Everything You Know About Marx Is Wrong

[Music]

i am

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

i am

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

me

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

yes

[Music]

me

[Music]

[Music]

hey

what's up everybody

we're gonna do a debate actually right

off the bat we're just gonna fucking get

into this debate

and my hair is kind of fucked up

got some dry ass hair

to start this shit off

motherfucker

motherfucker

shit is dry as hell shit is in my eyes

shit is in the sky shit is not knowing

why

shit don't lie

what the fuck is up everybody we got

some oranges in the chat because i'm

being orange as hell today i'm red as

hell i'm mr krabs today and we're gonna

be hunting for some squidward tanticals

you understand we're gonna be debating

squidward we'll be debating squidward

tentacles

we're ready on this bitch because i'm mr

krabs what up gopher thank you so much

tonight gorilla go for right here we

straight soldiering out in this bitch

red like mr krabs

gonna take on that motherfucking blue

squidward

blue as hell

squidward blue as hell

he's blue as hell

all right i got the stream yard link

and should we just hop right into it i

mean i don't

i ain't got much else to say

the washington post reporters watching

me right now hey bitch what up

ugly ass bitch

ugly ass

goddamn

journalist y'all even y'all paul mason

y'all can collaborate bring me down

you're a fuck bitch you can't do shit

bitch ass journalist

that's what i got to say

think i give a fuck about that bullshit

you work for a fucking washington post i

wipe my fucking ass with that washington

post washington post on my ass wipe it

all off on the toilet paper

charmin extra strong

that's what i got to say about your

level of talent

look at that

look at that

look at they don't got this

they don't got this on the left you

understand look at this

look at this

they ain't got that

okay let me blow my nose give me a

second

all right

all right

damn

so i just want to give you guys a

reminder

uh i'm not going to have me streaming

tomorrow

because it's going to be father's day so

there's gonna be no stream tomorrow okay

no stream tomorrow because of father's

day so i want you all to know that

understand that

i'll be clear about that i'm gonna be

with my family tomorrow usually i'm with

family on saturdays

but uh

you know it's gonna be sunday this time

around because it's father's day okay so

there's an occasion family's coming

together and

doing shit you understand ooh we got a

we got a green in the chat like my shirt

green like my shirt

based

do you see jimmy any glenn on tucker

also jank weaker smearing jimmy glenn

and brianna joy agrees fake left

jank is a fat fuck and i hope that guy

can go fuck himself

as soon as possible

jank is a fat fucking loser bitch all

his fucking

they're all feds all these people on

twitter they you know these bernie

people on twitter they're all feds

they're all sellouts scum pieces of shit

and they're always going after jimmy

dora me jackson and others they're the

scum of the year like that fucking guy i

want you guys to type in twitter at the

wasting times biggest fed on twitter the

wasting times he's got a lego profile

picture

and his name is ogo the wasting times

that little bitch

is one of the most subs that's that's

all bernie's people that's all from his

campaign and from his movement it's a

dnc version where they co-opted bernie

shit and they implanted these deep state

uh you know progressives

to hijack the whole thing

dude's a fucking creep creepy creepy

fuck

but that's okay because we got info on

that person we got info on

okay i'm gonna join uh zoltanius's shit

so

just to give you a recap

sultanius made an 80 minute video thank

you that as a lebanese american what is

mia khalifa's reputation

community also is it true some lebanese

call themselves descendants of the roman

empire

we don't know who that is we ain't got

nothing to do we don't say shit about

that because we ain't got nothing to do

with that okay second of all

um no for real for real lebanese people

do not sit around and talk about famous

lebanese people they're like you talk

about your relatives talk about your

cousin or some shit no one's gonna

nobody cares just because they're

lebanese right

and then i'm sure some are descended

from those romans

you know probably some of them

but uh probably not a whole lot you know

because after all we are indigenous

omniscient afro-asiatic

mediterranean males right and i'm

probably persian i'm half persian and

half phoenician probably all right

we're doing this bullshit so i gotta

disable my video

and you know what i'm just gonna keep

the video actually

and i'll just do this

i'll just uh enable

the virtual cam

right

we'll do uh streamlabs virtual cam

oh we can't

can we

no i don't work it don't work all right

that's okay

deactivate

uh we just do the this one

okay we're gonna do this

and then i'm gonna take this

ah okay we're gonna put this here

where the fuck is this

where the fuck is this here it is

take this

yeah this one

is

we'll just leave it like this for now

all right so some background guys

give me a second my throat

i just ate some spicy ass food

anyway um this dude made an 80 minute

video calling me a liar saying i was

being dishonest so we're gonna sort out

and see uh

what exactly was dishonest about what i

said so let's enter the studio

yeah so

the others um what is here there's

obviously here guys oh okay

get everybody here

all right cool

i guess we're just going to wait

we want to do most attack talking

no i mean you can start off i'll butt in

later

i mean i don't know what to start with

so

is it is he muted or is he just not

talking

i don't know

oh he's there hello

yeah we can hear you hello

all right so basically here's my

business here so let me just uh before

we get into every single thing point by

point i want to focus on the main thing

of your video

so the thing that i took a special

notice of from your video is that you

know if you want to disagree with me or

try to push back on my ideas you know

that in itself i don't really think is

bad or uh

you know necessarily dishonest or snaky

or whatever that's fine you know it's a

free country but

you also said that i'm a liar and you

said that i'm hiding my real views to

disguise some satanism so that's really

what i want to revolve this wrong what

exactly have i been dishonest about and

what did i lie about go ahead

i think it's very obvious that you're

just adopting

right-wing views and trying to use it as

a form of opportunism to castrate any

actual right-wing views or right-wing

movements and then frame them into

marxist leninism and then once you get

like these idiots and marxist marxist

leninism they can then push them down

the rabbit hole of leftism which i've

seen people in your telegram chat before

say they don't agree if everything

you're saying is consider it good

propaganda so it's obviously just a way

to get people in there and brainwash

them into your cult so you don't think

i'm genuine about my own views

no i see no difference between people

like you and vosh

okay so i'm not genuine about my own

views no you're okay so that's a good

place to start so you characterized my

views as right wing can you identify

what is actually right-wing about my

views

well i would say elements of things that

you're trying to adopt that are

right-wing into their what i would say

is like the conservative views

you want to appeal to the american right

you said that the revolution before is

not going to come from the left

so you're trying to bring in these

right-wing people and then funnel them

into your ideology you're trying to

misdirect where they're actually going

to the left but i also said right-wing

people and apolitical people which are

suggesting to me that a lot of

right-wing people are not in it for the

ideology like you because they read some

books and are committed to a doctrine

because they're speaking from their

intuitions and their common sense so

again i'm going to ask you the question

what about my views specifically are

actually right-wing

well if we're talking like right wing i

would say that

you're not particularly anti-religious

though you are yourself

an atheist correct

so would you characterize the communist

party of the russian federation in

addition to virtually almost every

communist party that exists in the

middle east and latin america as

right-wing because they're also not

anti-religious

uh well if we're talking about like say

the soviet union

uh when they brought back the church

under stalin i would not say that it was

right wing because that was it was

reflectant of the defunct national

church idea within nazi germany they

were subverting actual christian

doctrine and islamic vacation within

marxism is considered by a lot of

traditional school sufis to be like one

of the biggest subversions of islamic

thought which sufi schools uh in

particular

gunanism

guananism is not a school of sufism

gwanon is a second hand

a western adopter of some sufi ideas but

i'm not familiar with guinon

representing any uh school of sufism

within traditional islam

uh

i mean as far as like i've interacted

with like traditional school people that

they said they consider him a sufi so

yeah he adopted sufi ideas but he was

not actually formally part

or i should clarify he didn't actually

found any real sufi school of thought

that's traditional it's a very modern

heterodox

approach but we're kind of veering off

and rambling a little bit so i asked you

if the communist party of the russian

federation which is the second largest

party that exists within the russian

federation today is anti-religious you

responded to me by saying that you don't

think stalin's

nearly you know half a century ago

revival of the orthodox church

uh was particularly uh

religious but you know we can get into

the argument about that but it's not

even what i asked you but if we're

talking about like modern like communism

no i don't really think it particularly

is within russia like i know like people

like dugan refer to that as like

national communisms that are basically

trying to implement uh

messianic traditions and

other contradicting things of marxism in

there is more of a geopolitical aim to

undermine the united states but it's

more like a hollow traditionalism okay

does does zyuganov and the actual

theorists of the communist party

characterize

their ideology as national communist

no dugan says they reckon themselves as

being orthodox marxists but they're

really not

okay well that's what that's your

opinion right so that's the communist

party of the russian federation what

about the communist parties within the

middle east the communist party in

lebanon in iraq in syria

um what about in latin america what

about the various you know socialist and

communist parties there what about the

ruling party in venezuela so all of

these people are not

um anti-religious but they are

considered within their respective

countries to be on the left so i'm just

trying to understand why are you getting

this idea that

not being anti-religious is inherently

right-wing

well

i would say

people who aren't religious themselves

are falling in with like in humanist

tradition so they're veering off and to

the left but they're trying to cater to

religion which is given the veneer of uh

cultural conservatism okay so are you

trying to say that western kind of

liberal irreligious kind of nihilistic

type of people those are humanists and

those are atheists in the same sense

that marxist leninists historically were

atheists

yeah there's no difference between any

of that beautiful okay that's where we

can begin so in your mind western um

nihilistic hedonism which is just

irreligious

is the same thing as the communist

attitude toward religion in the past

which was not actually based on

rejecting the belief in anything and you

know resigning to oneself to some kind

of you know nihilistic view of the world

where it's just consumerism and nothing

matters and you go with the flow

you know they actually had a as dugan

himself put it in one of his own works

um one on actually one of his articles

that marxism was actually a subversion

of temporality in modernity because it

proposed an eschatological and

teleological view of time within

modernity that oriented it with purpose

so in dugan's own view

and he's reciting guinan himself

the communist atheism has nothing to do

with the atheist nihilism of the modern

west because communism was actually

purpose oriented and it was teleological

and it was the number one contradiction

and dugan called it the most subversive

language

uh within

the language of modernity that's dugan's

own words ad verbatim

um i'm solo

i mean yeah i would just say like

we all come from like a sort of

christian background here all of us here

so the idea that like if someone

replaces christianity with something

else be a belief in some sort of

historical or dialectical materialism or

in any sort of belief or a lack of

belief in god which is which translates

into some sort of like materialism as in

materialism in the sense like oh i want

like items i want you to consumerism if

you will i mean like for all of us it's

all like the same thing for us the way

that we view it

okay it's so like different with them

yeah but

first of all it's not the same in

dubin's view and second of all that

assumes that marxism is replacing

christianity which is actually not right

marxism is specifically focusing on the

world in a particular way that the

church no i would say that that not

necessarily um is a if you take

christianity seriously if you take like

the sort of resurrection of jesus and

the death of jesus and what he did while

you know dead on the cross if you take

those things seriously and if you also

take uh what mark said seriously then

there's a contradiction between those

yeah i think why are you very confident

um because with like christianity

christianity the way properly viewed

christianity is like the story of

stories in the sense that there is

supposed to be no other um narratives or

any other thing that you're supposed to

believe in but if you believe in like

the sort of teleology of marx you sort

of have to put uh the christian

teleology aside and sort of just have a

belief in the um

in this world instead of like an

afterlife or anything like that

so

you would just character okay so you

don't believe in anything but

christianity then it's only ju it's only

christianity

for me everything is within the

christian lens

okay so that's that's nothing burger

because i asked you do you believe in

something beyond christianity and i

already know what the answer is yes you

believe in third position you believe in

the third way don't you

yeah but that's an offshoot of my

christianity more than well in the same

way communists within russia and latin

america and the middle east will also

say that their communism is an offshoot

of their religious beliefs how is what

you're saying more correct than what

they're saying

because i don't because i think

communism the the metaphysics and the

sort of like the ideology of communism

necessarily contradicts with like

christianity like the sort of like

belief in like a human nature different

beliefs in human nature for instance

what are the different beliefs in human

nature

um uh for instance with like marx's sort

of like more dialectical view of human

nature versus the christian more sort of

like existentialist view i guess you

could say more transit i just have to

cut you off for a second because you

said that

it's in contradiction because marx is

dialectical marx derives his dialectics

from hegel's i mean like literal

christian tri-part dialect

well i'm not a protestant like hegel was

like a really bad protestant so i mean i

don't really care what hegel had to say

because it's all heretical to me sure

but hegel was also drawing from the

pre-protestant christian philosophical

and hermetic traditions from the middle

ages which also contain this this

tripartite the same tripart dialectic

logic so how can you say that it's

dialectics that makes marx have a

different view on human nature than

christianity because that's actually

what unites them

so i like to chime in here because um

hegel's understanding of god

is not similar to what was understood in

the middle ages

that is literally now well it's it's a

it's a complete break because beforehand

beforehand

if you take for example what aquinas

said about god which is the fact is he's

you know he's omniscience he's

benevolent

and he was wise to create the universe

but he could have chose not to have

created the universe

the whole point of hegel is that the

universe had to have been created and in

a way he was trying to bring that um i

get it

down back to earth so this is actually a

very rational and secular side to hegel

that um

is yeah i i i don't understand i think

uh yeah that is really

listen there's no need you need

something about god

there's no need to get into it because i

don't think hegel is like some devout

religious guy i didn't say that but i

said his the logic of his dialectic not

the quality of his belief in god but the

logic implied in his dialectic is

derivative of almost all historical

traditions of christianity yeah i mean

if you want to say that

if i may real quick i mean if you want

to say that there's a sort of like you

know dialectics between like old

testament new testament or something

like that that's fine but what i meant

specifically i said um like that like

human nature being dialectical um in the

sense that like humans change their

environment which changes us i think

that's a very anti-christian thing

because christians were very explicit

about what our human nature is and it's

not like a changing thing it's a

very like you know god-given thing

because we're made in the image of god

okay so can you describe the content of

that image of god to me

what do you want exactly like so you

said christianity has a fixed view of

human nature whereas marx appears to not

so what is the fixed view of human

nature within the christian perspective

well it's this idea that we are able to

like be like at least for me as an

orthodox christian i don't want to speak

for other sort of traditions but for us

it's the idea that um we believe that we

can like sort of become god and that we

have the possibility to sort of be

united not become god rather but be in

union with god through theosis yeah and

we also believe that in this current

world that we don't believe in original

sin our human but we do believe humans

are like sinful yeah these are things

that characterize soviet communist

ideology a one-to-one but i wanted to

add i mean implicitly at least but i

wanna i don't

believe that our human nature is changed

by our environment no you just said that

man can be man can strive toward

divinity and that you know this this is

all defining the aesthetic and the

nature of how the soviet ideologists

were describing communism and how they

were articulating working toward this

this bold communist future and becoming

like but if you're working towards the

bold communist future rather than

through unification with god you're

replacing that why are they in

contradiction

because your goal should be to focus on

unification with god not like what does

it mean to focus on unification with god

if not to build communism

well i don't i don't i i just i'm not a

communist i don't see how communism have

anything to do with building up to god

and if you look through like what the

church fathers say we have like icons of

saints burning you know on portraits of

lenin like you're not going to tell me

that you also have like secretly

communist you you know as well as i do

that the political stances of the

various churches differ across time and

also place and even

like literal geographic place some

churches have bureaus of stalin some

churches have hammers and sickles inside

of them within russia so what you're

saying i mean from like maybe like from

a historical like to show like the

history of something they do if you're

speaking of like that one like a that

one cathedral or church in russia i mean

it's not they're not doing that to sort

of praise the hammer and sickle rather

what they're doing is sort of like my

understanding is at least it's like a

historical thing oh yeah you know us the

russian people we went through this no

there's literally an alliance between

the communist party and the orthodox

church you can look it up they are

actually politically and aligned

together but i wanted to ask you

something because you gave me a

description of human nature which is

actually devoid of content you describe

to me a specific form it doesn't have a

specific content in the real world so i

ask you again

what is the fixed nature of human nature

within christianity that differs from

marx's view

because you told me something of human

nature is that we are made in the image

of god sure

and and there's nothing there's nothing

that like there's something that like

sort of changes that that doesn't change

a human nature isn't something that's in

flux

okay well marx also doesn't believe it's

influx so i don't know why you're saying

that

it's like a dialectical view though that

if we can change our environment

environment and our environment can

change us so and then and that's just

sort of like modernistic and there's no

being hold on you just you just told me

that man is made in the image of god

that is literally a dialectical

statement

how because you are positing man and his

in this within this discursive god but

god isn't changing like if you say god

is no internet forget change okay change

comes after

but first you have two opposite

principles that are united that's a

dialectic

that we are interacting with it's not

opposite

hold on within this discursive context

it is an opposite otherwise

the identity of god and man would be

indistinguishable

that's what yeah yeah except that's what

that's what we believe

yeah but that's it

yes

which is a dialectical belief because

dialectics posits a unity of opposites

but first you have to make the others no

there's no there's no opposites though

but you are literally saying the unity

of man and god and you're you're

beginning with two opposing

intelligibles which you're reconciling

you're you're you have this a prior

assumption that they're like different

no i don't but i'm not saying they're

different i'm just saying

in order to give expression to the unity

you have to get also give expression to

the opposing principles just like the

trinity within christianity all three

represent one god right but you have to

give expression to all three principles

uh or else the notion of the christian

god at least is not complete

yeah no so there is like i mean you can

see like the trinity is like if you want

to see in some way the trinity is

dialectical whatever i'm like okay with

that depending on on the how exactly

you're using that word but i'm seeing

the idea that like human nature is

changing though uh we don't we don't

subscribe marx does not say human nature

is changing okay what is the marxist

view of human nature how would you marx

gives a specific description of human

nature not as something changing

but as something that is rather defined

by our

let's say relations of production

or our relations to how we reproduce our

conditions of life but as angles would

point out later this cannot be

interpreted in a narrow economic sense

they are talking about the real

conditions for the reproduction of life

which also possess spiritual form okay

so

that reproduction of the conditions of

man if man is made in the image of god

as you just pointed out

and mark says

that the way in which man reproduces

himself

is what defines man

then how could there be a contradiction

the man in question is still the man

made in the image of god it only seems

like the difference is you don't give

any acknowledgement to the fact that we

have to work for our humanity and work

for our lives but i think that

contradicts the view of orthodox

christianity according to which we have

to carry our cross

up the hill we have to work

for our faith we have to work for our

being i think that is a fundamentally

christian view even an orthodox

christian view

so i mean if you're saying that the the

means of production can like change i

know you have a yeah i know you don't

just literally mean like you know like

heavy machinery heavy factories or

whatever you have a much more sort of uh

broad definition of that but if you're

saying that can like change us and then

again that's like anti-christian still

it doesn't change us it's just that we

can't make assumptions and be idolaters

and say this is all a human being is

our relationship to nature does how like

what sense are you using idolatry there

like well because i think if you were to

say

if you were to say for example that a

human being is only capable of this

specific relationship to nature this

specific form of culture this specific

form of art

and this specific you know

image of man i think that would be a

form of idolatry if man is made in the

image of god and your image of man

is somehow fixed

then i think you're basically trying to

create an idol a fixed idol of what god

is

how can you profess to know god i think

the hermeneutic by which we establish

the fact that man is made in the image

of god is precisely um suspended in the

historical materialist view

through historical ebooks whereby man

ready

what do you mean suspended in the

historical materialist view

which is basically that history

basically reveals hermeneutically the

manner by which man is made in the image

of god we can't have a fixed image of

man or a fixed image of god

the wealth of what god is the density of

what god is okay but we believe in like

apple we have like a very apathetic

theology and one of the apple one of our

