DEBATE w/ President Sunday and VAUSH

y

what is up everybody let me see some sun gorellas in the fuck and chat

let me see those goddamned sun gouerrillas in the chat

we are here i don't know how much time i have with you

but

i'll make a few remarks

i don't know exactly what we're going to be walking into today

the whole thing smells fishy

and strikes me as a little bit suspicious

that vash is platforming be

in a way that he doesn't expect

will

be to the detriment of the message we're trying to put out

so i'm very suspicious of what's going on

but when all said and done if we have an honest debate

and a moderator not intervening into the content of the debate

then everything

should go normally

i don't care though

this was after days and days aing a sunday what kind of moderator you wanted

i told why don't we just do i said well if you're going to do watch let's do jackson inkle because apparently it's not a biased moderator

he said no to jackson

i said modern day debate he didn't want that so i just said whatever we'll do wasch as long as it's about political theory

so we're going to get into this and i plan on having a honest

straightforward debate

meat and potatoes about the content

and the subject matter

and i hope this to be a dore

for the cultivation of education into marxism real in america thanks much rokaf

son

gorilla

son

grilla you so much rock so you ma son i don't know what wek format of this debate is going to be either

j communism copyright laws will be abolished

absolutely they will

so crack you the holy fug with the fifty gifted thank you man

so guys i'm not even sure where this debate is taking place

and i'm going to have to get a message in discord or something

where i'm probably going to be invited somewhere

and that's where the debate's going to take place

i don't know where this debate is

going to be

we're going to have to wait till we get that invite

but we're two minutes out

just want to let you guys know

that i have no intentions of any trickery or any dirty play

i got to have a simple straightforward straight to the point

honest debate no bullshit

no jibber jabber simple as that

simple as that

so we'll see we'll see i don't know what to expect exactly

very suspicious of what we're walking into here

i'm pretty sure

something's being planned i'm not exactly sure

if it's just the debate this is the debate

and that's what i'm here for

i'm also pleased to announce the debate is about political theory

my goal is to

cultivate an interest in the study of marxism leninism

in the united states and in the american context

and that's what i'm going to use this opportunity to do

this is the first time vosh has been in any kind of

interaction with me at all

since the first time i entered his v c

and was kicked out ten minutes later this is the first time and i was dismissed as a nobody and whatever

and then i rose to the prominence i have

acquired

since then and came as a shock i suppose

but this is the first time so who knows we don't know what to expect from job of the wash the despicable

we all know i'm not a big fan of hakkim

but he did say some truly despicable things about hakim

ah that were an affront to the entirety of the iraqi people

not just takim

who also happens to be in bed with the red liberals

well he is a red liberal himself

and the western leftists

but it was an extremely despicable despicable thing he said

which is telling

of the inherent solvinism

the inherent bestial barbaric

uncivilized

nature of western leftism

well i'm waiting for an invite

and we'll see

where this is going to happen

i mess this president sunday right now it's time for the debate on punctual as efver

and we'll see how this thing is going to go down

president sunday is not a straight

frank person you know he kind of

he's introducing all these insults and jeers and i there's a lot of things i could insult sunday about and you guys know that

because

a believe it or not i didn't look for an unflattering picture of him i look for a normal picture of him

i went on his stream

one of his bods or something i just

controlled whatever that i just snipped out a picture

the first thing i found that was just semi usable

there's a lot of things i could also insult president sunday and give these subtle jobs and kind of

passive aggressive

illusions you know and i don't do it because i'm a professional person

i am a person who has some kind of minimum of respect

not for him per se but for the topic that we're discussing

we're debating

so you know

and this is by the way guys going to be a lot to chew up and absorb because this guy's got a ph d apparently

he doesn't want it's not going to we're not to be able to go simple straight to the point

terms of the debate

although i'm going to try to bring it there for you guys for your sake

but this is going to be a kind of jargon

potentially jargon theory ever seems to sunday

as is reported back to me and he says he's waiting on osh

and i believe jaba himself is alive right now

so watch

click that right now jaba is indeed live right now

wait i need to be friends with president sunday to sort of group de

up

friends ok i'm sending you a friend request i want to helm man yeah accept it go go go go go

all right i imagine i'm going to have to turn off my camera

nice ok and replace you

my

i don't know why

i thought i might have been discord friends with infrared ok

right

no

has

hmm

that's ok it's hots ok hold on

yeah

got the lion

yeah

there we go

ok

no

wait

the

here we go ok

all right the we all make it

yeah i need wing soon

nice

you're looking very

magenta today

oh yeah thank you i got it from urban outfitters

sure

yes

which no not that

man i

fucking hat o s there we go

how are you doing today press

oh i am i am deathly ill and the power has gone out like three times today so are you ill what the fu why are you dying

ah we're all dying

bosh you die just sos call like a

it's like a cold or something

that sucks i'm sorry

a little bit sorry

there's a nice short the urban ofater

yeah it actually has a pair of matching like short shorts like five inch in same if you were them both it looks like a romper and you look like a total duh bag i love it

and good they can see that working with with a certain kind of certain kind of silhouette

my stdreams very delayed

ws myestream very delayed

aes

lait on my

haz infrared infra

open quotes has close quotes

right

are we getting on with it or what

well we couldn't hear you up until now has

ok well i just got done setting everything up

moderator

all right let me close all these tabs i

s

moderator

transitioning into this from a two hour conversation that was very data driven let me just close ok

