes they are

they're they're basing that off of

information that tells them what the

market price of oil should be for

example the energy is the information

no demand is the information

oh it's supply and demand which is

indicated by Price which is why you have

money as that is but it's not it's not

it's not the price is just a form of

information it's not based on profit

margins when oil creates infinite

fucking money

it's still based on the on the laws of

supply and demand which is still rooted

dude the thing that drives our current

motor production is information

you need information would drive any

system that's not unique to Capital it

is unique to capitalism I mean sorry it

is unique to our current mode of

production because our current mode of

production

um is almost completely socialized and

the last thing that's kind of been

it made economic

is information to the lack thereof

I'm just gonna have to disagree with

that yeah let's say we lived in a fully

planned socialist society

there's still an information it problem

right you don't know everything

you don't know what people want even if

production is just based on use value

information will still be economized

yeah which means information is needed

in every system included it means no

but when information becomes the driving

force of society over profit that means

your mode of production has become

socialized

because profit has no regard for

information actually profit is just like

by itself

Profit just means more that you stood

more than you started out with right and

that's the basis of the economy

yeah and information can't that's the

whole point information can't produce

but information is and for when

information becomes it's an indicator it

just no it's not information

information is what drives production

forward because even when productions

for use value

information is still economizable

there's still competition for you know

and there's still going to be an

attention Economy based on what should

be produced for example that will be

differentiated on the basis of different

signals information signals

um whereas in a pure capital in a

capitalist mode of production purely

capitalist right at least

profit has no regard for information

it's like

just based on profit that's it

that's what drives production forward

money for money's sake because it has to

you have to find something that can that

you can acquire profit from which is the

information of supply and demand

recognizing what are the needs of them

yeah but supply and demand is not itself

in the driver's seat the information of

supply and demands not in the driver's

seat ultimately supply and demand is

about money

it's about making more money than you

started out with

that's not the basis of supply and

demand at all supply and demand there

yes it is because in capitalism

my the supply and the demand of the

market is ultimately all anchored around

making more money

from initial capital and the price of

goods is all going to be

captured within that Paradigm that

system

like like

like that's what's regulating the whole

thing is the drive for profit that's

capital is driving it the whole thing

ask him if he'd be a successful driver

if he didn't know where people would

need rights when at scale this is

economics

of supply and demand is price that is

where price comes from it

listen that's that's doesn't explain

where price comes from it's like

tautological okay but anyway Wikipedia

articles

well I don't care about Wikipedia

but

um

supply and demand

in capitalism

is about profit it's about the

profitability of these various different

commodities

I mean you could talk about a consumer

economy which is just based on use value

but that's not necessarily

like relevant

or the reproduction of capital

like supply and demand is only relevant

within capitalism really

from the vantage point of the capitalist

yeah but if if in your if in your

Viewpoint it's all just based off of

printing more money why does information

even need to matter if they can just

print more money because because there's

not because they can't take for granted

what it is that

needs to be produced

there needs to be information about that

that information comes from supply and

demand no it not it didn't it does not

necessarily know

where are they getting that information

from do you think it doesn't come from

it doesn't come from do you think the

government is sending polls out oh well

you just fucking said it dude when

demand when when Supply is not

some essential underlying factor it's

like just demand you can print as many

as you want and we have like infinite

oil to power whatever we have so yeah

it's really just demand at that point oh

there's always a finite Supply

not not really no

there isn't always a finite Supply no

the supply is always expanding and

growing it's all it's in flux the whole

system's in flux uh production's always

in flux

it's still a finite number of things

that can be produced but in an economy

listen in an economy where derivatives

are like 90 of the fucking hole

fucking GDP of the world which is about

anticipation of the few you you're

talking about finite this it means

nothing okay

it means nothing

you name a given argument

derivatives and Futures which

are dealing with things that don't even

exist yet

and Investments the degree of financial

abstraction and an investment that goes

into like how does a company get an

investment or whatever it has nothing to

do with

if the state of the supply they have now

it's a projection into the future

So when you say that prices are based

you see that prices are based on an

intersection of supply and demand it's

kind of fucking stupid because

Supply is just too much in a state of

flux

to ever be the point at which

um

prices are determined

Supply is actually more steady than

demand if anything demand is what is in

constant flux

no you're just wrong literally makes

zero sense you're just wrong

and you still acknowledge that it's

based off of this fundamental axis of

supply and demand which is still no it's

it's really not it's really not it's

really it's really it's really fucking

nice I haven't overcome capitalism we're

still in capitalism okay two things

socialism is is just a fact shut up shut

up two things before you fucking uh get

excited about the dumb shit you just

said

one no you're wrong about that no right

two even if you were right that implies

capitalism is defined by supply and

demand and it's not but what I'm