sort of apathetic statements you could

say or like you know what god is not

it's like god uh is not changed like god

like isn't changing god does not change

no i'm not talking about god changing

i'm talking about our knowledge and our

image of god changing

we're not changing what we believe in

like we're changing

let me be clear not changing because

that's not teleological

it is striving toward

the truth of the image and nature and uh

of god in terms of what it is sorry what

is what is striving towards that

human history

well we we have an idea that like well i

guess our sort of the our christian or

my my christianity sort of view of that

would be like it's like we have like the

like the fathers we have our saints we

have a tradition and we build it up more

and more and more we get sort of a

better idea of like what sort of god is

as time goes on that's tradition it's

about like preserving about what's

eternal and we just add on to that uh

sort of uh whatever is eternal we just

add on to that as the years go on so how

is that different from historical

materialism

because we don't believe that to say

like the the means of production as you

define it can like are part of this

change of our human nature or whatever

that's the that's the question that i

think really is is the point of

disagreement why not why isn't the way

we actually reproduce ourselves how is

that somehow not well we just say that's

not how we reproduce ourselves though

no i didn't say that's the only way how

is why do we exclude

from this divine world why do we exclude

this specific part of the way in which

man

reproduces himself

i mean i guess you can like i mean it's

just

it's just not something that's

everywhere i really talked about from

from what i've read it from whatever it

is it's not it's just it's just so okay

so if you agree with me that it isn't

you can say that that's bad that

christianity should do that no the fact

that you're agreeing with it shows that

it's not no i'm trying to say that

that there is no final authority when it

comes to what christianity is on earth

uh yes there is and it's called the the

um the orthodox church

yeah but the church changes over time

so which means

which means the final one

like i don't really know we've had the

final authority out finite with regard

to the future it can't predict the

future sorry i didn't hear that see that

last part

which means the final authority cannot

predict the future which means it's

finite which means there isn't really a

final authority at all

well we do believe that there is a final

authority with like god and that's what

we believe in and we believe that the

church is sort of that mediator no queen

but i said on earth there's no final

authority on what christianity is on

earth

yes there is and it's the orthodox

church

yeah but the truth of orthodoxy and the

truth of the orthodox church

is not complete

it's not complete but it's not like it

doesn't ever like contradict or change

itself i mean you could say oh yeah we

added we you know we like you know new

things are sort of like i don't want to

say discovers but new things it doesn't

necessarily concentrate on itself but it

takes

it it doesn't take new form it's the

same thing it just realizes itself if it

didn't if it didn't take new form there

would not be literal new forms

decorating the uh windows of orthodox

churches over any given you know

centuries i mean if you want to say oh

we have like new if you want to see oh

we have like you know

the amount of scenes that we have now

versus let's see like you know a

thousand years ago there's more saints

it's like yeah there's more saints but

we don't we wouldn't consider that like

changing christianity or anything like

that i didn't say changing christianity

i never said that

okay then what are you getting at

i'm just getting at the fact that you

can't make assumptions about what

christianity means

in the world

i don't

we we don't we don't have there's no

sort of like simulacrum for us about

christianity means versus what

christianity is we know what it is

because we have the mediator of the

church which is given us by god

the church uh was pro-communist for a

very long time i mean like not just

pro-communist as it is today but was

literally serving under the soviet state

in the same way that it served under you

know the the czars of the past and ivan

the terrible

and you know

so i don't know i mean if you want to

talk about like if you want to talk

about like symphony and like our sort of

idea of what like church and state

should be

i mean we can do that i don't know if

that's what you're wanting to do

personally

if the church if the church had its

option like they sort of like

i mean they know that they should have

to deal with the reality that they're

given not with the world that they want

and if that means like you know making

peace with like regimes they don't like

then you know they'll do that from time

to time but if they had a choice they

would not have like you know again

we have to go back to the initial

question though right

why is it

that christianity is incompatible with

communism you didn't give me an answer

all you've told me is that you don't

think christianity changes i didn't say

it changes all i said is the manner by

which we access christianity takes new

forms which you seem to agree with

in a sense no

so there still seems to be this i mean

like i mean i don't like you

let them go mantilla

so i think fundamentally here it has to

do with the hierarchy of narratives and

you if you are a hardcore dogmatic

marxist you cannot reconcile that with

the bible you could probably adopt

something that's akin to liberation

theology and you can borrow a lot from

hierarchy of

marian's

narratives narratives okay what do you

mean by that

so

basically what the bible purports to be

is a uh you could say in one way a

depiction of morality a depiction of the

human condition and even furthermore a

depiction of history where we came from

and where we're going

it's divine revelation you take it or

you leave it this is what's going to be

driving history especially

what about

prophetic uh prophetic books like isaiah

and revelations

so you don't think there's a necessary

herman mutic at play in being able to

interpret all those things

no i do in fact that's actually

something that i that a light bulb kind

of went off for me because there is a

necessary um apophatic cataphatic

apiphatic cycle to understanding what

divinity is which is why in many ways

there

the project of being the best christian

you can be is in some ways an infinite

one because

how exactly do you really attain theosis

with god until you just it happens until

you get like the

the mystical experience that saint

aquinas did where all the writings that

he ever did in his life felt like straw

compared to what was revealed to him

supposedly we'll never know what he

experienced but so this is that

people have why is that incompatible

with marxism

as long as there's a discontinuity

between

the text and the manner of

interpretation just acknowledged i don't

see why there has to be a disagreement

with

marxism well first of all because marx

believes that man creates religion not

religion creates man so it's a it's it's

de-prioritizing the importance of the

biblical narrative where from that

starts with a history that starts from

creation and goes all the way to the end

of revelations well

marx was um paraphrasing foyerbach but

also

don't you think that if man is made in

the image of god then man does create

religion no

i'm so that that's just outright like a

heresy to say something like that like

no i'm not gonna no so did are you

saying god physically wrote the bible

in no way

in a way that matters yes

so god literally came down to earth and

in a way that mattered god wrote the

bible through spoke through his prophets

yeah through like this sort of like i

agree with the idea of revelation but

it's still man who's making the religion

it's not important about what specifics

you know jewish scribe wrote down like

you know whatever book in the bible like

that's just not important for the

narrative but there are a lot of

important things like the rights rituals

customs culture aesthetic traditions all

things created

by men now you can say that they were

inspired by something divine you could

say that they were based on revelation

and i wouldn't contradict you but

man does create religion

i mean

religion was created through the church

which god created

no man creates the church

under the direction of god

no god created god created the church i

mean i mean this isn't like something

that we should have to be talking about

it's like kind of basic christian

doctrine here do you believe islam is

man-made uh all religions are man-made

okay by saying that you're going against

like what our basic christian like you

know dogmas are and in that way marx

says yeah i think you're confusing what

i'm saying because i'm not saying that

they originated

in mere man

but ultimately it is men and women that

give form okay so now we're going back

to the question of like narratives right

and this kind of go back to what um em

was saying here about for christianity

when we read the bible it's not just

another story that we're reading it is

the story of stories

so and so

for us becomes idolatrous because it

says that the marxist narrative is

almost on par or even more important

than the christian narrative

so you're actually just putting words in

my mouth i didn't actually say that

religions are just another story and

it's just

man-made i said yeah you can say they

have divine inspiration and they're

based ultimately on divine revelation

but it is people on earth who are

practicing and giving form and giving

expression

to what the religion is

yes of course you need people for a

religion like that's no one's doubting

that okay so man in a way man does make

religion

i mean if you want to define in that

very like specific way in the sense that

you know people are needed to make

religion i mean i'm gonna i guess yeah

if we use that definition but that's not

the definition and then you also said

that demand is made in the image of god

did you not

yeah i did so what man does is not

separated from the divine

okay

so i don't see why marx's humanism is so

incompatible with christianity

it's all thomas you want to say

something

uh

i forget on this topic i think facifus

would probably be a pretty good speaker

but he's muted right now no i'm here i'm

listening i just don't want to interrupt

because there's five people here

anything you want to say

yeah i just wanted to say that um not

specifically focusing on marx here but

humanism in general humanism denies

divinity outright

humanism as a philosophy basically puts

forth the idea that this existence this

material existence is the highest form

of existence that there is and it

basically subordinates any other concept

of a transcendent existence underneath

that uh human experience in this

material world now again this is not

talking about marx but this is humanist

ideas in general

i mean i think anon had a pretty good

definition of humanism which denies any

principle above i think it's called

oration on the dignity of man that's

what it's called

so this work oration on the dignity of

man was made by a religious person

during the renaissance

and is basically talking about the fact

that

humanism

has nothing to do with replacing god

with man

it has to do with recognizing adam and

man as the finest and most supreme of

god's creation

you yourself said that

man is made in the image of god so the

question is how can we come to know man

well developing our ability to cultivate

an ability to know

our own humanity

is what humanism is so no that is not

inherently

uh in uh it's not inherently um

uh

well if you say something like this

though it's like you really have to deny

this sort of um of the the power of god

in a way because you're saying that we

need all these um

because if you read for instance like if

you just read like um you know the the

the bible i mean it's very clear it's

this idea that you know god is like

truth himself like god is logos jesus is

the the incarnate listen

i think you're not really understanding

that god is not out of the picture in

what i'm saying

the process by which we come to know

ourselves

humanity

that is not something somehow god is

absent from because god is the source

that's the creator and we're this is

just the creation

developing and unfolding in the way god

intended it to

so

for you to say that this this is um this

is somehow saying that like oh that's

that's somehow undervaluing the idea

that god is the truth and god is the

logos no the question is

in the same way that we're not born on

earth knowing for example you know

um we don't know when we're like a baby

for example like that a snake is

dangerous or that a fucking tiger will

eat us or some shit we have to figure

things out we don't just come equipped

with knowing everything in the world

we also don't come equipped with the

ability to know ourselves right we we

have to learn how to farm we have to

learn how to cook we have to learn how

to

you know

um do everything pretty much right so

why are you trying to say that

if we don't know our own humanity that

means

i'm saying that you know

that that the god has no privilege

significance

well god gave us a church not the

communist manifesto to understand who we

are

yeah you're right but

god also didn't give us so well actually

saying god didn't give us the communist

manifest i mean it's kind of heretical

but

regardless we don't have to wait on that

but um god by your definition god also

didn't give us plumbing he also didn't

give us electricity he also didn't give

us

you know the ability to hunt and farm

and feed ourselves and well what i mean

is like i mean i mean this kind of goes

like you're kind of going like sort of

what like a lot of muslims do about like

the idea that's like oh like you know

you believe that god is everywhere so do

you when you go the restroom do you pee

on your god i mean that's what you're

kind of doing here

no i'm not doing that i'm trying to tell

you that

god does not give us in this strict

sense of

practical worldly knowledge knowledge of

ourselves he gives us a kind of abstract

um

let's call it um

revelatory knowledge of ourself but

coming to understand through the

practical hermeneutic

how this is true and the form of its

truth is not something we know we don't

know how it's true

we know it's true

that the bible is correct and yadda

yadda we just don't know how

specifically

how it's true is because god created it

and god is like the logos and god is we

we have no

understanding of what that is

that's why we're only truly exhausting

our human capabilities and potentials

which were god given according to you

and we are literally made in the image

of god

could we come to some kind of awareness

of

how what you just said could be true

so are you saying that like before like

so you're saying when like jesus was

given his ministry let's say that those

people they had no way of really

understanding him because they didn't

have like a dialectical like

they understood they understood that

that would have to be your conclusion

they understood him in a religious sense

but for example what that means for

human history no they couldn't have

predicted that they didn't know they

didn't know for example that you know

joe biden was going to be the 46th

president of the united states

and yada yada so they didn't know that

but they they knew these core

fundamental

forms of knowledge that are strictly

religious

they did not know how that would what do

you mean

what do you mean strictly religious in

what sense what does that mean i mean

like doctrinal and containing the wisdom

through the text itself

um basically but it seems like you're

almost like doing like this sort of like

hegelian and sort of like modernistic

bourgeois thing where like you put like

philosophy above theology or something

like that no i think theology is about

philosophy

then what is dialectical materialism

dialectical materialism is 100

anti-philosophical

from the beginning

how can it be anti-philosophical

um because philosophy begins and ends

with the idea and also begins and ends

with the logos of heraclitus right not

the logos of theology but the logos of

heraclitus rendered into the form of the

platonic idea so philosophy basically is

just trying to find how the idea or the

logos

is consistent that's the goal of

philosophy the consistency of thought in

the form of the idea

and dialectical materialism rejects that

in favor of

something i actually think is closer to

religion which is basically recognizing

the consistency of a more divine

intuitive and that i would say myself

material logos

and material just in the strict sense

that it doesn't conform to any finite

form of thought which is what philosophy

is

marx is very clear about that marx is

very clear about the fact that

materialist dialectics

necessarily require this openness to the

unknown

as a founding principle that we do not

inherently know the world outside of us

so philosophy i think is actually

inherently satanic philosophy is trying

to know

uh the ultimate

secret of creation and divinity

trying to know god

uh through the mind and therefore

replace god and therefore create an

artificial god

um

that is completely uh

well how do you how do you suppose that

we know god if not through our minds

uh through faith

through intuition through feeling

through belief i guess we're just using

like oh how are you using the word mind

here like do you mean like some like

sort of like rational like some like

sort of like i mean it in terms of

certainty like the cartesian certainty

that i think therefore i am

or the even the platonic certainty the

certainty of the consistency of the form

of the idea yeah i think he's conflating

mind with gnosis i think that's what

he's doing i i think i'm going to

understand it i think i'm beginning to

understand what he means actually

no i mean mind

yeah

do we want to move on to a different

topic here i think we kind of exhausted

this actually don't because i think to

advocate that dialectical materialism's

anti-philosophical in itself is a

philosophical statement you have to

justify why dialectical materialism is

the appropriate analysis of

of history and why historical

materialism is

yeah but marxists have demonstrated that

with stalin they didn't demonstrate it

with philosophy they demonstrated it

with the october revolution

and the

great patriotic war that's how they've

justified they haven't justified it

philosophy they've just divided through

belief

faith

the soviet union didn't last more than

it didn't even last a century it

collapsed and it collapsed it's the

class began pretty quickly after

stalin's demise so right

right but um you're arguing that the

proof is in the pudding we'll just have

to see what actually works well the

soviet union collapsed and even then

like if we want to talk about phil's

underlying philosophical you know

presuppositions

the hidden idealism which

many people in this chat room have um

analyzed to death with latent within

marx's um writings in the 1940s like the

german ideology 1840 that was that was

so that was so scandalous to many soviet

academics that they tried to fabricate

passages within these these hidden um

marxist texts that were unplugged

unpublished so they could try to uh

evidence for them

yeah i think i'm still in the best key

um

yeah so there's like um when the soviet

union with them i forgot his name jordan

david

was one of the people

yeah oh in the marks angles london

institute i think it was like mega or

something like that he wrote this

chapter in um

i think 1844 manuscripts fear about guy

i think yeah like yeah something like

that

i mean give me give me a link to the

soviets uh fabricating passages but in

the meantime you said the soviet union

didn't last more than a century which is

true but the consequences of the october

evolution and the soviet union's

existence were irreversible it's

defining russia's predicament today it

has not gotten over the end of the

soviet union by any means neither is

eastern europe for that matter the mode

of production has been irreversibly

altered by soviet communism and then

finally its most lasting impact is of

course china which has transformed the

entire world and which is the leading

you know premier power of humanity today

right it represents the future of all

humanity that comes from the soviet

union that's all from that

all right so then let me extend the the

lens even further in what ways did the

geopolitical interests of the soviet

union differ from its predecessor the

russian empire besides a

new ideological need to uh

to spread communism worldwide at least

at least for a little while before

socials in one country became the norm

the geopolitical interests of the soviet

union extended throughout the globe

that's the difference the russian empire

confined itself to its immediate

geography or central asia

um and you know europe but the soviet

union was geopolitically a

bipolar

power along with the united states that

was basically competing for the entire

world

is it to spread ideology or to secure

the immediate interests of russia

or you could say or uh

it was both more or less both the

anti-imperialist well it depends on what

time period the anti-imperialist stance

of the soviet union to the point where

you know it's funding ethiopia and it's

giving arms to spain and the civil war

and it's doing all this kind of stuff

um you know that is kind of part of that

inner that need for the soviet union to

kind of um not spread the revolution but

gain international allies in the

international community

um you know which is also part of

spreading the ideology which is

something they did they educated they

brought people from all over the former

colonial world to be educated in moscow

to be educated in the ideas of marxism

and marxism leninism which they did take

back home i mean uh everyone in the

middle east who's involved in politics

knows an uncle or two trained in moscow

but then you know after um

after i would i would say after stalin

you know the kind of question of

self-interest versus ideology i think

there's a third element beyond

self-interest in ideology which is this

kind of new

global kind of managerial class

that was kind of emerging in

contradictions to china that was kind of

what was going on with the sino-soviet

split you had this global kind of

academicized

managerial class

somewhat kind of even allied with the

democratic party in america and the

social democrats in europe and they were

kind of all forming this

alliance

in a lot of ways which was being

challenged by china during that

communist civil war

so i mean it just depends on the time

period but more or less yeah the

geopolitical interest definitely changed

since after thesaurus times

was the soviet union able to sustain

those geopolitical interests abroad

beyond its immediate borders

um it depends what do you mean

well were these were these burdensome in

any way i mean the fact that the soviet

union always had a difficulty in

projecting power

um beyond his board

i think after world war ii about 25 of

the world's

population were living under communist

states so i think that's pretty uh

he posted one of the links in the uh

private chat about the house

it's more than just it's more than just

what percentage it's also about the

nature of where they were which is the

fact that the soviet union was

i mean

just we can do a tour of the geography

what were its what were its outlets to

the outside world you had the baltic sea

which was closed off to by

germany and in scandinavia which was

hostile to the soviet union we had the

arctic ocean which was you know it's

bounded by

ice most of the time it's not a valuable

it's not it's not a valuable or reliable

trade route you have vladivostok which

in itself was it's also not a it's not

ice-free year-round it's not a great

place to project power it's better than

nothing but there's a reason why the

russian empire really wanted port arthur

in china and then of course you had

china which as you were pointing out the

sino-soviet split was not a reliable

ally so you have you have all these

limiting geopolitical concerns that made

it very difficult for the soviet union

to project power to

i don't sustain

i i think um and they're very expensive

to do so as well the soviet union

definitely didn't have the uh

it didn't it definitely didn't have the

maritime strength of the united states

which was a definite disadvantage but i

mean at the same time i don't see what

what the point of what you're trying to

say is it was very successful in being

able to project the soft power i think

the primary um

thing the soviet union was able to

project in terms of power was a

combination of education it was one of

the biggest destinations for former

colonized and even colonized countries

the people there to get an education

it was arms obviously the providing of

arms the formation of economic

relationships the establishment of a

kind of global communist socialist

economic community

which you know gave incentives to people

to join the socialist bloc i think all

these things represent uh you know a

pretty successful ability to project

i mean i don't know what like compared

to what compared to the united states it

was not as successful obviously but

compared to literally any other country

it

was safe for china today which is

doing better than both the united states

and the soviet union

i mean in that sense it kind of

demonstrates that regardless of whether

the

the communist revolution was initially

successful in in russia

russia could not be the seat of the

revolution worldwide it simply was not

in the right location at the right time

and the fact that it collapsed under um