now

i expect

an equal level of a

of of

of big brain engagement

this one right here

can one of you two gentlemen please remind me what the fucket is we're talking about today

we're talking about political theory

ok his his political theory in particular so oh ok yes all right

we have a we have a home team advantage then

ok

here are the here are the rules

the rules are that i'm going my i'm going to try my best

to not be partial

i am i am like the wind i blow over the whole countryside ok i'm an undifferentiated force of nature

a the only thing that i care about is that people respond to the arguments that the other side made

and that everyone gets a fair chance to talk

so

while i may

make me seem as though i'm being partial if people start screeching directly into the microphone to blow everyone else's ear drums

but that would be an example of not letting other people talk

i believe in both of you i've nothing but faith in you

this is obviously

how's this topic to start

i'd say

let's go with five minute openers

starting with i think i think we were kind of we were kind of iffy on on the time can we like say ten minutes caps and then if we go under we go under

ten minute wo

all right

i'm go let me get my let me get my e are you call with that is that yeahess clock

ok

ah

u

ih hold on one second

need to do something real quick

is preventing my o b s from self destructing as it has been want to do lately

theyk go would sord ha

i like the sort

what

sh a place

there we go very nice

all right

i starting with the one the only infra open quotes oz

close quotes read

ten minutes

to talk about

his political theory followed of course by president sunday then we will do our back and forth give everyone a fair chance to talk

and the timer starts

now

modern politics is beset by the same fundamental contradiction the same asymmetry defining modernity as a whole

thinkers like bruno latur once framed this paradoxal contradiction as between a process of purification

establishing some ontological zone such as man reason cognito civilized people

etctera and opposing it to its other such as nature the animal kingdom outsiders et cetera

as well as the process of translation where the actual effect of a applying this pure form to actual reality

leads to hybrids between the two

proving madernity's inability to fully conquer its own premises

political majornity understood in this same vein of purification

establishing the universal rights of man

privileging the abstract and generalized concept of man as the supreme political subject

without any essential regard for the particular details of personality background estate religion

or even race gender and wealth

likewise political modernity has given rise to various hybrids of its own

strange combinations of this universal subject with its opposed particularityes

in the form of different classes separatist ethnic and religious identities interest groups

racial animosities and the form of identity politics itself today

i merely propose

drawing from the ideas of slavo zak's ontology

that an even more fundamental political contradiction preexists that between universality and particulariti

state and civil society human in nature etcetera et cetera

which is internal to the abstract form of political modernity itself

both the political left and right take what latur calls the rupture in time of political majornity for granted

the political left is revolutionary wing of modernity

representing the abstract form of change

the right in its is its conservative way

attempting to derive a definite political logic out of this modern process of purification

situating people in their rightful place with respect to objects in the case of private property

and with respect to other persons in the case of various hierarchies

so maderdiny implies a paradox

or internal contradiction that preexists and arguably engenders the division into left and right

on the one hand it implies a revolutionary change on the other it also implies a new order and form of preserving itself

in the aftermath of the french revolution various thinkers attempted to resolve that contradiction

in some kind of end of history such as hegel kojev and most famously fukuyama

but none of them were able to anticipate our current multipolar world

my basic argument is that the contradiction has to do with the political subject of politics

which is an individual substance in today's era with the october revolution i argue playing a comparable role to the french

the subject of politics is neither individual nor substantive but collective and virtual

the modern universal state in its agemity founded on human rights as already synthesized

both the left and the right accomplishing the goal of the fascist third position

progressive change

is already the order of the day and is in no way revolutionary in the sense of actually challenging state power but on the contrary

is situated within a hegemonic

order that preserves it

here enters a new kind of political subject which i call the partisan

partially drawing from carl schmidt

rather than being some neutral subject or atamistically

individual substance

the partisan is already virtually disposed and partial towards some kind of collective political identity

the partisan embodies the internal contradiction of modernity itself into one political subject

rather than solely giving expression to one of its forms

it doesn't represent one of the asymmetrical forms comprising the difference the partisan essentially is political difference itself

partisanship implies a way of differing into a specific collective political reality

because of this embodieds the deeper order of rural life is fertile ground for the partisan subjectivity

but because the partisan gives specific content to politics such as in the form of class struggle

they are revolutionary with regard to the modern state

position in such a way that i regards it as illegitimate for example serving the interests of a particular group

the partisan not is not strictly defined by a specific ideology or set of values

but a position with regard to what antonio gromski calls that hegemony

or what popper calls the open society

their revolutionary stance makes them fundamentally left wing

but coupled with a profound social conservatism

reflecting an embeddedness in the deeper premises of civilization

many mistaken this for third position syncreticism but the difference is that the partisan conservatism

isn't based on ideology but popular sensibility

if the goal of political partisan were created by individual thoughts such as by ethory or ideology

the goal would only coincidentally be effective

its realization coinciding with some deeper objectively established and material premise

that makes the partisans movement across the social fabric effective in the first place

without their position being

rooted in an objective reality a partisan is no longer a partisan

but just some guy with an opinion

i argue that the partisan is the subj subject of a polarity

an objectively existing orientation toward the reproduction of an existing civilization

the source of a political polarity the force of partiality and the partisan

is a specific resolution of the contradiction between the universal state and its real civil society

a resolution whose development is already propelled into motion and arguably even implied by the nature of the contradiction itself

a logic reflected in the marxist communist manifests manifesto

this resolution is the universal partisan empire

the authentic unity of a people given expression by a people' sovereign

whose power takes the form of rather than pretending to be elevated above

the contradiction between state and civil society

such as in the case of a proletarian dictatorship the class struggle

thus my political philosophy implies an entirely new notion of subject and object itself