actually trying to say here is that if

it was just based on supply and demand

then it would be based on the

consideration of the finite things that

already exist but in an economy where

most of the GDP is like Futures and

derivatives

that's an absurdity

it's not based on supply and demand

actually when it's about the end when

it's about credit that is with the

intention of creating more Supply and so

on like there's a fundamental more

primary driving force that is

responsible for the amount of Supply we

have like for example

how much units of PS5 should we produce

right that is not based on

supply and demand necessarily

that's also based if you're like an up

and coming company that's based in the

Demand right like how many people would

want this PS5 how many should how much

what is the how how popular is it all

this kind of things and then from there

you know you can talk about production

the supply from there they would

increase the supply it's still in that

supply and demand access no it's not

you're not listening to what I'm fucking

saying you're not listening to what I'm

fucking saying yourself into your own no

no Supply supply and demand is about how

prices are just defined neutrally

by the intersection of how many things

there are and how much of a demand there

is right but we are talking about the

more fundamental and primary process by

which the supply of things is produced

which is based on information it's not

based on the just on the intersection of

supply and demand

it's based on information

of what of demand

not necessarily even just demand

and what else information about for

example

um

the pro the uh sorry the prior

performance of the thing or whatever

information about future projected

whatever information about

how many people are projecting this

future that's probably the most

important thing

no information no no hold on this is the

problem information about how many

people think this is going to be

demanded is not the same thing as demand

you've said demand in three different

ways demand of no information about what

people information about what people

expect or hype into existence that this

is going to be popular is not the same

as demand now that that um speculation

may be based on some data or information

about the demand but that is not what

actually drives production forward

it is what drives production forward is

no it drives production forward is a

derivatives

uh is uh information in the form of

derivatives not in the form of like just

raw data inputs

derivatives of one

do you not know what derivatives are or

do we have to go down that one

so I understand what derivatives are but

you're saying that that relates to

information yeah it does because the

derivatives show how many people expect

um not that this is going to be

profitable but that people are going to

expect it to be profitable

okay but that's still based off of what

is no it's not it's based on something

it's based on something that's really

not concrete or tangible at all

either in the form of demand or Supply

what do you think is more accurate

someone that that premises it off of

okay let me explain this to you let me

explain this to you let me explain this

to you Saudi Arabia

builds a fucking City in the desert like

400 trillion dollars whatever what is

that based on

that's not based on uh is that based on

supply and demand did Saudi Arabia be

like yeah we're gonna Design This like

thing based on the fucking demand for

cities in the fucking really different

that's a state that's a autonomous thing

that's not that's what's driving most

production right now things like that

most new production is being driven like

that like Tesla and that's the new kind

of production that's happening

but they still anticipate that that's

like an investment that they believe

that's gonna that the demand why well

why why what

you know what it's it's just a stupid

thing you're bringing up because supply

and demand is just taught The Logical it

doesn't tell us about the underlying

things

defining those so

holy fuck I mean like what a stupid

Rabbit Hole you decide to go down on

you decided to bring it here you

literally brought the comments oh we're

fuck all I'm fucking saying

is that capitalism isn't actually just

based on supply and demand wow

okay let me ask you a question is Soviet

socialism based on supply and demand

ah yes it is because in order to

calculate how many things to produce you

have to take into account the demand for

it and the supply of resources you have

that's supply and demand

no but they're not doing it based off of

natural forces of a market they're doing

it based off of this pre-planned Korean

doesn't mean well they're doing it Based

on data about demand and data about

Supply no because data of supply and

demand is not in this like in this very

concrete way that you think we can like

gather the data it's based off of

natural forces natural forces in the

market you know then look in the 20th

century where everything's fucking

monopolized and oligopolize and

everything's like hedge funds control

with even fucking esgs and shit that's a

natural market to you really we have

that

but that doesn't discount this the still

it does Discount it because it's just

different forms of data and information

it says nothing about a fucking motor

production

there's still private companies that's

that's the Paradigm what makes them

private what makes them private

that they're privately owned by

individuals no they're not none of them

are

then what are they what are they then

they're usually publicly traded

companies even when they're privately

traded

they still have still denominated in

shares if it's a fucking Corporation it

has to be individuals that own shares of

the company that's still the same thing

it's not publicly owned no and do you

know what it means for a company to be

do you know what it means for a company

to be incorporated it means it's a

non-individual form of ownership

if it's Incorporated

an individual can be the chief executive

officer and all that shit but ultimately

individuals don't really especially you

want to you even even if on the books

they formally own it they don't own it

in any real sense because of how

embedded is it is within regulations

and the extent to which

like they have to do things beyond their

will like that is not

real private property dude it's not it's

still owned by shareholders

who are they're not of the state they're

not it's not publicly owned they're