under both its internal contradictions

and economic pressure worldwide

from it from its enemies demonstrates

that it was not the real deal so we're

trying to talk about it does his did

history prove communism right at the

very least did not prove the soviet

union right and arguably speaking

i think we haven't done to the point

whether we should talk about

about whether we should be looking at

historical materialism as the framework

in which we use history or the bible in

which we use a framework to understand

history and

neither these things can be true one of

them has to be

higher than the other in the hierarchy

of narratives that we've that we

described earlier so if you're going to

be

like i i actually highly respect what

you're trying to do here i just think

that there are some laden contradictions

that you haven't resolved when it comes

to

um what exactly the end goal is and i

think you're trying to

revise marks to be something that he's

not

do you think that marxist theory should

be on the same level as religion

uh i'll answer that after this i want to

do one at a time so

you said that the soviet union um

it was not it was not successful for the

soviet union historically but i also

think you're undercutting the

significance of the sino-soviet split as

also a kind of civil potential civil war

within the soviet union um see what the

people did after stalin which was this

kind of bureaucracy

uh that grew during the 30s and even

some remnants from the 20s to save their

own skin and prevent being purged and

have stalin's further kind of

democratizing reforms by democratizing

by the way i just mean like give the

russian state

sorry give the soviet states more of a

character reflecting

the kind of russian peasant right so

stalin is kind of like a populist sense

i think um

there was a very broad potential within

the soviet union

for the kind of reform that happened in

china that was able to save china i

think this idea of a seat

of revolution

yeah there was a lot of things about the

soviet union's geopolitical stance with

regard to the world that were was very

difficult but i think the sino-soviet

split was the decisive factor i don't

think that was just because china was

unreliable i think it has a lot to do

with an internal contradiction within

communism that mao gives theorization to

in the form of the persistence of the

class struggle under socialism

so i think you know if mao prevailed in

the soviet union so to speak

i don't think there would have been a

collapse and i think you know tayuganov

has acknowledged that

i think putin has also acknowledged that

before

that had we gone down the path of china

we would have been saved

so you know there's that and then also

um i don't see a contradiction no this

kind of the second thing you said is

also related to what zolt is asking is

do i put marx as a higher authority than

the bible

um in my personal life not necessarily

higher but like on an equal footing with

it

well it depends is man on an is man made

in the image of god is man put on an

equal footing with you know um

well i didn't want to clarify the reason

why i am asking this is because there

was an attempt

within the third reich by people like

rosenberg to put mineconf on the same

level as the bible and it's it's very

very heretical

and

that's why i'm asking no no no i i don't

think marxism can replace religion

absolutely not

marxism confines itself very

specifically

um

to

i i don't i don't like i find the

distinction kind of problematic but to

the secular world it confines itself to

the world of humanity

in terms of these kinds of like ancient

wisdoms about the divine you cannot

replace religion i i would also go as

far as to say

that marxism presupposes

uh the abrahamic religions there's it's

not thinkable and it doesn't make any

sense without them so in a way that most

marxists didn't appreciate and i'll

admit this

not even the

uh marx angles lenin stalin even i mean

even they weren't really cogniz i think

stalin eventually became cognizant of

the fact but the rest were kind of just

it's not they denied it but they just

never concerned themselves with this

fact but that

the living flame of religious traditions

provided the very context for marxism to

even be meaningful without those

hundreds of millions of people across

the world keeping this flame alive

through practices that from a narrow

kind of secular vulgar perspective

appear meaningless and superstitious

that was actually reproducing the very

framework within which the

meaningfulness of marxism can be derived

so i think a new attitude definitely

toward religion is necessary i just

don't think that's a revising of marx i

think it's rather an exploration of

something that

marxist did not give proper attention to

you know it's not that they were giving

attention to it and they just

denied it they barely gave any attention

to that they almost exclusively focused

on you know combating the political

enemies that were within the church

um but beyond that i mean

it's kind of an open door it's kind of

knocking on an open door

were the old believers political enemies

in

um they were enemies of the orthodox

church

okay but they like they were still like

a non-threatening sect that basically

they're basically like monks and a lot

of them died under the soviet union

uh what what years were they persecuted

the most heavily

into your the anti-god plan

so the anti-religious campaigns

were

you have to understand not the entire

soviet state was under a single will

okay there were a lot of elements

within the soviet state

that basically

recognize this westernized and overly

urbanized fanaticism

of either young people or even

class uh enemies of the majority of

the soviet people would basically use

marxist ideology as a way to preserve

their superior position over the masses

so in a lot of ways these anti-religious

campaigns came to represent that faction

that was within the soviet state

which was hostile to the reforms and the

changes stalin was

uh overseeing so stalin kind of

represents the you know great russian

majority

and there's this kind of tit-for-tat

implicit struggle going on between

people who are even during

collectivization the same thing happened

right it wasn't stalin's intention

for the kind of acts of these criminal

acts of um repression against ordinary

peasants to occur during

collectivization but class enemies

within the soviet state used it as an

opportunity

to attack the russian peasant and

actually speaks to the correctness of

mouth thesis of a class struggle under

socialism actually the same thing

happened during the cultural revolution

at first

uh these intellectuals and this

intelligentsia that was overly urbanized

went and terrorized chinese pheasants

you know destroying all these old

customs and traditions but then

immediately afterwards you know it was

the tables were turned against them and

the peasants started to actually realize

that mao

was trying to

get them to rising so this similar thing

happened during collectivization where

around 37 38 during those great purges

the same people

carrying out this level of extremism and

repression against the traditional

russian peasant majority those are the

people who got you know sniped during

the purges

and then very shortly afterwards stalin

shuts down the uh league of militant

atheists

and reopens the church even before world

war ii

what do you think about um walter

benjamin's thesis on history

the theses on history he's like last

work before he killed himself are you

talking about his famous saying about

the angel of history looking back or

what specifically

oh no i'm just in general like his idea

that he says like humans are um like um

softly messianic or like slightly

messianic he's like some wording like

that and how like there's a sort of like

messianic aspect to like marxism

i definitely like walter benjamin way

better than anybody else in the

so-called frankfurt school actually i

think he's the only one i somewhat

sympathize with

but i do think there are theological

limitations there but i broadly

sympathize what do you mean like

theological limitations of what he's

saying or like

what he's saying yeah because uh i think

while marxism is

abrahamic

i think there's also a unique

significance of the relationship between

christianity and marxism leninism

where i think benjamin is just and i'm

not maybe he's not wrong but he is more

kind of exploring the relation of

judaism and kabbalah to a more classical

yeah because he was really into like mrs

jewishness yeah

yeah precisely but and i take them all

them in a couple other things yeah

actually there's an implicit thing where

it's like marxism leninism is kind of

uh the christian

step right and then classical marxism is

kind of

more within and it's not necessarily

there in contradiction it's just that

they're different

um

different orientations like that's

called marxism like the old testament

like yeah that's what that's exactly

okay and stalin actually kind of hints

at this

when he's polemicizing with marxist

within the soviet union and he's saying

you know he he it's not an anti-semitic

dog whistle because he's not talking

about jews he's just talking about a

specific theological orientation he

calls them the talmudists who are

interpreting the text of uh marx within

a kind of narrow textualistic framework

yeah i don't i don't buy the idea that

like stalin was like anti-semitic i mean

didn't he like outlaw anti-semitism

yeah i i there's not really any evidence

he would like and like the proof it's

like it only comes because he purged a

bunch of trotskyites and they just

happened to be jewish

yeah um

i mean there were a lot of actually uh

jewish stalinists

who remained loyal to stalin as well

but festivus

i think broadly the the the thing that

was never compatible

with marxism

was the paganism that was

something that you know

that gets a revival around the 60s and

70s

but those are mostly by almost exactly

what are you talking about paganism what

do you mean

i mean it in the sense of theosophy and

even some of the things dugan used to be

interested in

you know in the 80s and 90s probably boy

you know those um

affiliates

these circles that he was in

that was always received very harshly

from the stalinist soviet state

um well a lot of it's just like it's

just like you know this these sons and

daughters of like the bourgeoisie with

too much money or able to start their

own like you know communes and just like

you know try to have like these sex

cults and whatnot

yeah and within the soviet union during

the 60s and 70s it was the sons and

daughters of the soviet establishment

actually

that were um

trying to bring the hippie movement to

the soviet union because it was the

soviet establishment and dugan's i mean

dugan himself was the son of a uh of an

intelligence officer

and he maybe he would fit within that

category in his youth but he he also

recognized you know that the staunchest

um you know

representatives of the soviet

establishment went on to become the most

anti-soviet

uh ideologists after the collapse of the

soviet team so he noticed that

connection

i know like aleister crowley i think he

came from a really rich family and

there's a couple others i can that are

kind of popping my mind and whatnot

yeah fascinates you there

yeah i'm here

okay sweet

uh if we roll it back down to like the

the church like soviet relations uh i

think you know a lot about that stuff

right festivus

yeah i know a few things yeah

yeah i just let you talk then

i mean what hazard said regarding the

history between the relations between um

the church and the state uh that is true

i think there was something i wanted to

say but i didn't want to interrupt and

that was namely

that within

church teaching um traditionally it's

very clear that

the church seeks to of course obey with

the government that is already there

that's ruling so for example if you take

a look at

the roman times

um jesus is pretty clear render unto

caesar or belongs to caesar and unto god

but belongs to god and then paul again

in 1st peter 2 and other areas

he talks about

um sorry i should say peter i misspoke

there not paul but paul also in romans

13 talks about you know uh giving honor

to the governing authorities of civil

authorities etc etc so what i mean to

say is that it's not specifically that

the church approves or disapproves of

communism per se more so than it seeks

to be at peace with the state that's

there in this case it's a soviet union

before that it was the the russian

empire and today it would be the russian

federation

so it's not so much about the ideology

or the worldview more so than the

apparatus of the state and the governing

authorities that are in the state

regardless of whether they're communist

or not whether they're monarchists or

not doesn't matter that's one thing i

wanted to say because i do remember how

saying that um they were okay with

communism i don't think it was so much

that they were okay with communism as

they were okay with the soviet union i

think there is a distinction there well

i think something that speaks to that

sorry speaks to the um uh one of the

unique achievements of christianity

history

is the fact that while christianity says

render unto caesar what is caesar's

it also gives the kind of um

how do i put it it gives the kind of um

i'll call it metaphysical very loosely

the metaphysical um

tools

in order to understand contradictions

within caesar right it's not that the

christianity does reject the view that

we because of our arrogance are just

going to overthrow a state based on our

will or based on our specific

that's definitely something that is

rejected within christianity but

christianity's dialectic also allows

you to perceive the contradictions that

are within the state itself

and so render under caesar in a sense

can be revolutionary

when it is that caesar himself is at

odds with himself when the state somehow

has an internal inconsistency what i

think is relevant about that today is

this is what i wanted to get to

is that today the orthodox church

while it does side with the putin

government broadly especially when it

comes to the military operation in

ukraine

um it also recognizes the contradictions

within the russian state and it firmly

sides with the communist party and is in

a coalition with the communist party

um which is again the largest opposition

party within the um russian federation

it's a legal party so it's not violating

the law

but it does represent a faction the

strongest faction that is in opposition

to the kind of westernizing

liberals who want to um destroy russian

culture

and this is something that has united

both the communists and the the orthodox

church because both of them

don't want

western liberal liberalism and its

madness to destroy

soviet culture and sorry to destroy

russian culture and uh

russian traditions

yeah i don't have anything to say to

that because that is a something that

i've also noticed about um

self-professed communists from russia is

that they think in that direction as

well they are very

patriotic and and

i guess conservative in that sense but i

don't again i don't i wouldn't say it's

necessarily because they're communists

but more so because they're russian

right but this is also starting to

reflect elsewhere in the world right

the it's starting to become the norm i

would say for communist parties

to there's basically two factions and

this was true at the end of the soviet

union when it comes to the communist

parties of the world today there's the

globalist soros faction which is aligned

with the ngos and it's aligned with

american interpolar interests

which is you know that that is something

that is starting to gain ground and gain

strength

specifically in the west but it is

spreading out i mean chile with that

boric guy

the shill of uh america

um you know there's other examples

but so there's basically these two

factions in the international communist

world i would put it

and the other one is firmly patriotic

and i would argue traditionalist and

it's

you know firmly based and rooted in the

specific countries of context

so

i you know it as far as that's concerned

i think for uh communism

throughout the entire world there's just

a choice between two possibilities

um

and and you uh just out of curiosity you

consider castro to be a genuine

communist right

castro

yeah

um

that's that i mean i guess yeah

yeah okay

yeah so from that perspective i can

understand your position and why you

would say that yeah

um obviously some of the guys here

including myself are a little iffy on

him being a genuine communist we think

that

that would definitely apply more so to

his brother raul

but not fidel himself uh we think fidel

was more of a of a cuban nationalist um

and he would he thought more

geopolitically than ideologically is is

the way we view

i don't i don't think that's

necessarily in contradiction to

communism though i do know you know he

he he started out just as a

nationalist uh revolution

right

uh he actually got visited by the

authentic falange when franco was alive

and they actually gave him

roman salutes it's caught in a photo

then they gave him a copy of jose

antonio as a selected writer i know uh

castro was

that's what i heard he was implicitly

friendly with

franco they actually put the jose

antonio selected writings that he was

gifted inside the

yeah one of the museums and habana yep

yeah yeah i i did hear about that but

my disagreements with castro mainly come

from his stance during the sino-soviet

split um and that's where i mean b i

mean that's not how i define the guy he

was obviously a great person and a great

leader but you know i don't consider him

on at a theoretical level to be up there

with you know stalin

ow and

and i also considered shea

have a position in politics

you know that was

more correct than castro

okay

um

i'm actually sure that you uh sorry

continue no no go ahead go ahead i can

save it for later

i was actually intrigued and i actually

agree with you about 100

that there are two schools of um

communist thought especially today and i

actually would return to plato to

understand the differences a bit you

have one that is more

supportive of you could say western

liberalism in the sense that that's what

that's where they align themselves

morally this is like the

the epitome side of um

like the desire is the labyrinth side of

the soul that those communists align

with the west

but then there's the

the there's the masculine the thematic

the passionate side of the soul that a

lot aligns itself in another school

which i i see more in you

and this is actually where i find a

indeterminate moral system with laden

within marxism and this is why i often

call it a ultimate

liberalism

in a sense because

marx's main criticism of of the

political liberalism of his time is that

it did not go far enough in that if

history is driven by material concerns

starting with the need to escape the

necessities imposed on us by nature the

fact that we have to hunt for a living

hunt and gather for a living and escape

the elements only then to find ourselves

trapped within social bonds because the

most production also then

create new superstructures which ensnare

us

forcing us to try to get to the end of

history where we will eventually have

such a sophisticated um

amount of technology that we could do

away with necessity completely if only

we were to seize the means of production

there is a there is a there is a both a

liberalism and illiberalism here the

liberal the liberalism is in the end

goal which is to have the communist

utopia where you can finally realize a

complete personality

where a man's productive essence can be

realized to create as he wishes to

realize that end of mankind but to get

there is the liberal side and i think

this is where you find the distinction

between the two communists you have

people like vaush who are attracted to

just not having necessity no struggle

nothing and these people will

align themselves with the west because

they think

because the west already is kind of post

necessity which is why you can have

people buying funko pops and uh

and wasting thousands of dollars on

marijuana and only fans they're

basically just like your average

telegram nazi

yeah

from these other larping third positions

before and people who are aligned to

your brand of marxist leninism these are

the more thematic types these are more

these are people who

i honestly would have to say they

probably like to struggle more they like

the end goal

so i think there's an indeterminate uh

moral system laden within marxism where

the process is illiberal but if the

process were ever achieved it would be a

liberal paradise it would be subject to

the same nihilistic concerns that

afflict the west right now so this is

why we have a very

anti-marxist response because it may get

a lot of things right within marxist

dialectics you may see a uh

an analogy for like the

the theos like the

the cataphatic that athatic apathic uh

understanding of trying to achieve

theosis trying to achieve knowledge of

god

but then it

it says that we can get there

on our own

i believe it's more of the the malice

element actually

so

i

think your description of this idea of

communism as the end goal

is correct for the new left west 100

that is definitely like basically people

who don't want to have a job and

yeah the walsh kinds yeah that's all the

hippies whatever that's 100 correct i

just would say though i mean just a few

things beginning with marx

marx does talk about

a level of you know wealth and

prosperity

that will know will no longer

you know experience nature as a kind of

oppressing reality we'll be able to have

sufficient free time to give

consideration to what marx calls

these scientific and

aesthetic pursuits

right and i would add also religious

pursuits to that right

but i don't think that's necessarily a

utopia devoid of necessity i think

necessity is still driving

the um

the development of humanity and history

even during communism

it's just not a necessity that is

brought to the threshold of a direct um

extinction

through uh

through hunger and through um disease

and things like that

then i would also

say to be fair

very quick sorry before i get to that

marx did say that communism

is only the real movement it's not an

end goal not an ideal to which we can

form society

communism is nothing more than the real

movement that sublates the present thing

so for marx

communism is the struggle right

it's just that that struggle for marx he

predicts will have consequences for the

mode of production the consequence being

um you know yeah a level of i wouldn't

say post necessity but you know

like isn't it specifically the

abolishment of the commodity form

the sublation of the commodity form yeah

marx thinks the commodity form uh the

institution of private property and when

i say institution i mean in the form of

the state will disappear

um or dissolve right become something

else but you understand this this is a

very dialectical process it's colin

wrote in one of his writings in the 40s

uh i think it was in the i don't know i

don't know exactly when it was 40s or

50s that he said dialectically speaking

we do believe the state will be sublated

which is why we must strengthen the

state

to the furthest possible level

um

because only then can it be um

only then can the possibility of like it

developing into its opposite something

like that occur right

so

um

this this is a thing of going through

you don't get rid of it by just

abolishing it you go through the process

also what china is doing right now right

with its uh

you know more market oriented commodity

where it's unleashing the forces of

production it's going through

the process of um

what might called before capitalism

right and this is china calls the

socialism because

not because it's an end goal of

socialism but because the process of the

revolutionizing the forces of production

is

what marx defines communism but

also i want to make a point about this

end goal

kind of to be fair

in the soviet union not so much on an

ideological level but in on an aesthetic

cultural and unconscious ideological

level um

people did really think of communism as

a utopia they did think of it as like

all of our problems

all of our strife all of our suffering

that we have now

we're building at this radiant communist

future

in order to um

kind of you know pass through the

threshold and and put an end to that but

i mean it's really clear the theological

um significance of that i mean on the

one hand it is man walking toward

divinity in the embrace of divinity and

on the other level it's you know the

it's the it's the paradise right

kind of christian description of

paradise so

i don't think that that soviet utopia

which was not theoretical i'm not saying

soviet marxist theorists

were utopians but i'm just saying like

culturally right

i don't think that was the same as the

kind of idea

of bum bum communism that western

leftists like wash

half i think that was a more

even though it was maybe a naive view

that all suffering and all that will

disappear

it was very much spiritually charged it

had this kind of quality of

transcendence to it where like we

couldn't even imagine what it would be

like it's not that we're thinking oh

it's going to be like degeneracy and

there's going to be furries and

sex

polysules and and all this kind of shit

that's in abundance

it's more so this kind of very spiritual

vision

of kind of transcending the worldly need

of the material even just the material

the political sense of the word world

right

like uh we will become pure kind of

angelic

spiritual

beings

so that's one that's one disagree that's

a few disagreements i have with that

description but i do think it's true for

the western left

that that's how they view communism

well i can understand why they view it

that way because it's really hard to