drawing from the concept of hyper objects of speculative realism

the universal empire is a hyper object an object participating in its own phenomenal disclosure

by engendering the very conditions of its own development

and whose scale in both time and space exceeds what can be reduced to individual experience

that is the objective common socioloity that preexists individual subjectivity itself

the stakes of this theory are clear

and a historical situation defined by the crisis of western liberal democracy

many leftists have joined in with the state department's characterization of the current multipolar world

as a struggle between democracies and autocracies

labeling all sovereign counter hegemonic states challenging the so called rules based political order as fascist

i argue this is reactionary from the current historical perspective

as inan ideology western leftism is the vanguard of the current ancien regim's hegemony

which has become outmoded by history itself

it is for that reason that it is also a vanity

it will be condemned to the dustbin of history

as a multipolar order rises from the ashes of the globalist empire

anybody else smelling burnt coast

i can see why ten minutes was necessary

all right

burnt tost aside

president

that's your call

thank you ha thank you vosh for moderating

i

so we are apparently debating my opponent haws groundbreaking theory of the political spectrum least that's how i understood it from our mestges

prior and unentairly certain no the principal source for this being an essay on the infrad substack entitled the rise of meka communism the purpose of which given in the heading being to establish quote

how can mega and communism be united

for one is clearly far right and the other far left unquote

putting it lightly this essay is bizarre

at over thirteen thousand and four hundred words it is meandering and over long filled with esoteric terminology which while in more rigorous hands might be sufficiently explained so as to mean something specific

is here ultimately included only to be put to the service of motivating statements like quote leftism is a type of mental retardation according to which the latestunqote open agenda

constitutes real historical change unquote

the essence of my opponent's thesis can actually be given rather quickly

in a move of breathtaking area addition to which one can only react with awe

has proposes the revolutionary thesis that the left

the right

liberal elites and quote unquote globalists are in fact all the same people and that these refer to the political opponents of globalization trans rights b l m

free immigration

other left wing causes and so forth as quoe unquote nazis to obscure the fact that they themselves have in fact inherited

not seasm

thus it was in fact the right who are actually the left who beat the nazis in world war two in order to establish a global lefti ast to geminy that is in fact a right ast to geminy

to disguise the fact that they actually were the right all along and in a stroke of diabolical genius through quote agents of deception like grn de santis unquote

they simultaneously persecute and pretend to be the genuine right which they are

except they aren't because they are the left with the result that quotes a complete takeover of the hitlerrite kind

is all but now inevitable which will attempt to satisfy the patriotic aspirations of the mega movement

into consensus for war

a war which will seek to preserve the power of the bankers and globalists unquote

in this apocalyptic vision my opponent sees the left being both the right and the left all at once which is why when he writes that quote so called rights quote unquote ideologists are thus today split between as a vites and the accidentally based unquote

rightist is put in quotes because it actually refers to the left and the accidentally based refers to cranks like jordan peterson whose rhetoric just incidentally happens to run contrary

to whatever species of establishment paranoia house wants to capitalize on in the moment

no robust treatment of communism is given and so no robust ideological goals get in the way of my opponent going all in on an argument for allgning communism with the mega movement

how mega escapes being right wing for my opponent is by being partisan

what does this mean

has introduces this term partisan by way of krl schmidt's essay theory of the partisan

the partisan for schmidt is a combatant fulfilling four essential conditions

the partisan is irregular has increased mobility has a heightened intensity of political commitment

and is thoroughly tellurian which is to say land based

this is what distinguishes partisans from

phirates and corsairs for schmidt

and is as far as i can tell the only part of the definition has really takes up

because introducing the partisan through schmidt

despite this rather my opponent simply insists that schmidt despite taking his cues from the likes of lenin and mao

and readers of the same is too limited by his hobsy and formalism quote unquote

and argues instead that the partisan is quote the political agent at the end of history

for which change is a moment in the development of an order more eternal than can be given form by modern statehood unquote

and that the leftist is the great enemy of the partisan because qot

leftism grounds politics not in partisanship

but in some supposedly universal morality and the fundamental enduring fact of political antagonism vindicates the leftist sense of smug self satisfied superiority q

he then claims instead that quote partisanship can also be defined by a specific hegelian sublation of established political distinction

representing a type of political subject interpolated by a new form of universal statehood the jevian empire polarity or determinant globality unquote

what this means is anyone's guess but it doesn't matter because by describing the idea of partisanship as something that sounds sort of like it it can easily attach to nationalism or a determinanate civilizational polarity

a he can now describe mega as partisan because it is quote unquote to lyric

thus concludes after an almost unbearably long series of paragraphs too convoluted for me to even attempt to recapitulate here

that the anti communism of the mega movement is just an endearing americanism that mega should form its own discreet party

and that quote there is no other choice for mega communists unquote

ozesn't stupid

the material he is handling in this essay runs very complicated very quickly it takes a lot of work

he could just produce one of the mill right wing content it would be easier and more lucrative

despite the overall incoherence of the essay there is a degree of effort here that doesn't strike me as a pure product of cynicism

unfortunately by putting his theory of left and right solely

to the service of justifying the absurd slogan of mega communism a move which reduces communism to a street facing bench with

imagine your ad here displayed on the back

all of this work is reduced to incoherence

thank you

all right

wonderfully delivered and well under time from you both

but let's get into the back and forth i'm sure you both have lots to talk about

doesn't need to be like one minute block to one minute block obviously you can engage normally but