pick at any sort of moral prescriptions

from marx ex

except for the fact that you should play

your role in history and that the goal

of mankind is to achieve this

pure liberty and not the faux

historically determined liberty that the

political liberals of his time were

satisfied with so when you remove

necessity

what do you have left

and actually this is this is a very

important question i have for you

what kind of necessities do you think

would still be around that would still

be meaningful as it not being satisfied

by the most production of the day in the

hands of the workers

when we reach the state of communism

because at that point you know you don't

have to you don't have to uh worry about

hunting or gathering or

or going to a nine-to-five job

to

make ends meet or anything like that

you just don't i think this is more of

the malice

maoist element uh probably than than

just like pure marxism but

so i think um

i think to answer that question right

marx talks about

so first i kind of want to talk a little

bit about morality right in general

so

marxism is not trying to create a new

morality right

so as far as your morality is concerned

that is going to come from a combination

of mores your intuitions

things that are created and prescribed

by religions you know and it could even

be religion itself which is i think a

more

temporary view

the problematic of morality within

marxism only enters at the sphere of the

political action

uh the moral dilemmas start to happen

when it comes to like okay what is

morally

permissible

for a revolution and for you know

a state to do

i think that's where the kind of issues

of morality enter marxism otherwise you

know just

kind of

you can have your morality come from the

tradition

right

but i think marxism

is

it's

when it comes to the morality of a

political agent and it comes to a

morality of the participation in the

state

i think the basic idea is that must

unfold and develop on its own terms

you cannot betray the revolution in the

name of morality have to possess a

fidelity to this

process that's unfolding in history

which is not being predicted by anyone

which is not being foreseen by anyone

but you know

it's it's kind of like a matter of

loyalty loyalty to

um the truth

almost hermeneutic divine truth of

revolution

uh something that's disclosed to us

almost purely as a matter of faith not

based on any prior knowledge or moral

construction

um

i think i think in

the statehood and in the history right

our

moral aesthetic is suspended in real

time we somehow have a moral instinct to

guide us through these things

that belongs to its own logic and just

trying to get to your second point

marx does not have an empiricist or

individualistic view of

uh what constitutes a human being

remarks a human being is part of some

kind of let's call it a social whole or

a historical whole or some kind of

community right

um

so necessity will be based on the

internal

contradictions and internal necessity

that defines man's relationship not only

to nature which marx calls the

development of the scientific

uh

um pursuit but also the aesthetic right

which is going to be about how does man

relate to the world of man the community

of man

so in that sense necessity is also

defined by

um

possessing fidelity to the

contradictions

of the state necessity will be defined

by an internal

necessity of of our non-given humanity

we as human beings in other words aren't

just animals we don't just exist as

physical bodies and animals where our

necessity is satisfied just by eating

and shitting and whatever right we also

have a specific way in which we define

our humanity through the social whole

and that social whole is never complete

it's always historical always

undergoing a process of of um

of uh

discovering itself right

so

the key here is both the scientific and

aesthetic pursuits not just the

scientific

that's how i would answer

um necessity also becomes about

attending to the spiritual

incompleteness

of the world of humanity

so

[Music]

i want to say really quick after we get

done talking like morals and ethics uh i

do want to push this more back into

dugan after again

i'll let you continue

yeah all right so to address the first

point regarding uh marx supposed

division of

um the ethical which i could say

personal and the political i argue that

he doesn't do that and he this is

clearly pointed out on his essay on the

jewish question where he

not only uh takes and worry not only

somewhat agrees with bauer's proposition

that you can't just settle for religious

freedom which which gives people the

right to be individuals who in

internally hold

values that are different from everybody

else so like within this framework of

negative rights i do i do myself like i

do me you do you and we're just supposed

to not collide into each other

marx is bowers against that because that

ref that

that

that is a separation

uh

that's that that's a barrier to

discovering the underlying humanity that

unites us all so he sees as a barrier

with marx jumping in afterwards to point

out that

even if you abolish religion too all

these things that make us different and

you abolish this negative rights

framework too

you still have the material uh impacts

left like the echoes from the for that

that were built on top of that the

ideologies were built on top of so this

is both

a uh

a rejection of one that marx saw

religion as compatible with uh dialectal

materialism when he

thought it was it's something that

should be

that something that should be at least

um

destroyed if not to be rebuilt later but

also the idea that the ethical and the

political are separate no they're really

not and this is actually an idea that

goes all the way back to plato if you

look at the idea his definition of

justice too he talks about justice in

the city injustice and the soul

and really it's about in and the

definition of justice is about knowing

your place within the greater framework

so understanding your position in a

system that stretches from the very top

like the the height of society and using

control society to the very bottom the

workers like what do they do to

contribute and everyone in the middle

that is that is that that is basically

what marx is holding is a platonic

understanding of ethics and politics

which is that they're basically the same

thing it's justice it's about what you

do in the personal life and what

everyone's doing collectively and that

they should all be in unison somehow in

harmony

now to um

bring upon to the second point

i don't understand what you mean by that

we have to now deal with internal

contradictions when we reach the state

of communism because it was under my

understanding that communism is what

happens when class divisions dissolve if

we still have internal contradictions to

deal with then i think rousseau and

nietzsche get very interesting here

because

rousseau argues that before property

before you know property and like

economic inequality come to play you

first have social inequality that

happens in his history of mankind from

you know you know we started off as

savages then we kind of discussed got a

little bit smarter and discovered the

family then we got a little bit smarter

and we discovered tribes and then when

we hit tribes is when rousseau goes

discover social inequality because

there's always going to be a popularity

contest among humans one person is going

to be on top and other people are not

going to be as popular and inevitably

that one person is going to have aims

and he's going to direct society and

he's going to want to protect what he

got and this is where property comes

into play

if marx cannot resolve the problem of

social inequality even after class

contradictions are abolished then the

whole point of marxism doesn't even make

any sense because all you'd be basically

doing is rewinding back the clock to the

point where we have maybe some sort of

um

temporary piece of uh social equality

until some nichian dude comes in and

wins everyone else's affection or just

dominates everybody and then all of a

sudden we're now back into the property

rat race

because someone will want to get their

gains preserve their gains and then

perpetuate those gains through property

so

if communism doesn't actually get us to

the promised land where none of these

contradictions have to worry about

economic or social or whatever

then it's problematic

and only the only narrative that

actually tries to do that

beyond class contradictions because it's

not just about collective

um a collective unit but also on an

individual level

like what is what is within the soul

then you don't have a system that

actually works your promised land

doesn't make sense and that's where the

bible comes in and

you have a reconciliation of the

individual and the collective in theosis

with god

in fact i i if you wanted me like just

to get you going further

if you really trace back the idea the

genealogy of ideas of marx marx got his

ideas from hegel hagel got his ideas

from

from a from christian occultism and her

medicism which all which goes all the

way back to

um

back to

like christian apocalyptic thinkers like

uh uh joaquim of fiore

all these people what they were

basically trying to do was to take the

historical timeline and accelerate it

through a

apophatic cataphatic apophatic process

which is basically like hegelian

dialectics he got the abstract then he

got the negation then he got the

concrete which then marx takes and

appropriates for dialectical materialism

and then creates his own secular version

of revelations

the biblical timeline for the future

so

so like it's basically

this is the problem here

there marx is not an all-encompassing

narrative that actually gets you what i

think you spiritually want because it

does not focus on the big picture the

way that the bible does and in fact if

you look at it from a material

perspective you only end up rewinding

the clock to right before we got

property only to have no barriers to

getting back

getting right back into the property rat

race because you never resolve the

internal contradictions that go beyond

class

so just do i'll be trying to be quick

right the first thing you talked about

the jewish question

marx does not agree with bauer in this

regard but marx is maybe argumentatively

for the purposes of argument granting

bar

like even if you're right i mean but he

actually ends up not agreeing with bars

objection

to this kind of specific jewish demand

or um

for uh religious freedom right within

the prussian state what marx is actually

trying to say not simply that okay even

if we get rid of religion we have one

more obstacle to go

marx is basically saying religion is not

the problem

the problem is not itself religion

the problem is the world that

leads to the estrangement by religion

between man and his world right so for

marx

this does not conclude in the idea that

we need to get rid of religion and then

you know through the state

acquire all of our morality

no that's that's kind of a ridiculous

view because actually marx identifies

statehood itself

within that same text

with the alienation estrangement and

transcendence

um corresponding to the same alienation

he's talking about so for marx

the more it's not that he has the um

prescriptive conclusion of the jewish

question

what he basically is telling us in that

work

is that

uh

by being delivered to the world of man

and participating in the world of man as

it actually is by working in the world

uh let's say participating in the

development of the class struggle and

yada yada we will be directly

participating in the active

um

the active uh

the active uh let's say source of the

kind of

estrangement and alienation that bruno

bauer wants to blame on religion right

so for marx

participating in that does not simply

mean

uh you know uh the state or or even

deriving an ethics purely based on

statehood i also do want to give a

distinction between ethics and morality

because while i do think ethics is

inherently tied to statehood

and that was also hegel's view right i

think morality is something more

ambiguous something tied to the

aesthetic

morality is based on the intuition

um

it's based more on a kind of uh

based more kind of on uh

a question of the relationship

between being and will right

that is different from ethics which is

more based on how our will

exists within the confines of a specific

institution of some kind it's

constrained by a specific institution of

some kind

so i just don't really agree with the

kind of view

that this is the implication for marx

as a matter of fact for marx

he would consider this an attempt to

basically um

of uh avoid humanity as it is only

through the state means

humanity also in an alienated form

somehow

so

i don't i don't think you can draw that

marks that he simply agrees with plato

i think the question of morality and i'm

gonna just finish it the second question

with the same one when i say

uh there remains contradictions i'm not

talking about class contradictions

so we don't have to talk about social

inequality or any of those other things

just not relevant of course inequalities

will always exist maybe we disagree

about the reason why but it's not

important for marx right

the inequality in question just has to

do with the fact

that the way in which mankind reproduces

both of himself

and reproduces the meaning he possesses

in relation to his world

is not fixed it's not absolute right

it's

continually caught in a process of

reproduction and history so for example

if we have a specific relationship to

nature that is defined by a specific

threshold

of our technology and of ours you know

of our relationship to

the external world right

and

the internal contradiction that imposes

itself from that is not going to come

from outside it's going to come from the

fact

that

it

it is not complete there is always an

element outside of humanity for example

within nature

that

um

that imposes its significance on us

eventually right and then once we

acknowledge that

in the form of what maybe heidegger will

call an event

that gives rise to novelty and newness

so this is how change occurs right

that's what i mean by the internal

inconsistency also the same thing is

true for aesthetics

when it comes to developing our ability

to give willful expression to what we

are which is inherently

aesthetical right

um for example we will still be making

um

we'll still be building houses in

communism but what will those houses

look like beyond the technological

necessity

of what they must what function they

must perform there's an element of

contingency of okay well how should they

look on top of what what they should

there's wiggle room there right which is

the room for our will right and there

in the sphere of the aesthetics and the

developing of our aesthetic pursuits

we can maintain also an open connection

and relationship

to uh the divine

uh

you know as opposed to the kind of

modernistic technical uh

technical rationalistic science

so that's what i mean by the internal

contradiction within the aesthetic like

the development of new

um ways of giving expression to ourself

is inevitable if only for the fact that

it's never complete

so i'm gonna be fair with um

further critique on of what marx said on

the jewish question because i feel like

that would be a strike against the

channel because

i mean i'm sure marx is an operating

room you can say what you want dude like

i'm probably gonna take this down and

put it on odyssey after anyways i i

can't have it on youtube because of the

intros

well well i know that uh paz is

streaming on youtube so i want to be

respectful of that but okay all you have

to do is just scroll down

what's the problem with

intros

the intros i was using my video on my

channel before you joined it's not going

to be on your okay okay

but

so anyway it's just the fact you can

just go all the way to the end of marx's

essay in the jewish question to see what

he feels about religion and what he

feels about

christianity in relation to judaism and

what he prescribes

for judaism in order for

um

in order for uh emancipation to happen

so

yeah i'm just going to leave that away

this is it's just it seems to be

a we're probably gonna be continuing to

be talking past each other if um

if if you hold on to the lens that marx

has room for religion as a superlative

good

and and everyone else especially

everyone else seems to have this

understanding that well there are

there's a lot of highly uh there's a lot

of truths within marxism and the marxist

in that framework but it's just it has a

problem with religion

i think we'll have to just see there

just to like

i'm not gonna push back but just so we

can kind of agree to disagree

our disagreement basically comes down to

in that text if we can draw a

distinction between religion

uh religiosity as such and religious

estrangement religious alienation

and i would and i recognize it's a

heterodox view within among marxists but

i would say there is a distinction

between two religious estrangement

the way in which religion is somehow cut

off from the world

made blind to the world i think that is

not the same as um

not the same as religiosity as such

um so i i think that that's basically

where we probably will just disagree on

whether that distinction can be drawn

well if we disagree about the theory i i

will grant that many practitioners of

marxism come to realize that they cannot

do away with the religious elements and

that if they are to

ignore it then

well

good luck goodbye society so at least at

the very least

there this is a revisionism through

practice

that has to happen to the theory which

means that if you do take this heterodox

position

not heterodox with regard to what i

thought marx meant but just heterodox

among

how marxists interpret it right

academics

um

because i think

uh

i do kind of think religion can be

revived

in marxism just not philosophy i my

basic thesis my whole stick is like

the problem

marx has with religion is philosophy

it's the way religion is rendered into

philosophical consciousness

and this is what marx holy rejects but

if there's such a thing as religion

beyond philosophy

it's not incompatible

well

ignoring marx's views like let's say if

we take a linen as i know in our video

we quoted him twice mainly regarding

like a materialist physicalism

like uh do you disagree with him being

like a physicalist

yes

okay

uh that's more mancillo and m's domain

on that one i guess

regarding london being a physical this

is a in the one book

or you disagree that he was a

physicalist i disagree that he was a

physicalist

it just seems to me like just like

reading it um

that when he says like um especially his

idea of like consciousness like he just

says like

to sort of solve the what's now known as

like the hard problem of consciousness

he just like oh yeah it's just matter

organized in a particular way it's not

seems like a just like a non-answer and

it's like the idea of how consciousness

comes about it's just you know our

biology somehow so rather than having a

more um

i know he's like critiquing the

neocontinents like the makians and

the

bogdanov people

so the problem is

is matter

is that some kind of

specific physical

form i was actually just about to

mention that matter matter does not

necessarily denote uh physicalism

materialism doesn't necessarily denote

the problem with physicalism

is that physicalism implies a specific

view about the physical world it implies

the physical world is in such such way

there is a specific physical form right

because what is actual what is the

physicist itself what is that right

so that's the issue with the idea of of

a physicalism now

matter is going to be something entirely

different matter is going to actually

kind of

in that interpretation mean the opposite

if consciousness is just matter

organized in a specific way

then the question is begged as to what

that matter actually consists of

and knowing what that matter consists of

is not based on um

it's not based on the invocation of some

dogmatic form

it's based on some kind of practical

participation in it right the actual

matter is the essence of the thing so

it's also saying

consciousness is just

um

the essence of consciousness

organized in a specific way

now

you're using matt you're using matter as

a synonym for essence so it's like

basically like saying essence organized

in a certain way

yes because and the reason i'm using it

as a synonym for essence is because

stalin would later elaborate that

the object of dialectical materialism is

the contradiction between form and

content

matter being the content

which is also

another word and i can see why you would

say that that would be a synonym for

essence i think i'm beginning to

actually understand your world view for

once

and this is where i have problems too

because in order to debate about

philosophical positions especially

metaphysics you have to be very

consistent with terminology and there is

terminology that's been used since

basically aristotle and when aristotle

talks about what essences are comprised

of the substances he divides it into two

things

matter

in form or idea or whatever and of

course he takes form not to just be like

a a synonym for appearance but he's

borrowing you know plato's logic where

or where it's based off of idols except

instead of making it all about these

good universals it makes them a lot more

particular and that makes them into

abstract particulars the the way they're

arranged yeah so

it's like a substantialistic view of

matter

so so that's that's a problem here

because essences

they they are they're composed of matter

they're proposed to form and the

arrangements have typically been seen as

more important in fact it got to the

point where

um

where

that were formed just becomes

the substance that's taken for granted

which is this is where you start to see

in spinoza which is yeah that's just

going to so i was just going to say it

goes

so at some points when we're talking

about

is what's more prime what's more primal

or what's what's more primary is it's

form or is it matter

if you say essence you're basically

saying both

at the same time to me

um

i think marx

is similar to thinkers like heidegger

right

in the sense that marx in his critique

of philosophy

he doesn't just contend himself with

german idealist remarks

it's also that somehow

uh in that um classical period in

ancient greece which by the way angels

frederick engels also writes is the

origin of private property the family

estate

as we know it right

there

derives some kind of um

some kind of uh

change

where

the understanding of what matter essence

yada yada is kind of becomes

straitjacketed under the framework of an

idealism right

or as heidegger would put it uh being

becomes um forgotten in the name of

you know um a logos or the idea and so

on

whereas dugan would put it

being sorry logos emerges to the

exclusion of chaos i think they're all

talking pretty much about the same thing

in mind

and

marx marx's notion of materialism

differs and he writes about this differs

from the uh spinoza's one which marx

calls and nature estranged from man

as well as the empiricist one which marx

calls a collection of dead facts the

british materialism

it's a dialectic materialism according

to which

the essence of a thing

the content of a thing

does not somehow pre-exist or even come

at the expense

of what that thing is because it is what

that thing is so for example the essence

of a nation or let's just be less

problematic

the essence of um

the essence of uh any given thing the

essence of

uh let me just

maybe let's just say the essence of a

state i like that one right the essence

of a state is not some hidden form

somewhere in reality that pre-exists the

state

it is the state as it actually really is

right so it's only by

analyzing the state with regard to its

itself its own interrelation

do you actually arrive at what the

content of the state is

so for marx we have a materialism or a

kind of let's just call it essentialism

where the essence

is a living essence it's an essence that

lives through its forms

um

not after expense somehow like spinoza

is a satanist right spinoza believes one

primal substance one unity of content

and form that pre-exists all of reality

or is primary with regard to all of

reality

and that all of reality is merely kind

of um derivative from that and his

notion of substance in an extremely uh

barbaric

way

replaces god it turns god into this dead

thing this necrophiliac kind of dead

object

uh for which all of reality is is

derivative of

and marx radically differs from this

view

uh i will acknowledge though there are

some soviet philosophers like evolved

ilenkov

and it is common among russian

boxers in general like placanov

to interpret marxism as quote-unquote

dynamized spinozism but i think this

stems from their narrow um

kind of uh

interpretation of of marx and i also

think it's contradicted by stalin

especially

does not view marxism

dynamite spindles

i i also just i just find it very hard

to believe that whenever

marx talks about

the materiality of something you're

supposed to uh

you know control after and replace it

with essence of something

he he he started off in a in an

intellectual milieu that was pure on

materialism in that his his phd thesis

was on democritus

and these are all

more

practical a more practical example of

uh materiality not being uh

uh equatable to like physicality

is uh you you could you could observe

culture as being material

even though

you

you really don't have to go further to

understand what marx means by it and in

the german ideology when it's first

premises of the materialist method

because

marx is not actually coming from a

materialistic

elio right the young hegelians

are you know firmly in the idealist camp

and they kind of vacillate between

[Music]

which is the kind of pure

idea

pure transcendence let's say and or

spinoza which is again remarks nature is

strange for man versus speak day man is

strange from nature right so the young

hegelians are vaculating between these

two things

and marx kind of pursues this golden

middle

this um

reconciliation

or let's just say this ablation so in

the first premises of the materials

method marx begins with man right

begins with man and because that's

he's critiquing foyerbach here right

and so he's beginning with firebox man

just humanity right

without any other presumptions or

assumptions being made then he says

man what is man well man has to

reproduce himself somehow man is the

world of man so the first step is to

just understand how does man exist how

does man

reproduce itself

so this is a good example of what marx

means by the material

what's material for marx is not

some hidden substance

defining reality

it's just the way in which overt forms

really exist

and the way they really exist does

require criticism as in like you have to

understand that

it's not i'm going to just be on the

surface of the appearance you have to

actually put in work

to understand how the thing that appears

to you

is able to appear to you in the way that

it does right

um

so

you know i to me it's pretty clear that

justin marx's own works it's it's clear

that by materialism he doesn't mean a

primal substance doesn't mean like

whether the

this weird empirical geometrical object

of hobbes and the english material

baconian materialists or spinoza's

kind of

substance or even other other french

materialists i mean

marx does distinguish himself from all

hitherto schools

of materialism i think marx

continues to insist on the word

materialism

strictly because he thinks

what they did get correct was striving

toward an orientation toward

a primacy of content they just ended up

all failing because

they tried to straight jack content

under some new form which they called

substance or they called it

sense

sense object or something else

so i guess in one sense

we're pretty much arguing about whether

marx was to use you know fischer's uh uh

term terminology if he was the

antithesis or the synthesis

and i guess here

this is this could be a

historical um and

historical squabble where we we just

have to agree to disagree here

but i think the consequences of

this difficult interpretation

wreaked a lot of havoc when it came to

um the clarity of the marxist-leninist

movements in the sense that this

fiscalism seems to have pervaded

many of these movements a humanistic um

force divorced from

god as inspiration but rather

with the

motivated by the lens that man is alone

and determines his own destiny

regardless of his relationship to the

divine that seems to be a huge central

motivation

behind most

most uh communist movements at least

until

reality starts to hit them in the face

and even then not always so i think this

this lack of clarity

um is

not

it is so damning that it it requires

either extreme revisionism or something

new entirely to make sure that these

questions are settled what is most

important and how do you get there

because if i understand you correctly

what's most important is god and

religion and and dialectical materialism

is how you get there in which every time

you hear mark say materialism you

clarify to me essence and not vulgar

materials

i think um you're right that that a lot

of communists

try to abuse this lack of clarity in

order to like abuse their power come to

wild conclusions but you notice that at

every turn they're denounced

by the real leaders by lenin um who

denounced prolet cult and the idea of

building a proletarian culture or

lenin's he lenin said he was he found it

abhorrent this idea of god building

by bogdanov and others right they wanted

to literally create

you know you know that kind of shit and

then also by by stalin who just has a

very he stalin does provide clarity you

know about what assumptions can you make

and what assumptions can you not make

right

and stalin he allows wiggle room right

he allows people to

um

have the wiggle room after the

simplicity of his clarity of what

marxism is

to pursue and explore their spiritual

realities but yeah i mean i broadly i

guess there there has been a lack of

clarity overall

um

but uh i just wanted to say one thing

yeah i can see why you're so interested

in dugan because i i think

where you're going with this is that

you're

you're thinking of dugan as someone who

can maybe clarify uh marxist leninism in

in the direction that you want it to go

yeah yeah more or less and then kind of

one last thing i did want to say is that

um

uh

oh yeah yeah that trouble with religion

though one will have to admit

that trouble with religion reflects in

general

this disaster which we can broadly call

modernity

how to make sense of modernity how to

make sense of the way modernity

rips apart and separates any semblance

of the divine

in the world that's something that took

everyone marxist or not

by surprise even religious people had a

hard time

being able to come to terms with that

struggling with that understanding that

so i think that is just

something we all

must reflect on

um

uh now right

i just don't think that incriminates

marxism i think

just like um it doesn't necessarily

maybe your view is different i don't

think modern technology is wholly

incriminated i think

there's a way to redeem true modern

science uh true

essence of technological change

without oh

most of us i can't speak for everyone

here but we're not like anti-technology

like we're not necessarily we don't

think it's like inherently wrong take

more of spangler's views on technics

yeah i also wanted to i wanted to add to

haaz's point about um

about like how lenin

uh criticized and wanted to do away with

prolific cults and all that stuff but i

also wanted to like uh point out that

stalin himself encouraged uh

he encouraged that people shouldn't

caught up cut off religious worship from

the people

and uh they should even build temples

and like ascribe to the religious texts

that that are native to them

um and there is there's even some

communities within russia to this day

that believe that stalin should be

sainted like he should be anointed like

there's some

orthodox uh

orthodox communities that believe that

wait who

who um

i don't have the

exact name on hand

of uh of what parish but

there's like people that make paintings

and stuff of him with like halos about

they want to do that with kadriano too

in romania to be fair to be fair you'll

find orthodox churches that will do that

with just about any prominent 20th

century figure including orthodox who

want to do the same thing for with

hitler so it's not something

unsurprising

but um but it's on a much yeah just let

me just do it and i'll report them to

the right people

oh god i was just i was just giving you

examples of things that i've observed

from like um russian people i've

interacted with in our discord and

they've shared images with me

um and i was just saying that like this

runs these real world examples fly in

the face of uh

marxism leninism being this um

this uh

uh

i don't know

this villain against religion or

religious practice

i would also point to like an

interesting fact where it's like you

know after the collapse the soviet union

there was a a religious revival um in

russia i mean it's probably on par with

the religious revival that um cornelius

led and into war romania

at least the 20th centuries like that

and yeah there was also

really quick i'm going to ban really

what i'm showing right now is he's

reporting my channel apparently

there was also a large increase of

prostitution and drug trafficking human

trafficking after the soviet union fell

would you say those are christian values

no those weren't christian values i

would say that's because of the sort of

like power vacuum and the lack of like a

sort of strong state i mean i'm not

going to deny the soviet union um at

least gave people like a sense of

stability even though if i have

disagreements with it that's why i think

you have a lot of nostalgia um with

people who sort of lived through it

because like you know at least in the

soviet union i had a job i had um you

know various you know government

assistance and all that

i'm not going to deny that i think that

it's not big i think

i think the the fact that prostitution

all those things came about was because

of all sort of like failed state so to

speak don't you think it could also be

interpreted though that

the orthodox church this is going to

sound kind of crazy but wasn't the

orthodox church kind of also

a kind of

repository of the memory of the soviet

union after it collapsed like

before you kind of had this huge state

where there seems to be this living

um this kind of animus this kind of

teleology of purpose

and then when it collapses this purpose

condenses and and collapses into

faith a faith that can be personalized

well i mean i would say like it's sort

of like the opposite happens when if you

look at the sort of creation of the

soviet union kind of going back to our

conversation earlier that we've been

having about the sort of um

you know has been him into the slight

messianic sort of teleology of uh or the

mechanic view of our perspective of

communism so it's not that like when you

said like they were the collapse of the

soviet union and the orthodox church

being this repository of these ideas i

think that if you go back to you know

1917 that the those communist

revolutionaries who are doing their

thing there and creating the the the

soviet

system the soviet states what they were

doing was taking on christianity and

then when communism fell it just went

back to christianity if that makes sense

but here's here's why i kind of

have trouble um

have trouble with that because

don't you think

that peter the great and the

westernizers of russia

maybe did a number on infecting and

infiltrating that church

with foreign you know kind of free

masonic and

western oh i mean yeah i mean we call it

you know some people even call it sort

of like western captivity of the church

yeah because you you you know that um

at church that stalin blew up famously i

forgot the name of it you probably know

the name

but

that

church was built by a freemason designed

by a freemason

and who is not orthodox christian

at all

i i i really don't know what this

specific this is probably more festivus

drought because this whole thing is like

a free free masonry

what he's really into

i want to i want to say i'm quite

pleasantly surprised that oz actually

knows that much about freemasonry in

russia and yeah he's right um peter the

great kind of opened the doors for

western freemasonry into russia which of

course historically has been a very

orthodox country orthodox christian

country

so um i have been aware of the masonic

infiltration of russia it's never been

as quick as i'm sure masonry would like

it to be that's why it's always spread

west and been more successful spreading

west especially in america

where i would say freemasonry had the

most success but yeah there was always

kind of like a fifth column in russia

that was there and um i did not actually

know that that was actually built by a

freemason i'd have to look into that

more yeah yeah so yeah

yeah i mean you know and by the time

that rev i mean you know um that woman

madame blavatsky was

she had the ear of the tsarina right so

we are dealing with a deeply corrupt

germanized and westernized elite

in russia and i guess the common view i

think

even dugan has this view i believe

that what happened with the soviet union

is basically

a return to the times of uh

of um

muscovy

of ivan the terrible

i mean stalin kind of says that directly

when he's talking to eisenstein he says

so stalin he says multiple nice things

about ivan right he says there's two

people who created a monopoly on foreign

trade

uh

ivan was the first and lenin was the

second right

then stalin also goes to say talking to

eisenstein who's producing these very

patriotic films alexander nevsky and

ivan the terrible he says um

ivan kicked out the foreigners foreign

influence from russia this is why he was

good right

that peter the great was a westernizer

and a germanizer and he said look at the

court of catherine is that a russian

court no it's all germans right right so

there's clearly this kind of there's an

immense destruction that happens after

the revolution yes

but dugan he identifies this um

destruction

in the framework of what he calls

archaeo modernity he says

the apparent destruction of the

orthodoxy was just part of the history

of russian orthodoxy and led to a

revival

led to a true revival

so dugan does not identify it with this

kind of

satanism when you contrast that with the

western liberalism

and

you know the difference is very clear

even if it allows a persistence of

religiosity legally

it's a complete war on the soul complete

annihilation of the soul

um

because what western liberalism is even

does is much worse it targets

i guess in one

to put it in guanajuan's terms as uh

i've read through dugan

what western liberalism does is it seals

the

opening of the world egg

out of which the kind of revelation and

access to the divine

is possible

this dude's a fed troll

in the fucking chat right now yeah i

don't i that person's full of shit yeah

like

yeah i know like i mean you've had spats

but like i've had people like this come

in my channel like

for weeks now saying they're from your

chat which which is part of the reason

why i've been so hostile towards you

yeah i don't i've never gone that i have

not even publicly told people

um or to be in your chat or anything so

you know i

let alone fucking start reporting shit

so yeah i don't that has nothing to do

uh

okay yeah

uh

as far as like the you know it's like in

the case of like um

the moscow pool and like the um the way

trying to build the palace of the

soviets there and nearly work out like

stalin had that whole like church like

just destroyed

yeah that was the church i was talking

about

oh that's the one okay okay that's right

okay okay i'll look into that thank you

i have one last question um or maybe a

series of questions depending how it

unfolds um what do you think were marx's

personal beliefs about religion and the

divine

and how do you think he uh put those

beliefs into practice throughout his

life

i don't think he gave them i think marx

was a modern man i don't think he gave

them what thought at all i

focused on a very specific thing

and

but you know what i do think is

interesting is that

it seems like later in their

investigations it just so happens to

come under their nose

where you have things like um the or the

um

what is it

the origins of early christianity which

angles is writing very late in his life

at the tail end

where angles are saying you know

looking back

the christianity was one to one with

with our socialist movement that was the

socialism back then

and so there's this unique rediscovery

of christianity that happens later on

which i think sp i mean engels was not a

guy who was ignorant about christianity

or the question i mean he was dealing

with the young hegelians hegel the

criticism of religion

oyerbach

so to me i think um

i think they basically ignored it but it

rears its significance anyway

um later on

isn't this uh christian grouping at the

socialism kind of like more like the

guild socialist distributors type stuff

that was like condemned as feudal

socialism though

i i don't think so because i think the

problem so marx is not anti-modern right

marx does think there's something

inevitable about technological

and modernity right

and the feudal socialists kind of had

positioned themselves in a way of trying

marx's view is not so much i'm against

uh them existing as much as like they're

just coping there's no way to stop this

modernity it's gonna happen

it's just i think that you're

underselling uh

you're understating uh marx's

agnosticism or atheism and i think i

think the reason though is because i'm

trying to emphasize more

the atheism of modernity

which is why marx did not have to give

much attention to religion

he

was living in an atheistic world that

world of industrial modern capitalism

was an atheist world now it wasn't

atheist in the countryside maybe

but in the

heat of the class struggle between the

proletariat

and the wuzwazee oh that was an atheist

world where it seemed like

religion was

um forgotten somehow

so the question is how would it become

remembered right and it gets remembered

actually through to

you can read it in two ways right both

religion becomes remembered but also

the countryside becomes remembered

the significance of the peasant is

increasingly increasingly um

increasingly there for marx and angles

later in their lives and why they're in

the in the form of the indebted french

peasant

uh or the russian peasant of the murder

commune right which marx writes you know

the russian marxists are wrong

the russians they can just skip to

communism they already have in their

traditional communes

uh the key to

passing over capitalism basically modern

capitalism

so you know it's it's an interesting

case but

it's not that marx is imposing atheism

right

there is an inherent atheism of

modernity itself so the question is

how does marx deal with that right i my

view is that the way marx deals with

that

leaves an opening for religion

that liberalism

did not leave

well i would have to argue that he did

not have the intention of leaving

opening himself because it's one thing

to be living in an atheistic world and

thus you can be a christian but think

that your your job is to provide a

secular philosophy at the very least as

you could say is as a stepping ground to

greater goods down the line but marx was

a died in the world atheist he lived he

was an apostate to lutheranism which he

was baptized into he lived that way his

entire life and

this is and i like to emphasize on what

people do for like their

for the for their last rites and their

burials because

the afterlife is the most important

thing if you are religious

he where was he buried he was buried in

highgate cemetery the east the eastern

section of highgate cemetery next to all

the other humanists all the other

agnostics all the other atheists of his

era from herbert spencer to the guy who

literally coined the term secularism

so

i it's one thing to argue that maybe he

was a christian guy who advocated for in

a secular philosophy that leaves room

for

religion to come back in and it's in its

in its essence but

he was an atheist and almost everything

but in his life points to him being an

atheist

a lot it doesn't make a lot of sense he

was he was to be promoting christianity

doesn't mean that like marxism itself

imposes atheism well also marx is an

atheist you're right but i'm just trying

to say

he was not the active

propaganda propagator or um

for him atheism was not something he

like had to

impose on reality he was dealing with an

atheistic world at the time

and so that's why you find marx and

engels throughout their whole life

mocking

this kind of uh

critiques of religion i mean late i'm

from a propagandistic after their

philosophical stuff after foyer bach

boxing and i was like where's this guy

who's always talking about we need to uh

we need to um

from talk about god doesn't exhibit

marxists who cares right

uh

if you don't think god exists you think

he's like the boogeyman then why do you

why would you keep talking about the

boogeyman if it's a problem right

he would say things like that he would

say things like uh you know

anti-religious propaganda among

work is stupid why would we do that

right

if

whatever is going to happen to religion

will happen

in the course of struggle there's no

need to

whatever is harmful about religion

to the communist struggle or to the

class struggle will just reveal itself

in time

you don't have to impose it

so

i do think

it's not that marx intended on leaving

an opening for religion it's just that

he did and

he was neither for or against this he

just didn't consider it it wasn't on his

mind

but the opening was there

what would martial

consider it

i just want to point out real quick i

did some research on that church you're

mentioning so it was originally designed

by a freemason um but then once um

alexander the first died and then it was

a um oh sorry i didn't mean to call you

autonomous i fat fingered it

my bad my bad uh but once um

alexander the first died um and it was

like still early in construction his

brother nicholas the first um redesigned

it to be pro-orthodox and removed all of

the freemason stuff that was in the

designs and whatnot and it was an actual

orthodox orthodox church but i think

still like when a freemason designs a

building i don't know if you've been in

a masonic building like just the

geometry of

how it's built you can remove all the

overt references and stuff but

still there's something unholy about

how it's built and they know they chose

a new site as well what is with all

these cps usa troll accounts and report

my account

that's so weird uh let me look at your

uh channel

yeah this is

one of them i've been banning them

non-stop they keep popping up like this

guy

it's probably some like retarded like

left spurg kind of like washed here

probably stalks you it's doing it

that guy has never he's never been cpusa

2036 has never been in my chat ever

we're also by the way we're also getting

randoms who

they've never talked in in the youtube

chat on our side in the igg chat they're

claiming that

uh

that this ultaneous crowd is reporting

our chat and saying all this wild shit

about like oh we're going to improve

your chat too

yeah

just

it's either a left youtuber who doesn't

like either of us or like there's like

this ukrainian tele pro ukrainian

telegram channel that like doxxed

facifists his family his wife his child

address everything and we literally we

don't we don't report fascists we don't

no no no like i'm saying that just like