give both people space to talk

please

ll right good luck

first of all i'm not sure why you referenced the maga communism essay if it was too difficult for you to comprehend but i can already point out

that what that was that was the that was the source you referred me to was that of the video which yeah but i don't know why you brought it up here when the only thing you can say is that you found it incoherent well you're going to find out that there is a coherence to it

whether or not you want to acknowledge that

and before we ca got

when i noticed a few things you said

just a few that i decided to write down i'm sure there was others

that were completely mischaracterizations of the essay you said that i was saying the right is the left

and the left is the right when

the broader point i was trying to say is that today

oftentimes things that are considered right wing and right wing populism

managed to outdo the left

in many regards for example in the

anti war stance and the opposition to the federal agencies like the f b i and so on and so forth

the overall anti government stance

and what what that meant to me was that right wing populism today

can more correctly be characterized in its essence as partisan there's nothing essentially right wing about it

but that only makes it potentially left wing

not necessarily already left

well i don't i don't think being opportunistically against the police when they the

are enforcing government policies you happen to disagree with

or defending for example invasive wars

because you happen to have some kind of ideological affinity with the aggressor i don't think that

makes you succeeding more with the left

generally wants

do within the left

and it's kind of a silly problem

but i find your characterization idealist because you're focusing too much on ideology by that and you can you yes wele i was going to but before you cut me off

you're speaking strictly within the realm of

the alignment of ideological values as if this what it underpins

the the

what i would call the counter hedemonic position of maga

but the ideological alignment is

downstream from the fact that there is an objectively

real hegemony there is a real hegemony

which is characterized by a specific ideology you can

object to the characterization that it's called globalism that's just a simplification

it can be called neoliberalism it can be called liberalism generally

i'm not going to be too picky about what you want to call it ideologically but there is a hegemony there's a clearly a monopoly capital

and a ruling class that

he's in power

in the west

which exercises hegemony through institutions

a both the legal institutions the federal agencies the cia the f b i

the increasingly politicized the

wm their right ights a six sre thesis that there's an international cabal controlling the world and not the right is is

more fervently opposed to it

no i you can be more specific because it first of all doesn't control the world and that's exactly why

we are witnessing so called challenges sorry challenges to the so called rules based order

clearly doesn't control china iran russia north korea

even cubo or venezuela for example or syria

i'm sure there's other examples it clearly doesn't even completely control the so called second world or non wine countries

maybe brazil is a good example of this right because other countries are caught in between that's

gramski's entire point of the idea of ajemony there are intermediate

blocks that are not necessarily one way or the other

and hegeminy attempts to exercise

dominion over these intermediate

uh classes or states

taken in the realm of international relations so

there is clearly a hegeminy based in what we call the unipolar american world order now

i think you're roughly trying to

compare make an allusion to anti semitism or something of that nature

well the idea of a unipolar american world order is not even controversial from the perspective

of the american state department itself it calls this order the

rules based international order the various scholars and thinkers

of the west i'm sure regularly make reference to the significance of the

breton woods post war world order so

you don't need actually to talk about some

conspiracy theory you can i'm just i'm just not sure i'm just not sure what your thesis is because you're throwing names and references at the wall

willy nilly and i'm not seeing

ok a cohre i'm just thefining with the idea that there is a hegemony

but i don't think anybody contends that there's no hegemony

ok this is this is why anti colonialism is

uhu

endemic left wing

okay well what what what are but colonial the colonial era for example this is why i don't think you understand what hegemony is

the colonial era maybe there's neo colonialism with francis c fak right

but the colonial era

to belong to the pre

kind of

the

britton woods era thoug the period of the twentieth century the mid twentieth century

was characterized by various formal decolonization so the way in which

american unipolar hed geminy exercises its control over the world

obviously is not through direct colonization its through the exercise of soft power

it's through the exercise of the

nomin and anti colonialism is not strictly concerned with with direct colonization it's also concerned with

the the residue

of

colonial hedgeminy

it in the present like it i

game i just

well

sure well the residue of a colonial pgemity

has culminated into an act it's not just a residue it's an active system of unipolar

american hegemony

it's not a residue of something from the past it's a system that emerged after world war two

which

clearly

is global hedgemont

so why did they not an allusion to a global cobal of some kind

were not would utus

this is this is you

you're the one who refers to liberal elites and globalists as being the originator

i

originator in t of a of a deliberate

ah attempt to

manipulate

through through these these ideological distinctions

i don't know what exactly you're referring to i was i assume infused yeah diresing very confused

so i am indeed there is a object

so there's an objective system of unipolar imperialism

there are indeed liberal elites who benefit from this ageminy

the hegemonic elites the cultural elites and so on and so forth

andn there's also who are the who are the globalist andn just help me out here

so i'm referring to globalism as an ideology and a form of

man refer specifically to the global list so you mean something definite right

yeah i think the globe i think for example the globalists are the hedgemonic institutions of society

the mainstream media not refer too globalists aren't institutions right you're referring to people

these are its these are these are this is a

globalism and so my thesis is that't you don't say globalist institutions you say specifically globalist

are you trying to like allude to this idea that

'm not alluding to anything i'm just asking you a question

are you saying that

social forces are reducible to the individuals that comprise them

i don't know what i don't know what you're asking you ire ask go and kind of sounds like you're asking

s know who is well that doesn't that doesn't work though because you juxtapose liberal elites and globalists if these are

one of the same but liberal elites aren't institutions liberal elites are

people

yeah but they are people but they are' say globalist and lot su or but they are the people that have

benefited from the hegemony

characterized by these institutions

they are the people who epitomize the rule of these institutions

they are the people whose interests coincide with the geminy that's all it n sure but who are they

a all of them do you want me to name like

millions of people what

what are you asking specifically what do you mean who are they do need like an exam i thought i thought we were here to debate your political theory but

it seems like

my

you've just completely ignored my my critique of it you're now insisting that the right wing or you didn't have a critique you said that it was incoherence and now we're trying to educate but on on fairly fairly particular bases though because you

deploy a bunch of terminology that you cherry pick

to build to a thesis

that somehow

a mega communism

part

transcends the right and the left on the grounds of being tlluric

that's not what i said at all i said the i said first of all the exact opposite that i'm against

the syncretic position of beyond left and right i s completely rejected that position

you actually read my paper it says that

the first of all model communism is a slogan i the basic idea is that a communist movement

can be derived out of the maga movement

which would indeed be left wing because its revolutionary

but there's a difference between left wing and leftist leftism is an ideology

supposedly trying to be authentically left wing

it's not an actual position with regard to politics

positions are not about what your beliefs are what your ideas are

but where you are actually positioned in regards to the status quo

so i said leftism is an idea of change it's an ideology of political change

it doesn't actually represent political change

so no i didn't say it's transcends left and right you're completely fabricating that

uh i'm

im i'm not but we can move on from there the essay is are extremely long and i don't have a quote directly to hand well you didn't it with enough i

i i wear i g carefully actually

okay um

oh i i don't know haws where where do you want to go from here

well

ah your thesis is that my

the position is incoherent so let's get into the specificities of what why do why don't we why don't we make a coherent when you start from the when you start from the top

and let's go from there

i just i gave a nearly i think it was like an eight minute intro

did you were united listening or

i was i was listening very careful ok

i could not

i got to be real with you oz i don't think

i think i speak for everybody

i could not follow that at all

i don't think you speak for everybody at all but i could help you in particular and educate you about what i'm

please help yeah ok

so the idea of

from the maga communism substack in the political theory underlying it is basically that there is a

political realignment we are facing right now because of a transition from one historical era

to another the previous historically era you could

be could be characterized as classical madernity nw can i stop youre aright there yeah a political realignment of what what are you referring

a basically in the west

right now

speaking like very in the like

as of the twenty tenths what's developed as of the twenty tenths for example like this immediate

there has been a specific association of this is what the left is and this is what the right is right

so i'm saying we are witnessing is there is there i think it's debated that i don't think there's much consensus on that at all

this is like the whole leftist in fighting

nobody can decide on who the hell the left is or who the right

i think leftist in fighting can is transcended when it comes to people like me so no i don't think there is a

any problems as far as how to identify leftist is concerned

but

ah

so

there is a political realignment going on abut but how so do you do you transcend that what do is that

it no one's talking about transcending anything there is a realignment i'm re going over you said that you you transcend that distinction

can you clarify

what you mean by

no i explicitly said i don't

believe it's possible to transcend political difference

but you just said you do is that what you said you you transcend

um leftist in fighting somehow so oh no no i said

the leftist in fighting is transcended

sorry you be focused on the word transcended

it's put to the side when it comes to how they treat people like me

so all these leftists can fight each other but when it comes to has

they are suddenly aware of their common enemy and realize they are all leftists

wouldn't that just

point to them

recognizing you as right wing

that's their view yeah

well

you can say that that means they recognize me as if this is the case but

there is clearly a

association of this is left and this is right

right

i mean you yourself saying this

it's an acknowledgment of that there is clearly

is an association of what is considered left and right we well i think i think

i've definitely encountered a lot of people who would characterize you as right wing on the grounds of

your associations and your writter

cetera et cetera

my but in terms of terms of in terms of like an actual theory i'm not committed to the stance therefore can you speak louder my association with what

mar

what sorry

but i didn't hear what you said when you said because of my i'm not i'm not committed on the grounds of observing that people associate you with the right wing

fairly on problematically or

seem to treat it as a problem i that's not the point though the point is n know but what i was saying th was i'm not committed therefore i don't think there's any that i don't think it would be that controversial to say

that there has been a vague association of these are the leftist values and these are the right wing values that has developed right in the two thusand and tens especially because of the culture war and

you know and the if you're on the internet i guess gamer gate things like that

mean these clearly have defined different we that's that's that's largely i think tracking electoral politics in the united states it's not

quite that clear cut

a higher degree of resolution

okay well i i don't know what you're talking about i'm talking about

the actual reality of

ah

popular ideologies and political views in the united states

i think it's fair to say there are and in the united states that's that's that's what i just said

ok there are conventionally established associations of what it means to be a leftist or what it means to be a right winger

and i'm saying that that is

changing but there' is what we're like for example our moderator for instance

it's considered

h not left wing by a bunch of people who we would probably agree or left

sort of liberal by bunch but i think that's part of the con usion yeah i think that's part of the confusion defining the political realignment that's going on

the moderator

we i guess we have to reference the moderator now

and we don't i'm just just asn't like an obvious example yeah

while the moderator is assuming positions that traditionally from a broader historical perspective were not associated