pro-ukrainian channels have been like

targeting people in my circle

like like actual as off people we've

been targeting people like in my inner

circle by the way

you've literally been harassing fast

fast irl so it could be them doing

that that's

really fucking weird

yeah and honestly it's it looks like to

me it looks like a targeted disruption

tactic

for the whole for the whole debate

i'll just keep i'll just keep banning

them

i started to derail everything but like

it'd be interesting to get more into the

contra conversation to masonry though

because like it brings up the whole

thing like the angle the anglos uh

some other stuff it's probably breaking

tos but you and fast fizz could probably

have a pretty good conversation on that

uh yeah for sure

i would like to kind of return back to

you sorry i just yeah i'm going to let

you talk further i just wanted to say

this since i i haven't been talking much

tonight but uh yeah i'm

i'm really uh enjoying this conversation

and especially you know knowing what

getting to know your worldview a little

bit more haws it's actually been very

annoying for me

um now i think i better understand you

and i can also definitely agree with you

regarding the uh i think you said two

camps of communist thought right the one

side that's you know liberal and kind of

like the wash type

and then uh what you're offering

basically is is a what from my

perspective a reinterpretation from your

perspective it's orthodoxy i understand

that but regardless of which is true i

can see there is a clear distinction

there between

what you stand for and what what it's

like and at the very least

you know even if it's even if you don't

consider it to orthodox like the other

one isn't orthodox at all also

it's almost like

it's caught with these two paths that

you know are to be clear like our um

forefathers communist forefathers

did not give an exact stance on

you know they did we obviously have the

hegemony

being able to cite them and refer to

them

but

like this is definitely a new internal

struggle i think it goes back to the

sino-soviet split

and even even tankies it goes even to

self-proclaimed mls right most of them

in obviously most of them in america but

even at other places in the world

india i've seen right

where they just have this george soros

interpretation and they're literally

connected to the ngos and yeah and all

that shit so it's like

you know um i mean one of the dudes who

originally doxed me it was literally a

part of the north atlantic council

yeah i mean it's it's fucking insane

like you have these so-called tankies

that are

you know

but i think it goes my you know my my

conspiracy theory has always been that

you know we are ruled by ex-communists

or even people who might secretly be

communist but it's going back to the

sino-soviet split like

sometimes right-wingers are correct when

they say yeah oh my god we're ruled by

commies or whatever maybe there's true

to that but i think maybe what they miss

they get wrong is that this is an

internal

civil war like

that goes back to that sino-soviet split

between mao's

peasant populism and the managerial

elites

that were part of the soviet bureaucracy

and you know that's just been my world

view

we can call maybe the dionysian and the

apollonian characteristics of marxist

leninism with the dynasty more focused

on

the sensual you could say liberal

aspects of it you know well it's gonna

be a nice happy paradise and we can do

whatever we want and we won't have to

worry about anything and then there's

the people who are concerned with the

struggle and opposing order and the

morality of it all

that's what i i would describe that's

the main difference

yeah i mean like uh you know

that it's just

there's there's just crazy shit like um

i mean even intuitively i mean i think

everyone can is clear

just normal people you show them like

hey do you really think the communists

are these like blue hair fucking

egens and like furries and shit and it's

like

i mean

there's clearly something off about that

association right

so you know

not just that an aesthetic everyone here

on the panel agrees with you on that one

yeah i think blue-haired blue-haired

freak will go and say oh that person's a

call me just because they were they're

waving a hammer and sickle like that

yeah i mean like what do you think

would happen to those type of people

under stalin like

yeah

i don't think stalin would would

tolerate furries i think stalin would

probably

think they're mentally ill and you know

yeah

so

i do wonder though what stalin's first

sona would have been

no come on

maybe the russian eagle

no chill too

yeah this is our this is our religion

that's that's like blaspheming the

prophet

but um

like even that during the russian

revolution itself you had people like

alexander kalontai who is more into

the hypothetical of having you know free

love and radical feminism more than uh

she was concerned with she you could say

she

um

so she she wasn't specifically sorry

give me one second

i am betting that his food is here

uh while while we're giving haas one

moment uh javenski i wanted to say

uh i i linked a blog and then a news

article talking about

um stalin's relationship with the

orthodox church and there's actually

images

of like old uh old paintings of uh

stalin depicted as a saint by by people

who were supportive of the russians

i mean you have that i mean i don't deny

that but i think you have it infinitely

more with like romania where they like

um you know valorize or they want to um

even there's this guy i forgot his name

and maybe some of the comments can make

him but he's a he's this romanian um

he died a while ago but he was a

romanian theologian and he said that

cornelius who was like the leader of the

third positionist movement in romania

and he in my opinion arguably led the

largest religious revival movement in

the 20th century in romania um there's

little literally literally like romanian

saints who are saying that he should be

canonized because of what he did as well

so

i think that

i think that the russian population is

much larger and greater than

romanian populations yeah but what i'm

saying is i think that the sort of if

you want to like compare like um can do

a comparison i mean there's people who

want there's people who've tried to

canonize sternberg even though he was

like a lutheran

so yeah there's always that people

trying to do to briefly go back to the

um

thing

so she was hugely critical of feminism

she thought like feminism as a movement

was bourgeois

and

she i think the association with free

love

was more like she was kind of trying to

say um not free sex sex love but like

free love in this kind of strict sense

of escaping the economic motivations and

stuff but even then just the phrase

really bothered lennon he was like

what do you mean free love that's like

you know not everybody wants to

drink the same

uh what did he say like dirty tap water

or some shit like that

and he basically had a conservative view

but you know kalantay

for comparison

highlighted the importance of motherhood

we said we're not just women we're

mothers right

so

in order to um

on the needs of women you know they you

have to

focus on supporting motherhood

supporting mothers things like that

so kalanta i'm just trying to say even

her who's considered more kind of having

a feministic orientation although she

was not a feminist herself

radically different than than uh you

know the cultural politics of leftists

that you find today which say things

like you know

uh woman motherhood is oppressive and

families are all you know oppression and

yadda yadda

i guess it might not just be her i just

know there was a faction of um

of marxists at the time or bolsheviks

who were into that camp

i'll give you more

as boris

there was an american woman that was

along those lines but i'm aware that

marx threw her out

mark's covering so i'll give you more

i'll give you more regarding the weird

factions in soviet state now these were

people

who were not particularly loyal they

weren't loyal to the bolsheviks or

anything like that

but they were theosophists

and they were occultists right

um and these people you had a lot of

weird stuff let's just say happen with

that prolet called like

um the ideas of the formalists for

example where they just kind of

wanted art to replace

yeah they wanted to artistically

demyergically replace

reality transhumanists who wanted like

to overcome the physical

physical vessel of the human body itself

so there was a lot of weird wacky things

going on there

all of it was put to an end but they

kind of slipped through the cracks and

he could taking advantage of the vacuum

did acquire prominence in the 20s in

soviet union but uh

they were thoroughly denounced

by the uh socialist realism

there were there i'm trying to say there

was the the soviet avant-garde i mean

they were like the soviet futurists

basically yeah but they were they were

engaging in ideas that you would not see

pop up

until like this this weird silicon

valley

type of um post-humanism that comes

around you know

thousands and nineties so that is just a

also

final weird thing about that is that um

a lot of those silicon valley people

were people who emigrated from the

soviet union

whose chips because the soviets produced

some of the best mathematicians in the

world

so you know intel and the rest

i think intel was founded by a soviet

immigrant so yeah i mean that's just

just an observation

um

which is

it's such a crime that the west

still carries forth this stereotype that

russians are a brutal stupid and immoral

people that like everyone is some sort

of uh it runs an import export company

or as part of the mafia and just run

dresses and

and you know in adidas

when when they're not trying to take

over the entire world

even though they produce some of the

most intelligent mathematicians chemists

biologists poets philosophers

ever really yeah i actually recommend

i can recommend a book on that it's

called uh i don't know if you've heard

of it it's called the last ring bearer

you ever heard of that

no i haven't it's like this russian take

on lord of the rings where

they're pushing back on talking and

they're saying

that was a complete propaganda right and

actually

mordor was actually like some civilized

enlightened place of philosophers and

you know into artists and intellectuals

and whatever

and that it was mordor which was like

this sorry it was the uh

the

elves and whatever dwarves and hobbits

whatever these were all like

elves you mean anglos yeah pretty that's

pretty much what the book is yeah

so

my favorite lord of the ring tanks is

from um

you michael jones who basically argues

that the problem with lord of the rings

is that it's not anti-semitic enough

oh boy

[Music]

i think this are you worried i wouldn't

i wouldn't go too far in that rails it

could actually probably hurt his channel

i was gonna say

i was gonna say you guys should you guys

should read stalin and the scientists

uh it's like a historical uh it's like a

collection of like historical

achievements of science that were made

under uh

stalin and the soviet uh regime

i mean i don't think any of us deny that

like you know collective like or you

know central plain like more or less

works and what not like we're not like

libertarians here don't you guys see

yourselves as like kind of like

revolutionizing like darwin like with

like like sencoism and stuff like that

though

uh like what do you mean

well i know it was like this guy did

like an entire video series of uh

how

basically building off of darwin kind of

like changing his theory a bit but it's

still compatible with like uh

yeah like natural sciences

yeah

yeah i think that's also a theological

issue because

everything kind of goes back to that

right

it all goes back to this question of the

relation of form and content and um

the mendelian interpretation of

darwinism

or even even darwin's own interpretation

and lysenko knew that there were

limitations in darwin kind of comes this

idea that like you know there's no

inherent kind of like purpose

of

change in evolutionary history it all

just a bunch of random accidents

and the only thing that's constant is

the gene

i'm just kind of like standing for a

metaphysical substance

but lysenko's whole stick is like

there's an importance of form right

and that you know

he he really finds it horrific this idea

that like

that an organism is just the nutritive

soil for the gene he finds this

extremely vulgar and you know uh

and basically

um

how do i put it barbaric like

no the form of the animal is important

in

in the process of its change and

development

the form of the organism

form is also another word for spirit

in a lot of ways

um

depending on how you think of it

so there's that you know i think lysenko

is kind of an orthodox russian

conservative

uh

biologist

because he's also drawing from the

tradition the russian tradition of ivan

mitcherin right before any marxism

before any any of the communism right so

yes he's a marxist he's a marxist

leninist and it is compatible with

dialectical materialism but

i think people tend to overlook the

russian russianness of lysenko

i think people also overlook

oh sorry i didn't realize

on a final note a lot of these kind of

like fake conservatives in america

uh will try to say shit like you know

there's a neo lysenkoism

which is this kind of social

constructivistic view that there's no

biological realities and you know we can

just mold human beings to an ideology

but that has nothing to do with raza

stuff basically

yeah it has nothing to do with lysenko

anything lysenko actually says you know

that's that's more just um

again a uniquely american

left liberal kind of thing

uh another thing too that's really

significant is that there's uh

in the old in the old infrared server

that we had

there was a

we had an archive of a bunch of

different uh peer-reviewed medical

studies that actually confirmed

uh a lot of what lisenko was saying

like long ago like a long time ago and

there i can i can pull up one of uh one

of them they're

ncbi.gov

where they basically talk about how mes

as a system has been completely out

loaded

and they can't there's no way to verify

the veracity of the system

and the role that

genes like they think that

in in this uh in one of these articles

that i found

they're basically positing that uh

the colloquial understanding of genetics

by

as commonly understood by americans has

been set back by over 50 years by this

by the mendelian epigenetic system um

and

there's no way to like uh

they can't reproduce the claims that are

made by the medallion

epigenetic system it's like really

interesting to read and the uh

the research paper that i found

it it states that there's more

uh

alterations that may

alterations that may occur to to uh

somewhat to a people's dna

are more likely to happen due to

um

cultural

uh

cultural

influences and influences from food and

geography

it's really fascinating

is there anything you want to say on

regarding lysenko him

yeah apologies for the interruption

earlier um i had a delay on it's fine

but before before you respond like i

want to say mancilla wants to talk

strictly dugan eventually because like

he does work with people no i i gotta i

gotta i gotta gotta go heading out soon

yeah

yeah we can just i don't know all right

i i'll just say this really quick like

next sunday i'm gonna be having a guy

one of the co-founders of new resistance

who actually works directly with dugan

coming on for an interview so we don't

have an exact time yet but he's from

brazil then

fastest fist wants to talk like world

war ii related stuff and uh just let him

continue

uh

yeah uh zolts what what was it again

that you wanted me to bring up i'm sorry

oh

well he was talking about like theosophy

and how like masonry was targeted but

there's a lot a lot of stuff like

involving uh the third reich where a lot

of that stuff was targeted too that

would probably be an interesting

conversation between you two because

you're pretty big on you're pretty big

on like third reich revisionism but also

on soviet revisionism from grover to

david irving right so we we run a

channel called stalinist revisionism

channel which um

a lot of people that

visit the channel

they they would describe it as very pro

stalin

and uh it's it was once in a while we do

uh

compare and contrast between uh stalin

and hitler and it's interesting to see a

lot of positive overlapping

can we go over this on youtube though

because you know yeah i'm not gonna i'm

not gonna talk about hitler i'm just

gonna talk about like stalin more so um

but like his his views on uh

like what you what you brought about

brought up about theosophy and the

attacks against these occultists

um it parallels a lot of what uh the

other guy did yeah

what i would disagree with that about

though is that you know

maybe there's some monopoly that's being

established

um

let's just call him the

painter

maybe there's a campaigner

yeah maybe there's like uh

some kind of um

monopoly established over the occult but

i mean it's very clear the connection

theosophy

it through the ss in particular right

i mean even even the founding of the the

the nazi party and its origins that

comes from the kind of occult

russian emma grays and then uh

others and then you know you have the

aeriosophy

uh you have rosenberg

and then the adoption of the swastika

itself you know

well the swastika as a symbol was used

even before you know the 20th century by

various peoples including russians you

know it's it's basically a universal

symbol you can find it on virtually

every continent no no i i know but the

reason they adopted it was because they

were coming from this area of arios

sorry aerosol logical background

uh

you're correct you're correct that

people like madame blavatsky and the uh

the air people that followed aeriosity

they used it too

um that's absolutely true you're correct

about that but my point is to say that

they did it because of them and that

specific group i think is kind of

conflating it because well like i said

lots of people used it all over well

the theosophist when i say eriosophy i

mean this kind of idea that

the symbol is an ancient aryan symbol

right yeah and this guy that's what

aerosol is it's kind of like this idea

of an aryan people stretching from

the indus

tibet

uh you know um then there's the kind of

hyperborean ideas which dugan yep yeah

there's different factions that believe

yeah well

just the general idea that there's this

kind of aryan

race that stands in opposition to the

kind of judeo-christian one

quote-unquote

and the swastika is

really adopted in complete con and

contra distinction to the christian

cross

right whereas the cross is this kind of

arresting of time

just in a strict sense of like this is

the one monotheistic truth

swastika was adopted according to these

people because they had a kind of

cyclical view of

or pagan understanding being right

the area softs right the people that

followed aeriosity

yeah yeah and then one of them though

was distinguished but i don't think he

was very prominent

in the nazi party but he was of the view

that aryans created the old testament

and you know jesus was an aryan who came

down to

he had this kind of specific view

but the majority were against

christianity and uh majority were

against

uh

uh jesus the majority of the us the

majority of the ss you mean right

the majority of the people who were uh

involved in aeriosophy and very awesome

if you're going to say the majority of

the people that were involved with

eriosophy i definitely agree with you

yes that's true

but it we also have to keep in mind that

eriosophy was also eventually banned in

the third rank i think it was around um

definitely by 1941 july 7th 1941 that's

when they had the hydric shut down all

the aerosol uh clubs and uh lodges and

whatever so wait what was it it was

called the what shutdown

uh

by i mean i did an entire video on this

if you're interested i can share the

information with you but by by july 7th

i believe it was the date 1941 they they

had a total ban on all the cold things

and that included aeriosophy

um

yeah i've never i've never heard of that

because it seems to me that

um you said july 7th

yeah i've i've got a video on it i can i

can send it to you if you're interested

um i don't i mean it we don't really

have to give you too much

was the um

was the uh

the norse pagan wolf's angle still

integrated on ss uniforms

the what's the wolf

uh wolf's angle

the ss

the ss icon or the ss logo that's on the

collar i think i think there was there

was a um

there was a kind of um

so wait there is continuing in

by the time

yeah i think i think there was a

crackdown on specific factions but not

the whole thing

and specifically the ones that were

within the ss that they had a monopoly

on

um

remained within right

but

so i think there were these organized

groups that were outside of the nazi

party

that they in general were cracking down

on but

in general no it was um it was not

erased from the foundation of the party

npss thank you jackson for the raid

appreciate you so much man

so um are you talking about aeriosophy

like as in the different uh clubs and

lodges that followed no no so

to explain the the term aerospace just

the kind of

world view and and philosophy

basically is so sophie is

a word that's usually attached to like a

specific tradition like theosophy

philosophy

and aeriosophy the root for arie right

ariel or it's also called arminism it's

just about this idea of

of um

arianism more or less right it's the

idea of mystical arianism

right

so it's not like a it's not like a free

masonic organization it's more like a

set of beliefs and yeah philosophies

would you group uh shun into that

who

uh shoot fridge off shoe on

uh

he's like an entire book on like uh

aryanism and he's like one of the

perennial school people

frederick shuwon

fujov shuwan rudra

it's it's spelled uh it was in the

fritio officer

[Music]