with the laugh

and that's why

but the's still i

many people still believe it's left wing because

on the cultural front it had been established

in the past decade i guess

or maybe depending on how long you

back you want to go with the past few decades that culturally

its left wing so

i'm just trying to say there's a lot of confusion and obscurity about what it means to be left and right in this day and age it's pretty simple i don't know why it's controversial

well i'd like to have

well thank god please

i'd like to ask a brief question haz

that isn't

when you use your definition of this distinction acknowledging how confused it is

to everyone

but

when you think of what it means to be have left

are you thinking of a position with regards to one or maybe

several specific issues

whether or not the economy should be decommodified democratic ownership of the means production opposition to american geopolitical politics that sort of thing

or do you think it's an emergent property of a

haze of positions that can't be so easily quantified

how concrete distinct can it be made

i tend to object to to answer it simply i don't think

that

political distinction is based on differences

of opinion when it comes to i think those are all just symptoms i think the real political distinction

is based on what position you have with regard to some kind of status quo

so historically the left wing

was defined by those who were in a position a revolutionary position with regard to the status quo

they wanted to kind of

overthrow it basically and overturn it

and

leftism i have diagnosed is a rereak more recent phenomenon maybe it's coming

from

i don't know how far back you can really go but i would at least the new left right

which i

think is an ideology of the jeminy

because the progressive changes

that

it uh

it is characterized by advocating for and trying to push

correspond with

the goals of monopoly capital

and as well as a yeah

if i may though i

you say that

you your positionality has to do with with an actual like position that's not

simply reducible to

deears and opinions that you hold but in your point of reference for what makes people these things

would refer to

their attitude towards revolution of things like that you're not

referencing anything

a more concrete than their ideas and opinions

well because it's not about the ideas or opinions but where those are coming from and whose interests those serve

but we're still talking about ideas and opinions right they're talk about the attitudes of actors not like specific we're talking about a

we're talking about a he geminy which

m

utilizes or

exercises sorry disseminates ideas and opinions

as a form of for example soft power

so

to clarify then and hopefully to put an end to this specific semantic bit

you would say then that leftism

is a property

of taking a revolutionary attitud a revolutionary attitude towards

a given

pegemonic position

that one being in this case

a global capitalist

and that any position which is

revolutionarily against that one

would necessarily be

a leftist position

i think there's semantic confusion because for me leftism is not the same as a left wing alignment a left wing alignment

is not a position about attitude it's where do you stand

positionally right

let's say as an agent of information or as a candidate electoral candid doesn't matter

political actor

even a schmit'z actual partisan people who were like on the ground waging guerilla warfare where are you

what is your position with regard to the status quo are you considered

a

enemy of the status quo are you a fighter against the status quo of some kind

so but leftism to me is an ideology

o ok okay

what does that mean can you can you clarify that a little bit

yeat leftism is an ideology

that

tries to reduce the historical tradition

of left wing real historical left wing traditions

into an ideology

so that there's not a let le left it s leftism is an agent then like it

it

attempts things

leftism is an ideology

um people attempt things i i don't know what your

leftism is an ideology when you're saying it tries to

um that that

to ok i'll say i'll clarify that

sure the ideology of leftism

attempts to develop

the idea

to arrive at somehow the idea

of the left

so it's an idea of the left

right thiss an ide sure sure but there's it's ok but it's a directed thing right it's something that has a goal and a purpose

so i guess my my

is that fair

o the go the

the the purpose of the ideology is to distill the essence of

change modern

revolutionary political change

into our idea

ok so

whose purpose that

we're not we're not just we' not just talking about like a

like an aggregate of ideas that are just kind of

sitting

inert we're talking about

something that has like

and

it's purposeed

to interfere in some way with the world if it's doing something to

these ideas and turn them into

whatever

ok ah yeah yes well i think i get what you're trying to ask

yeah

yeah i would say that for the purpose of realizing the aims and exercising the hegemony of

monopoly capital for example

ok well my question is then referred a little bit so so to this this is what i'm trying to say

so the hegemine has weaponized

the

i guess i

the geminy has goals that could be called

i

progressive that's the whole ideology of progressivism right

for example rockefeller the oil

oil guy rockefeller he had a whole progressive vision of an

international integrated society and he championed progressive social causes and so on and so forth

we all know how corporations champion progressive

causes and so on and so forth

so somehow revolutionary ch sorry not

i don't know if i would call it revolutionary but

change political change cultural change

has been assimilated by monopoly capital

and by the hegemini

ok

and leftism is the ideology corresponding

to that

pjemini

having assimilated

ah change

modern political and cultural and social change

movementism and so on and so forth

all right

m

oh oh okay so

this

so so what it is left sjust equivalent to ocsm then or what are we doing exactly

i mean you can it goes i guess you can call it many things maybe ocism

can be a form of that but

i think leftism contemporary leftism

which at least dating since the new lefe

has served that purpose and

can i think fairly be characterized as that

i don't think for example that the new left

the legacy of the new left is based on some kind of like

grassroots thing going on with the working class i think

the new left was propelled into significance because

much of its legacy was appropriated by the culture industry by hollywood and mass media

these people went on to become yuppies working fors in response that's in response to like

fairly harsh criticisms of hollywood and mass media from outside of it though

that's not a thing that happened spontaneously from within you could argue that it was definitely cynical on the part of certain studios

i

to to

like like

predictably

for example the

gender band or right like do but then i' would have to ask arers

sure and s in a strangely motivated seeming way i don't think it rerikes me as geration but i don't think it's fair to say

that give you impes to thats i don't think it's fair to say that the new left in the counterculture

spread and immerged in a purely grassroots way

i think it's also fair to say that the influence of the ford foundation

the influence of

the i don't think anything i don't think anything spreads in a grassroots way ok so

so

it's not just that

hollywood but i mean thou the definition of the left has never been

that it's be it's so the culture industry

and

the counterculture in the new left

worked hand in hand

it wasn't that one was just

and one was criticized so they became better because they were received too harsh criticism mean i think the election of nixon kind of proves that the so called silent majority was a real thing

the

hippies in the new counterculture in this new left

we're not really actually that popular among the people so i don't see how popular pressure

could be responsible for

for example corporations and

well well we're pressing on it's not exactly true though

or it's not exactly fair to refer to that as

kind of a a

a naturally arising

oh

ah

majority position

um when during this time uh

leftists of

many stripes are being directed

persecutor as well as many of the groups of people

who they now advocate for

persecuted by

whom this is the time

sorry

persecuted by this is this is the area of mccurthy's

this is no and not you could be

what

it's not the year of mccarthyism

dark

communists and socialists and leftists weren't being persecuted in

and universities and out office at the time

it wasn't that was something that was happening you have it's usual

that was not what characterized the counterculture

mean that if anything the new left

was

criticizing the established

what do you wan what do you think the basis

so the new left was a critique of the established communist parties both in the united states and in western europe it wasn't a

those were not the people being persecuted under mccarthy are not the same people

being persecuted by local police departments

hippies and so on it's completely different

kind of people

ah

ok hoover isn't then

i i i just i don't know

i just don't know what this gets you exactly

so i asked you who was persecuting these new leftists

and my best guess would be that it would be it would be

police

yeah local police departments

so there was a conflict

i'm uh

happening at this time whre

and i'm not defending local police departments i

considered them reactionary but

there was a conflict going on between local police departments

and the growing hegemony that was associated with the federal government

that's not i'm not giving like a you know

positive appraisal of police as for resistance of any

it was just

there react but but the point though the point though is that it was only

fairly recently

that it wasn't the case that you could lose your job or you wouldn't be viciously excoriated

were persecuted

for being even even vaguely left

that's that's why we have the whole notion of like a pinko for example

well well how recent do you imagine this to have been

oh

probably actually until present day to be honest i

so you think i s or we were doing research for a debate with st and whether or not

m

there was a

there was persecution of of

centrit or otherwise professors and university for not towing the wok line

and we sound

practically no

none of the examples provided

talked about so you're trying to we found multiple people

yeah who were persecuted out of university for

criticizing for example the

ow

local police departments local politicians

so

oil magnates who were who were donating to the universities etcetera

wait

so

you're saying that until recently and to be generous that's the twenty twenty s you're saying that

people who hold left wing views were being

i know

significant level being persecuted in universities

i would say there they are still being so

very much

so

i'm i don't want to bs these aren't i don't want to see there gy lapsing their philosophy prob sre i don't want to be that guy but i'm being run by administer you i'm i guess rightt i don't want to be that guy

who's going to ask for a source it's just that my personal experience contradicts that and the experience of everyone i know contradicts that so

do you have a source for that w wer what sties fire people for having left wing

position i actually i actually can produce them but i'd have to search through and get those documents again it's been a hot minute

i but i put i put the ball back into your court though and you say its your experience

to what are you referring to in particular i'd like to add something if i may

place

actually hang on hang on has are you ok with that

i think that's fair hous

what did i hear what

know a want to inert you callo thatht

yeah i i don't care

well

i can't speak much to the persecution of left leaning professors in my lifetime

but the most significant

i guess

political exccession

that i've seen

well i've been politically active

was after the iraq war

um

obviously there was a very gung ho attitude towards the war back when it began in two thousand and three

and i remember there being quite a lot of talk of contrary

media pundits professors and the like who are openly anti war

a lot of them did get the boot for that

i don't know how much that's necessarily a left wing position

there is a correlation of course

that's more of a broad anti state had gemin a position that gets cracked down on

well actually i think that's true during the iraq war but i think the reason for that was that

as you said it wasn't an essentially left wing position the ron paul

libertarians and those kind of

others even even kind of you know the alex jones infors guys

that was a broadly counterhedemonic position to be against the iraq war at the time now now it's this popular thing

but yep at the time being against that war and it wasn't even just because you know conservative was in power

another thing

people do i guess don't pay attention there was a lot of

hedgemonic

left wing apologia for that war

that was drawing in many ways from the legacy of the counterculture like you know for example

we have sexual freedom and we can do drugs and we are the free west

and they're conservative and backward over there

so i think the iraq war speaks to

and even greater

i

argument for how

ah

progressive change has become assimilated by the status quo i think b the does't probably oversimplifying it quite a little bit a lot of people were praising for example people a chris carl who were absolutely not

celebrating america's sexual liberation and contrast

ll

middle eas

except when

um it allowed them to

don't call

o

how backwards people in iraq

g but i don't think that was

right when did but first of all there's two problems

i know i never said that this neoliberal

a justification was the sole one

for the iraq war

just that it was the one that

ah

was this sorry most

effective hegemonac

most effective ideology of the igemini

that defended the iraq war

and this is not even a

to say that it was just an open endorsement even the forms of

anti arab racism and

even in

you know i remember saturday night live and all that kind of stuff

there were these implicit

justifications for the war

based on

how backward in

medieval they are over there and compared to the civilized west

all right can we can we're supposed to be debating your political theory here and we're i think it's going later though because you're asking for example i'm i'm i'm