let me know one of the founders of the

perennial school

there's also there's

there's a lot of historical examples of

the uh

the norse pagan odle rune uh being used

as uh military pins and patches

um

i don't know if you guys know about that

no no yeah you're right they did use

such symbols and they also integrated

uh is what the ss was directly based off

of

and that was integrated into the uniform

there was basically this vague idea that

christianity was you know this invasive

thing they did they didn't completely

destroy the church

but i think they did debase it in a lot

of ways

um yeah and also also in private all in

private hitler kind of viewed the

christian church as

antithetical

to uh to his plans so so well look uh we

have to be we have to be clear because

that you're correct that there were

certain figures in the government that

were uh anti-christian so people like

dary

people like borman uh these were

definitely uh even rosenberg rosenberg i

i would say he was kind of uh an

absolute heretic he never directly said

anything negative about jesus christ but

he was very

oppositional to

organized christianity especially

going as far as to oppose paul and

matthew i think he had issues with paul

and matthew and he makes that very clear

in his book myth of the 20th century but

if you look at other figures for example

um

like uh

pardon uh stripple

yes yes stop wilhelm stoppel is a good

example right wilhelm stoppel was uh was

an adviser under uh

the guy that was running the

uh state church relations i forgot i

forgot who it was you might remember

zolt but um he was he was it was an

advisor to that guy um and he he wrote a

he wrote a uh little uh essay or book

called six chapters on uh national

socialism or sorry six chapters on

christianity and national socialism i've

done an audio book reading of that book

that that's that's a very good little

book and that that actually debunks a

lot of the uh

claims about the this this view that uh

national socialism was actually

inherently antagonistic

i think stoppal was kind of a compromise

with the nazi party though i don't think

he he lied at the root of the institute

and i think he he shared that

with the other kind of other german

conservatives at the time who decided

you know what

we're just gonna

accept nazism basically because it's

saving us from bolshevism and it's

saving us from

decay of the ymr and their view so like

you know i think that represented the

kind of

attempt to

make a a

synthesis right but that was not the

foundation of the nazism

um

i mean i i don't know what you mean by

the foundation of nazism because

national socialism as a political

philosophy and idea goes back at least

about 300 years before hitler

maybe 250 is a more reasonable uh

estimate

uh well i mean regardless the specific

german milieu out of which the nazis

would arise off is definitely from

occultism and theosophy

philosophy is is that based on uh the

connection to the tools tools society

they're

connected to it but theosophy comes from

the russian adam levotsky

right through the russian emigrates that

nazism would basically

take take shape and form

that were the followers of blavoski

actually even the tsarina right on her

notebook

at the

when she was

being held

prisoner

she had a swastika on her notebook and

she would always draw swastikas

and that was because she was

a theosophos

she she was inspired by the thinking of

blavatsky and yada yada so those ideas

find their way to germany in the

aftermath and

out of this

arises nazism

okay i mean again

i i i really have to question because

you say she drew swastikas because she

was interested in theosophy um

but like the usage of the swastika even

the soviet union used the swastika in

the in the 1920s surely you're aware of

that yeah no i know they did yeah the

red army

right yeah and but i don't think that

had anything to do with the theosophy

right even sternberg he was like a

syncretic christian yeah sternberg used

it too but

that guy probably was pagan right but

they

they um

that alone is not enough but she was

very uh consistent in her usage of the

swastika

and to me it seems like that's an

inherent connection

to um

is this i mean it's like

it's known she was interested in the

ideas of levotsky and the occult in

general so like

it's

to me it it just couldn't be a

coincidence you know

well it's it's one thing to be

interested uh you know on an academic

level that like that much i can agree

with you on but the senator on a

practical level on a right on every

level she was knee-deep in that stuff

right that's where i have to like issue

some more skepticism because you know

you can study the the materials of

people you disagree with or don't

necessarily agree with you know what i

mean so just because i have an interest

in something like for example

i'm interested in uh the thoughts and

ideas of a buddhist thinker doesn't make

me a buddhist right

no but you know you have to understand

theosophy was this very um

very groundbreaking like

all-encompassing vision of the world

and

the russian elite

in general at this time

were definitely submerged in these ideas

to look for a path outside of

christianity

to deal with basically you know

what we call the modern world

cope with it and to you know understand

their future i mean it's just

the same kind of decadence of any elite

that happens across history where they

just stu you know it's like babylon you

know they start to become interested in

strange things and

strange beings right and

yeah they start engaging all these weird

practices and doing these weird things

um

or being humbled by the common man

well that makes me that makes me

interested in your view uh regarding

russ putin i'm assuming you don't think

uh

that he was a holy man you think he was

an occultist i'm assuming i could be

wrong correct me if i'm wrong

no the truth is i i

simply don't know enough about the

rasputin particular he is a very

enigmatic figure to me

um i've heard conflicting descriptions

of him

but that's all i can say i

him in particular i'm not

his his occultism i think was not the

theosophical his

was from the old believers right

yeah i mean i'm i'm leaning towards some

kind of christian mysticism

yeah i i don't know enough i'd have to

investigate that more uh in america we

were taught about rasputin before we

talked about lenin

because

he's this um

he's this very uh

stereotypical figure of russian evil

right

and then that that recent movie that was

released

of the british spies what is it called

uh

uh

kingsman kingsman yeah bingsman king's

cia mi6

yeah yeah and then rasputin's literally

a villain in that in that uh story

because rasputin is like you know

pulling russia out of the war or some

shit i don't know so i mean just the

villainization of rasputin that happens

by my

my it's funny my older brother told me

that they um that in that film they

infantilized lennon and make him out to

be like this spoiled idiot kid

yeah yeah so it's like

that

the reaction to rasputin

um

in the let's say anglo-saxon imagination

me

is interesting i don't know

what's really going on there

um

okay yeah no it's that's not quite

that's not the answer i expected but

that's good it's a good answer yeah

okay

um

yeah i mean i don't really have much

more uh on on that topic specifically

because i know it is you know you are

streaming on youtube so i don't want to

get into it uh too much because it's

just unnecessary yeah

uh

and

i'm looking at something really fast

i mean is there something you wanted to

add more about dugan uh because it is

kind of getting late and i have to go

soon yeah i'll just add that uh there is

like an entire essay on the russian

conservative revolution

by dugan and like one of his uh people

that he sets as an influence inside of

it is actually the sternberg guy but

that was from like the

early 2000s

yes i believe so uh

he actually referenced sternberg as one

of the main influences on

neo-eurasianism

and uh he was he was basically just like

a monarchist who wanted to unite all of

asia including russia the guy in

mongolia

yeah then do a crusade against the west

but uh

i think dugan

from what i've read

it seems like he's attracted to the

aesthetical idea

it

just likes this idea of this um merger

with the mongol um

kind of sacred traditions

um

dugan he kind of uh

dugan began as a subversive you know he

began as the kind of hippie in a way

within the soviet union

so everything that was forbidden

everything that was prohibited

everything that was whatever he was

exploring that you know and

he undergoes an interesting evolution

and maturity where

he appears extreme he appears like a um

a russian ayatollah today you know but

um

back in the day he was like a guy who

was recording songs with his guitar and

stuff

but um

specifically i think what's interesting

there is some

the transition he makes from

this attempt to explore the possibility

of a russian aeriosophy

in the mid 90s

to uh

mid 2000s i think is where i would put

it

is

going from relocating russians as this

kind of aryan arianism

to uh turon tyrannia turanism right

this basic idea that atlanticism

is

arianism is a form of atlanticism it's

kind of the conclusion comes to

potentially

uh placing this kind of chronology from

the greeks through the romans alexander

the great

through napoleon hitler and then finally

nato and then the united states he says

and then so here he kind of

i think is the beginning of where

he searches for what he calls the

russian logos

instead of uh

exploring the forbidden western logos

which defined a lot of his time he wants

to search for

a unique tyrannian russian

beginning

i do have a question since this is more

acceptable to youtube uh what are your

thoughts and views on napoleon bonaparte

um

broadly positive

obviously not in in haiti but uh

broadly i i i have um

an appreciation i like the idea of

i you know

in some ways i see napoleon as a

eurasianist i see him as

building an asian empire in the heart of

europe so this much i um

admire obviously his military victories

and successes

are admirable but i am not like um

i don't like to make it mcu of history

right

so

yes i like napoleon but i also like the

german gorillas fighting napoleon right

marx like and marx's attitude was the

same

basically he likes both of them

for different reasons

you're definitely right about napoleon's

struggle um and what he was trying to

achieve i think that's an app

description that you gave

also in terms of his enemies the people

that he was up against

they were more or less the same powers

and forces that i would say stalin was

up against a little bit later

i was just about to say that

napoleon

picked up the uh

he picked up the shambles that were left

by the french revolution and

reconstituted france as a as a real

power

and

sorry oh sorry

uh well i was i was also going to say

that he also got rid of

like a lot of corrupt leaders that

um that were in direct opposition to the

masses and the people

yeah yeah i mean one one of the things i

like about napoleon though is that

when i say he he's building an asian

empire in europe it's almost like he's

he's he's like this reviver of

civilization where somehow he he he

starts to be able to respect

others he doesn't he drops this kind of

european arrogance

and he starts to say like you know the

english

visited the chinese emperor and they

said no we're not going to bow to the

chinese emperor we're english we don't

buy to anyone napoleon's like how could

they you know that's

that's so uh rude and barbaric like you

know you everyone knows that when you're

in another land you have to respect

their customs and their laws i mean he

had a lot of respect

he was a man of culture yeah precisely

that's precisely it also another another

thing i like about napoleon is that to

me napoleon reveals the truth of the

french revolution the french revolution

seems like

the most modern thing ever which is true

right in a way in a lot of ways

but then it's also you see how the

corruption of

the ancient regime is also what gave

birth to this this revolution and with

napoleon

he goes even further backwards in

history

then

the ancient regime he goes back to

charlemagne and this kind of latin

empire of charlemagne so this is also

the structure of archaeo modernity

described by dugan

yeah a revolution takes us further into

the past

it seems like this revolution is

destroying

the past destroying all the tradition

but this destruction also corresponds

to even further deepening and awakening

of tradition

which i think is what happens with

napoleon right somehow

they are returning to the charlemagne

latin empire in this kind of

neoclassical

renaissance

right uh

instead of this um

rationalistic madness of building

everything from scratch based on nothing

yeah

i definitely agree with your assessment

there regarding uh

revolution and destruction actually

resulting in increasing conservatism

later down the line because i i do see a

clear pattern with how

decadence and degeneracy kind of

toe to toe with uh comfort and uh

the the

the overall modernity the issues of

modernity same same thing happened in

china you know they had their cultural

revolution and then

after that there's literally a

neo-traditionalism it's what it's called

in china revival

um right

so to me

that is a very clear dialectic

uh what would you say about people who

label uh

stalin but they also label the the

austrian painter and like

kind of like a lot of anti-atlantis

atlantis leaders nowadays i've heard

mopping use the term but they kind of

called them like bone bonapartists but

you didn't necessarily he doesn't

necessarily call stalin that it's more

like trotsky it did that but just kind

of people being called like bonapartists

do you agree with that type of like

label or association so that that comes

from marx's uh

his assessment not of bonaparte the

first but of uh the third

the third born apart

um

that's in his 18th premiere of lewis

napoleon

and

that uh

i i would not characterize the so stalin

he was confronted with that idea too and

stalin said

bonaparte

he was conquering europe and freeing all

the serfs you know

and in stalin's view the painter he was

just

working at the behest of

the banks

to enslave europe under this new regime

of primitive accumulation

to save a dying this was stalin's view

of dying capitalism

stalin said there can't be a comparison

because one of them was this kind of

revolutionary

the other one um

wasn't but

beyond that

um

kind of debate i guess

there's also the third world leaders

you know nasser and

sukarno and

others uh the question are these bona

partis right

i

i think i would rather ask the question

what was bonaparte does bonaparte

represent something right and that's why

i kind of like the word caesar caesarism

better

caesarism like hugo chavez who's like a

julius caesar right and the the marxist

michael perrenti

i don't know if you're familiar he wrote

a book called

the history of ancient rome it's called

sorry the assassination of julius caesar

and the class struggle of ancient rome

where he basically identifies you know

julius caesar as this like hugo chavez

populist

who's fighting against the elites and

the aristocrats to fight for land reform

so

you know i think there's something

interesting there that maybe has been

overlooked

uh in marx as a general

because this uh yeah

i know i'm interrupting but

this is interesting because like

the way we see the third way and the way

you see marxism though like we disagree

it's kind of like looking in a mirror in

a way at least kind of at least how it's

coming off to me i don't know how like

facifist feels he's a bit more like a

political like monarchist type but

yeah i i don't yeah exactly i'm a

political but the way i see it is yeah

you guys are you have this

same or similar logic but your uh

framing is different as well as the

maybe the etymology you're using i think

i think it's probably more than that too

though because i think uh

the dialectical view is

probably what's most decisive here right

so i think even in in terms of like

practice probably there would be

disagreement about practice right like

what is to be done

how to proceed and i'm not saying this

uh under a strict

left right axis of difference

which in america does not have much

meaning right

at least for now maybe in the future

it will re-emerge a left-right

distinction among populists but i think

everyone's pretty much just a populist

right now

i think the disagreement has more to do

with kind of the relationship between

thought and practice

and how it is that change happens in

reality things like that you know

um also things like aesthetics and

but i mean broadly

uh

those have not really acquired decisive

significance

because no one's built any movements

right right there's not really

anywhere

the closest we've had is what maga

movement for populism

but that's kind of uh being hijacked by

desantis now

so i want to say really quick that you'd

find this interesting there's actually a

thing called the annual review of

political science center right political

parties and advanced democracies this

also applies to like center-left

political parties but the study

basically concludes that uh

quote-unquote yet cohesive center-right

and center-left parties have facilitated

political stability and compromises

while their disintegration has empowered

radical challengers and it actually goes

on to talk about how they have to

prevent people from radical right or

radical left from getting any traction

so they have to try and maintain

uh the center to maintain the status quo

they have a strategy for that and their

strategy has basically been

that

they're adopting the culture and the

veneer of the extreme

or the populist let's say but they're

maintaining the structure and the

connections and the networks of the

status quo so yeah

yeah i got into a disagreement with guys

i actually labeled trump as that it's

kind of like a pressure valve it's kind

of like bernie sanders too they're

pressure valves so but but it's evolved

past that now and now you have um ron

desantis i don't know if you know that

guy but he's super yeah he's super you

know culture war 100

he's like a ted cruz

he's but he's a big crusader culture

worldwide he's known for that it's what

he that's what gets him recognition and

clout but that's a guy who's in the

pocket of

the deep state he's a globalist right

um he's a neocon as well

and

you know

the the manga movement is not seeing

that because of what he's getting famous

for which is his stuff against wokeness

and

poke culture

then on the left obviously you have

bernie you have i think even more

significant now is the squad aoc

those people

and you know the thing is is that

desantis and bernie and the squad are

the same

and i say they're the same they may

disagree about cultural bullshit

whatever but in terms of their

underlying policies right underlying

plans for america and america's foreign

relations it's pretty much the same

fucking thing right

so you know it's just that's that's

what's going on to destroy the populism

of 2016 right now is they're

appropriating the culture and the

language

um

just to do people and

supporting the status quo

there's a book you would probably like

uh called on power at centralization and

growth by a guy called uh bernard

juvenelle he was a liberal but he

basically talks about how you had all

these like patron uh interests that

would uh kind of like

influence political movements and it

would use language as a as a large focus

to kind of like de-fang radical

movements

and make them subordinate to the the

status quo

and he actually focuses on how

intersectionality was used to do that to

the the left for example

and he also talks about how that was

done to like a rat a lot of radical

nationalist movements with uh kind of

like center center-right parties you'd

probably find interesting

well there there were also a bunch of

declassified cia documents that talk

about

um introducing

uh

third wave feminism and identity

politics like modern art in america's

the cia project

yeah

they they talk about introducing these

um

these political artifacts into

discourse in order to throw off

um because

there was like a huge huge labor

movement in the united states you

probably already know about like fdr and

cpusa and the

influence of william z foster and all

that shit

um but like because that was gaining

more and more attraction especially with

the rise of like uh rainbow coalition

and stuff like that they had to come up

with a way to de-legitimize

uh these movements

so it seemed like fdr was definitely

more of a reaction to huey long but i

get what you mean yeah i mean um

the i think the relevant point is there

is one

there's one uh center

and this is not a partisan thing to say

it's not an ideological thing to say i

mean we are probably a very different

ideological but i mean no matter who you

are you can just acknowledge right that

the people in power

are trying to stay in power

and they don't really care about the

language that they have to use they

don't really care about what ways they

have to signal they don't really care

about you know what they have to say

publicly to do that

and you know both the center right and

the center left are basically trying to

re-um capture

deviating forms of politics whatever

they are

back into the status quo and that's all

it serves right

it's not they're not really i mean these

people are interchangeable right they

don't really care

uh if they have to be center right or

have to be center left i mean the whole

point is like okay if the if the public

or a section of the public is going a

little bit too left

we have to bring them back in if they're

going a little bit too

bright or whatever good to bring because

they see them as the same thing they see

it as populism

and what populism means today

is more or less

um

this is how i put it right after world

war ii

after 1929 the collapse of of capitalism

as we know it right

you have this total

um

total

subsumption of the populace

under these state and corporate

institutions right state corporate and

civil institutions so it's like as human

beings we've become completely

domesticated by these institutions

so the populism we start seeing

[Music]

um you know uh after the so-called

neoliberalism

that is not the same as the one in the

past right from 100 years ago that's

some kind of weird

aligned velocity that is taking over and

animating

populations to somehow break out of the

gnostic prison

that was created

uh in the west after world war ii

and you know that

that is something that they have many me

it's almost it's literally almost like

the matrix like this weird thing where

it's like they have to send in the agent

smith

you know

fucking reign in

on people for kind of taking the red

pill

doesn't matter i'm not saying this to be

like oh yeah left and right doesn't mean

anything

um in america it doesn't but

i'm saying this because it the ideology

literally does not matter the question

is

is it trying to break out of this

domestication by of of the people by

institutions

uh and and and kind of

you know it draws into question

something really interesting right

what the fuck is the source of the

state's power

it's not just holding office anymore

somehow the source of the state's power

has become

called into question just by information

just by all these different feedback

loops of information and people forming

communities around different ideas and

different ideologies and you know

different visions of the world

the state's monopoly on reality is being

broken down

and they're trying to that's a bug

that's a bug in the matrix that they're

trying to patch

by learning the art of

signaling one way but doing another way

that's it's like how it's like how they

found out that

over 50 of joe biden's twitter followers

were all bots yeah yeah yeah yeah

they're like they're they're they've

they 2016 was this explosion of how

digital

information was was challenging the

state somehow right challenging the

globalist

deep states or deep state i should say

so they basically deployed all of these

mechanisms to

curtail that so

one of the ways has been bots which

either mentioned

uh troll farms is something they use um

operations they use to discredit and

delegitimize

personalities black propaganda

yep yeah yeah i mean yeah uh they um

radio free europe

yeah i mean they

they also yeah and just discrediting and

delegitimizing people they also deploy

counter signaling through disguise like

the desantis kind of deception that's

going on

um

you know re-channeling these malign

uh velocities back into the direction of

supporting the status quo

so that's

you know that's kind of a something not

a lot of people have thought about

you also

if you yo if you want to go ahead you

can i was about to say you also have to

take into consideration that some of

these groups are pressure released

valves to control and maintain

the anger that's already evolving into

the sphere that's why as you said so

in 2016 for example leftists went

towards bernie sanders bernie sanders

proposed a lot more quote radical

policies than any of his leftist

counterparts trump on the other hand

proposed a lot more

radical policies than any of his

right-wing counterparts but both of

these were

uh pressure release valves to

center all those people going into those

radical spheres into a much more

clinical modern

or

less pressurized

state of affairs yeah that's one way of

interpreting it but

there's also kind of like how

you know

they did really sell out you know they

did really kind of at some point

betray their movements that they created

right because

maybe the potential was there and they

were pressure valves

but i'm i'm kind of a guy who thinks and

maybe this is just a difference we might

have right because of our ideologies but

i tend to privilege

actuality over potentiality right

so i can understand that yeah like i

like to pay more attention to how it

actualizes

and

i i feel like in a lot of ways like

politics is kind of like spectacle at

least like within

like current politics but

a lot of the ways that they've

maintained the control

and same with like these candidates too

that kind of go in

a lot of it's done through like

institutional control so they have

they have different institutions or

different frameworks people can go

throughout society but it's controlled

and

when they have these institutions they

compete with each other to kind of give

the illusion that there's difference but

it's controlled by the same group and

then they have these things like pariah

status and language they use to

delegitimize their enemies like uh oh

that guy's a white supremacist that

guy's a fascist that dudes

like the red the red scare stuff that

you saw trump doing it's just a way to

maintain legitimacy but if you look at

who they had around them when they were

going in the first place sanders even

when he was being a populist had

connections with a lot of the uh the

same people that were

corrupt within the system already even

though trump connected

no i mean yeah it's it's clear to me

sanders

was inevitably going to sell out i mean

that's very clear but

you know i i um

[Music]

i still think the move

for like real things

just maybe they they they were

weak

or

short-sighted in being able to

anticipate the inevitable but you know

um

i think the movements were real the

manga movement was real the bernie stuff

was real

it's just they were there was advice

there was an authentic um

there was an authentic like populistic

uh

upsurge

of interest and enthusiasm because of

those two figures my i remember my

father said

that in the instance that that trump

doesn't win the primaries for the

republican primary he said i'm voting

for bernie

i mean i voted for trump in 2016 too

what i wanted to say uh with that whole

um argument is when you have pressure

release valve

the sentiment and the belief can be very

authentic like the trump movement itself

like within the people within the

population that was authentic the

sanders movement that was authentic

but that doesn't mean that it's head of

the snake let's say

isn't from a malicious source or a

controlled opposition source and i do

believe those yeah movements i think

from the very beginning they were

planning on

they were those were bad actors bernie

and trump from the beginning i agree

with that but i i think there is a

reality of the movement not reducible to

that that makes sense

you you would probably like juvenile

again regarding this because he actually

has a he he does a reform of uh

class dynamics and he actually concludes

that it isn't like you don't have

organic grassroots

uh like appearances he actually rejects

the the idea that there being like any

grassroots populism being able to grain

legitimacy and he actually makes the

argument that uh all politics is

basically

elite versus elite yeah he's like a very

i've and it's a synthesis with populism

that creates the change that's i i

talked about that on stream a few weeks

ago because

yeah that is definitely true it's

it's always shit within the elite that

every revolution in history i mean

every every political change in history

is never just because

maybe like there's slave rebellions and

there's rebellions that get squashed

immediately but

it's always because of the

contradictions within the elite that a

revolution happens and you know i mean

look at

the the february revolution was a

contradiction within the russian elite

you know

between the actually

that

that perfectly segues into your

hypothesis that um

elon musk and mold bug and um peter and

peter thiel

may be the uh uh

maybe the the guard the leading guard of

this new

new movement that runs counter

well here's why i don't think so anymore

they want ceo monarchists

i think but i'm super skeptical of that

now because guess what musk did a few

days ago he endorsed

desantis president

oh

yeah so i i don't know i mean i've

always been un

uneasy right

so i i don't think it's gonna come from

musk i think there's

probably some other source

um

in the ruling class who knows right it's

hard to locate

they will

lead somebody too

things are going to have to destabilize

and delegitimize more probably probably

before that happens so like actually

having the economy get worse and fall

through under bidens and competency

would probably be the best scenario

yeah i mean i think

biden is it's very clear that they're

all anticipating accelerated at all

they are expected to fail

and

they're all they're all anticipating

why didn't we you've never even cnn

buchanan was estimating by 2040 that we

would fall the biden is like jesus dude

even cnn like hung them out to dry they

were just like

the economy's failing under biden's

presidency even cnn just well okay what

we're looking at

to just skip

you know tldr they're pretty much

planning all of this

um failure

and food portages and all this shit

that's happening

because they're they're

accelerating a crisis

that

and i don't know how they're going to do

it but

i know what they intend to do is to use

this crisis to

basically usurp the constitution as we

know it and implement emergency powers

to have a full-on dictatorship

global

ruling class

as as we know it and then that's how

they're going to implement their growth

kind of agenda for population reduction

and you know

a bunch of other spooky

so

uh i don't mean to detract but it's very

late on my end so i have to leave but it

was a great conversation yeah yeah i'm

i'm glad we could you know

have a civil

talk look i didn't want to specify like

the reason why i've been so hostile

like towards you is because after we

debated i had people constantly going on

my channel doing stuff so i had to keep

deleting the comments plus i saw memes

so i started doing the same thing in

response to it

yeah i mean look we're both

grown men and at the end of the day

that's just shit on the internet and you

know given the situation we you know if

we can just

talk civilly and maturely about shit may

as well just do that you know there's no

like

i'm just gonna i'm just gonna say it

like

operation barbarossa never should have

happened one struggle but like yeah

yeah i mean um you know i

i really do disagree with you

um ideologically obviously and about

history but like

that's no reason for not being able to

uh discuss and and exchange ideas you

know like

if for me straight up like my mission is

like what i'm trying to do with my

channel is i want to separate

what i currently work with the third way

i want to separate it completely from

its modernist baggage that it had

historically and move it

to a capital t traditionalism kind of

what evola wanted to do

and that's more or less what i want to

do and like i probably won't ever

identify as a communist i don't agree

with dialectical materialism but

we do have more commonalities and there

is differences but it's okay to disagree

yeah i mean i just think you know in the

future

there's there's no need to like you know

declare war just because of a difference

of ideas you know

i'm not one of those leftists who is

like

draws a line based on the idea you know

the line should be drawn based on like

actions

because otherwise we're just we don't

have any power over any we're just

sitting here

awaiting to be completely de-platformed

and

probably put in jail

sometime

be honest uh

so i it's like you've already been

detained by the fbi once

zoltan is um i i think just me

personally i don't know if that's

i don't know if it's possible for you to

separate third positionism from all of

this uh

baggage and controversy because even

even dugan himself

uh

he repeatedly talks about how like

all the tragedies of the past that had

that had uh undergone under these this

ideology

look to be fair

ideologies

everybody's still

um evolving and developing what where

they already are

so it's like you know

maybe he's maybe you'll it'll go down

the same path dugan did or maybe he'll

take a different path or who knows but

we're all pretty much just communities

cultivating uh a pedagogy of some kind

right

so you know

it really just comes down to

being able to maturely disagree

another announcement with mercado by the

way

next week on sunday i'm going to be

having mercado on from new resistance

fourth position this group it works very

closely with dugan

uh he did message me on facebook

apparently he isn't be trying to get

dugan on for an interview with me too so

that may actually happen

i'm kind of hoping it does

yeah yeah for sure i mean um

should be interesting michael millerman

has reviewed uh one of my

texts i've seen it yeah so

yeah i mean yeah

i definitely think you know what

what i want to ask dugan or people who

know dugan is uh

he needs his books to be translated you

know

i mean for god's sake what i would do to

read

in search of a dark logos or

idagor the philosopher of another

beginning i mean these are books

even his work um

foundations of geopolitics has not been

translated to english so i will just

probably learn russian sometimes to be

able to is there a specific the

interesting thing is there's actually a

guy antelope pill which is a

third way like

uh publication they actually have a

slavic guy

who's been translating some of dugan's

stuff that's not translated and they may

end up publishing it from what i've

heard the the issue though with a lot of

dugan's material is that

it's actually a lot of his books are

like kind of like shadow band they don't

like you can still buy them but they're

like almost impossible to find because a

lot of the publications

political platinism is like you have to

i actually own a copy

yeah let me see if i've read it like

multiple times at this point but you

have to i had to get it on something

called nuke nook whatever like it's not

on amazon it's not on

it's on some like barnes and noble app

milk or some shit

so i that's working digitally but you

can also get it from

another place i don't know if i could

say on youtube

there's there's other ways of getting

that book

digitally but um

i had to my copy i bought from

abe books for fourth political theory

because

they they also uh amazon used to sell an

english translated copy of foundations

of geopolitics but then they took it

down or they they de-listed it you know

it's funny because there's nothing

there's nothing offensive in any of

those fucking books

almost nothing i mean political

platinism at least there's like

there's nothing offensive in that in

that book that i well if they're banning

it they obviously found something quote

unquote offensive like i i get what you

mean by offensive like in the terms of

like i think i think they're just

political but i think they just are

banning him you know i think they're

just saying you know what dugan's not

allowed on amazon because

he's a scary russian i mean i can't find

it

he does propose he does propose in his

works to discombobulate

internally discombobulate the united

states and it's a

plethora of americans getting their eyes

on that literature and all that material

would be a net bad to the social power i

can actually tell you something

interesting on uh telegram there's

actually like a large network of like uh

white nationalist types i usually refer

to them as racist libs because they

don't really care

about any economic or philosophy that is

kind of like my race my race basic

whites

yeah well they basically label me as

like uh duganite nazbul then there's

like entitled entire channels dedicated

to to mean facilities it's like doxing

but some other guys we've uh whose

information we got we haven't released

have

kind of been like we've traced some of

them to

like actual like ngo related groups

that's yeah that's fucking weird yeah

there's there's a lot of glowy shit

there's all over even even striker

regarding regardless what you guys think

about his politics he's like an open nat

sock but

kind like where he had like a lot of

these like extreme glowy groups like

adam waffen

who were like promote siege and they go

around like doing terrorist attacks and

all that

they uh they traced one of the groups

that was associated with with them

i think it's martinez prez

of temple blood which was like an o9a

thing and they were literally owned by

like a federal informant yeah yeah i

yeah i i know i've heard about that so

yeah i mean

i think

you know what we we can all just be libs

you know what do i mean by libs we can

all just be true liberals in the sense

of like

you know

uh we just want a freedom of uh freedom

of reading books and freedom of talking

about ideas

and you know

we don't want to be oppressed by this

fucking totalitarian

weird fucking uh

state that has all this

glowy activity and all this shit we just

want to be um

good good uh or old-fashioned liberals

and uh have a good old-fashioned civil

society

what i mean by saying this is just uh

you know liberals are not necessarily in

a political alliance

but they're all just you know just free

thinking individuals who can

really

uh explore and exchange ideas

without

about

without

attacking one and over one another over

disagreement i don't yet have any

practical

reality so that's what i mean about

being

bizarro world liberals liberal

underground right

well one thing interesting is one of my

friends who's actually russian and uh

has actually been involved in the

ukraine conflict he actually encountered

this group called misanthropic division

and they're basically like uh

yeah kind of like azov but they're like

satanists or like satanist neo-nazis and

they actually have connections with uh

the o9a people and then apparently

they've g they've given training to

people associated with

adam waffen now like the american

futurist crowds they literally went

there got training from these dudes and

they're like connected to the state

department

and then they come back here and then

they do like glowy stuff telling people

to like attack brown people basically

and then they go around labeling like

other white nationalists they don't like

quote-unquote who are too pro-russian as

like nazbulls and smearing them into the

goal the goal is ultimately to increase

state repression

and associate anyone

who's opposing the status quo with

terrorism

yeah

i mean they did the same thing with all

the long after 9 11. yeah

yeah

yeah there's also uh there's operation

eurodynamics which was uh which has been

in full effect since 1954

that was deployed within the uh within

the western region of ukraine where they

subverted the more polish identifying

population against the more slavic

identifying population uh and they they

stowed they stoked like civil unrest

within that nation which you saw

come to a headway with the odessa trade

house massacre where you had

um you had like people people of the

dawn boss like getting burnt alive in

soviet trade house buildings and shit

um

so

they've been i've seen those videos it

was done by right sector i believe right

yeah they've been working overtime uh

cia's been working overtime on this year

the uh

you would probably like juvenile again

because like he actually talks about a

lot of medieval history where they were

actually doing this where like the crown

would actually use protestant

christianity to go against like uh

the catholicism to try and weaken their

authority to strengthen these the the

national crown authority but then the

religious institutions would then turn

on the crown itself but it like there's

a guy called cia bond who did a book

called nemesis that kind of talks about

this in the modern society and how

america uses it an example of them doing

that besides what you just gave would

actually be in the middle east where

they

where you have them kind of like placate

to the islamic divides between sunni and

shia for example and then they'll prop

up fake groups to basically like attack

other groups of islam that are more

pro-east and it creates like this fake

divide where you basically

create infighting within islam

yeah it's basically it's basically a

game of ideological partisans except

it's not in the battlefield well

i can think of that as neo-nazis like

they did this with pole pot too

yeah they've been doing the conclusion

to be drawn from everybody listening and

everybody hears

this is the age of information warfare

you gotta really be savvy about

information

how it's used

because you know we're living in the

matrix um information is is the code

that's how

basically access reality and you know

there's a lot of ways that can be

manipulated so everybody's got to stay

smart and be smart about

you know

what the fuck is going on

it's easy you know the the the the

you know logo he pointed this out

discord is the most glowy fucking

platform of any any of them everyone

knows that

it's literally fucking called discord

so

information is just this way to use

to cause discord in language and

discourse

to basically control people right form

communities around

specific points of discord control them

point use them against each other

uh that kind of shit right

so the the first key to being able to

overcome this shit is not

attaching

your entire uh you know online

followings and communities just to

language right that's what political

correctness is too right but there's

also another form of political

correctness which is ideological which

means like if you disagree with my

ideology or say something in

contradiction to it

you are

enemy right so

you know to me it's like

that's how you got to be savvy in the

information age

because if you're not

savvy about it you can get fucking

controlled in every possible way

i got um

after i started like being more active

on twitter and stuff

um i've gotten

death threats

and people say like really nasty messed

up shit to me

in my messages

uh threatening to kill me my my mother

was like a victim of like a fishing

thing

someone got a hold of my contacts and

they fucking sent her death threats and

like center pictures of dead bodies and

people's with their heads cut off

and so like

it it like after

uh i was just like relating to what was

sultanas and uh

and uh

and uh fashionfist was talking about

like they get docs and stuff like i know

ahaz and samira have received like the

most nastiest fucking messages and

people

whenever samira comes on stream

sometimes we get random people in the

youtube chat just saying nasty shit

about them it's just

i don't know why like

i don't know why people have to take it

to that place i don't understand i i

never take it to that i literally had

white nationalists on telegram and

spamming me videos of gore cp and then

like gay black porn they were just

spamming me with that they didn't like

me

yeah so i mean

yeah i mean

on that note though i mean it is really

late for me

so uh i gotta uh

okay wrap this up but you know i'm glad

we could have a civil

civil conversation

sort out these i'll go ahead and

apologize for being hostile

yeah yeah let's let's let it be water

under the bridge you know going forward

we can just

disagree maturely right

so okay yeah

all right well see you guys

see you see you i'll talk to you

all right

yo what up everybody

so it kind of sucks i didn't have time

to like give an independent lecture on

on this topic

but um

you know

um

let me update the description

add some stuff to

but um

know i i went into that i thought about

it a little bit before and i was like

you know

let's just actually talk about the meat

and potatoes i don't want to like

fucking get in i'm too old i'm too

mature for the bullshit right

and

you know

i'm too old for that bullshit you know

let's get into the mean potatoes

thank you so much boyd bro

god didn't give us the communist

manifesto but god gave man the ability

to critically think well enough to write

the communist manifesto

thank you thanks for the education us

this is the way we all learn

that's what i wanted i wanted like

something that you guys could take

something away from

i met my father when i was 17. his

father was cpusa in brooklyn thirties

and forties my father was stolen

communist pro stalin and he was rapidly

atheist in anti-religion

thank you

lysenko visit covet.governor get the

facts on covet 19.

thank you so much jnr

good morning revolution

the morning revolution emirio

so why is this chat so weird oh this is

the wrong chat

so okay

that was the wrong chat

this is the righteousness

i think our difference is between

absolute idealism and dialectic

materialism the human world does not

determine the dialectic

thank you w danar thank you so much

janna

appreciate you brother

thank you gen

good morning revolution good morning

revolution ej

good morning revolution

bitch

sorry i came into the stream so late you

basically had it handled when i came in

oh don't worry about it man

red in this bitch red in this bitch

thank you so much voidburn for letting

us see some red

all right i'm gonna pee i'll be right

back

i'm gonna pee and then um

we're gonna make this swedish

okay i'm gonna peel

hey guys uh we are gonna

have a swedish

they did

this is horrible

this is horrible

he gave me fries again

he gave me fries

i mean

so i'm getting rid of the onions

society has progressed past the need for

onion

but anyway y'all gotta

take some time to appreciate

this swedish meal so guys i will be

right back

uh

be right back

this is chicken

[Music]

i've never used this i'm testing it out

thank you ej

thank you ej

are just confused white guys who really

hate liberals franco frida it's so silly

thank you so much chris mark

the green is bitch

are you a good tipper

um

are you a good tipper because y'all are

the ones who

pay for my food

but yes

i'm an egregiously good tipper

even when they fuck me over

i still tip

fine here's your tip

when i was in la

there was one time that i got mad where

i was like i'm not tipping them

still tipped them anyway

i always tip

and i tip

a lot

i'm a i'm that's like a level of cuck

levels of tipping

here take my money

see i tip a lot i just complain about it

okay

fine

i'm a greedy tipper

no on a 10 to 15 meal

i'll tip like anywhere from five to

eight dollars i tip a lot

when i sit down at a restaurant to eat i

tip a fuck ton

when i have someone deliver food i tip a

fucked up

the worst i'll do

is 20 on uber eats i'll just like click

20 after i get the meal i'll be like yo

fuck you

so but i always tip

i always do

do i litter

um

no

but not because i'm a moral person

but just because i can't get away with

it

anymore

every time i litter you know i feel like

i'll get caught so i just don't

why the fuck did that donald not go

through

can i have a bite please i'm starving

no

thank you for the tip

are there any good books or sources on

freemason history and symbolism

no

not that i can tingle

but then you pretend

all right

no more prize

is it really 140 damn

damn chad look at the time

y'all enjoying

i wanna i wanna actually do one last

thing

react

some shit

because uh this is some cool

this is so cool

look how fucking based alex stein is

so alex stein is actually a real

conservative

because he goes after the fake one like

dan crenshaw

and he calls out dan crenshaw for being

a globalist

he does what a fucking badass this is

why i love alex stein shout out alex

stein unfathomably based

eyepatch mccain hey eyepatch mckay look

at i passed mccain right here all the

eyepatch mccain you're rhino you're so

blessed you're globalist right now

you're a globalist rhino

pete you're a globalist rhino

i passed mckay

i passed mccabe

mccain

[Music]

to continue

you know the more i think about it it

takes a lot of gall for eye patch mccain

to attack moms who worry about baby

formula as quote pro russia i mean

that's probably one that's one of the

most outrageous things i think i've ever

heard

unfathomably based

unfathomably based alex stein is such a

fucking

cool guy that's a principal guy but

that's that's that's somebody who's not

bought out by the way

you know a conservative who's bought out

is gonna protect people like crenshaw

right alex stein he's an independent man

that guy's not bought out by anyone

it's a guy who stands for what he

considers the truth

and therefore deserves the respect of

anyone

against the status quo

all right

all right guys

remember tomorrow

don't stream because it's father's day

remember that

remember that

you just yeah

[Music]

[Music]

just

[Music]

me

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

all these moments

in the end i should've known you were

just a heartbreaker

[Music]

is

[Music]

i don't know what to do

i don't know if and i have an enemy

there are so many out there

how can i say goodbye to all of them

now you listen to me

all these people up there

it's your job

it's your duty