sure but like the reason why we moved on to that point is because you're making particular assessments of current move

trying to make arguments on those bases but we're talking about like identity and

theoretical terms which is one of the reasons why

i'm kind of squinting here because it's like i came prepared for a theory discussion

and were we're going through the history of the united states

ma eith way can help

i'd like it it if we can move on from this point

and to that end

i think we i'd like to suggest something that perhaps we can agree on

to a build of foundation

to move the discussion forward

so i think that we can both agree

that

what has been termed left

historically

has often been

categorized on vague and often contradictory

standards

but as has pointed out you know

we have

left opposition to the iraq war which

hope most people here would agree is a good thing

but we also have

the cynical invocation of western progressivism

as a pretext

for for

and you know

spreading democracy to the middle east

now

both of those things have been called left at times

i don't know if we would call one like syncretic or fake or artificial

but

has when you talk about

you know your theories you're referring here the the

revolutionary opposition this would not include

the

nine hundred sixty s so called countercultural hippie types

correct we're talking

about non co opted

left sentiment

yeah broadly speaking no i think there were exceptions but broadly speaking no

ok and president sunday do you agree that

whatever distinctions we're carving out here

there is something meaningful

in

the distinction between what has is referring to here that

and

non co opted revolutionary opposition

and

broadly what is termed left

which is used in so categorically in fact one of the frustrating things about his essay is is actually that it's not entirely

i

there is a tendency

to once again br force a specific interpretation on the grounds of what

flow is best

in terms of of

of you know what what

what

what piece of terminology justifies the next step in his argument

and in that sense it's over determined in the schemea corrupts

crupx the hole

but earlier on like the distinction between the

leftism as a sort of like a

a general

ideological

tendency that doesn't actually correspond

towards like the robust attitude of

individual actors or parties or whatever to word

you know existing or hegromonic structures like that i on board categorically

in fact i think generally we we're

actually in agreement on what distinguishes the left from the right and that the left has

nw

not so much a set of policy distinctions that can be crystallized that one given

point in time

but rather it's a critical or

deconstructive or at the very least

a non conservative attitude

to word structures so that like

thing experiments and developments are allowed to take place and we aren' sort of chain to

the ghosts of things that have have been before

yah so i think this is can be a point to develop the contention because i would actually disagree with that characterization of what the left is

all right i don't think the left refers to a a

unequivocal

all right

that's not the right word unilateral opposition to existing structures

i

want to be clear that my theory proposes

that both the modern left and the right

are

forming in the aftermath of what we call political modernity

so it's a big misconception for example that the right

actually truly was defending the ancient regime

by the time you saw something like a political right or reactionaryes

to the french revolution

the ancient regime was already corrupted by modernity

what is and what does that mean can you can you clarify yeah it means actually actually beforefore you grify that just just

forer absolute clarity

what do you mean by madernity

because we're sure sure and what do you mean by being corrupted by mad so broadly speaking

ah i tried to invoke

just because i thought it wouldn't

maybe wouldn't be that contentious because lature is not a right winger

but bruno latur's idea

oh

modernity being defined by this

dual thing of a process of purification

where you're creating a supreme ontological zone

that's chiefly negative in content

and the other right

so for example

man in general versus nature

that's laturs favorite example because he's like a

ecology guy

but you can also have it in terms of the

the

cartesian collito or the reason

of the rationalist

you're on

and so on and so forth

but modernity broadly speaking refers to this abstract universalism

that looksre first to as a rupture in the continuity of time

it's this

blind universalism that knows no distinction in content

so in the sphere of science for example scientific madernity

is we are not going to base our attitude toward the external world

on any prior conventions or presumptions

or superstitions

we begin totally from scratch

the blank slate and then

we

establish some method

in order to derive knowledge

so that's an example of the cut of madernity

that leveling so in political terms

that is the universal man

that's the universal subject of the state

of the republic

now at first of course

that was i meing a disadvantage here because i don't know the tour but my immediate question is

since we're distinguishing between madernity and pre madernity

full other term

by a rupture in time in which we have

fresh start

we start

de ploying these hyper rational schemes to sort of redefine everything going forward

so a fair characterization

more or less

ok yeah for purposes of moving it along yeah

sure so

what does that mean though whose time is being ruptured what like

position are we taking to make that assess

like are we are we taking a universal stance for example or are we are we

are we just

are we just asserting that we can't

everything else is invisible there is simply the self purported act of universal

somewhat

um

if you're are you asking what are the origins of modernity i don't you it's your questions not very clear to me

right well if

madernity is defined

by

an attitudinal shift

right now i don't think so

well when we're talking about for example like a rupture in time we're not talking

doubt

time is a metaphorsic

principle we're talking

i think i think so actually in many ways because i think the emergence of capital

does represent a kind of yes metaphysical shift in how time

and

what is time how is it measured the mode of production

changes in such a way that leads to generalized commodity production

we are talking about the rise of a structure an institution

we're not just talking about attitudes we're talking about

a fundamental change in what was sure butsically youmg when i'm when i sor when i refer to time i not talking about time as it is experienced or treated by

two for

by societies or byo like

just humans even as a whole i'm talking about is like

time time

or whatever that is

i think that's kind of too uh in the weeds

this f i mean i don't know how far you want to take this

about it's got this's kind of that's kind of important though because if this is the well it distinguishes i would say

i would say ve notion of time the metaphysical time

it's not i don't think we i can just take that for granted like

time oker

for example that's thrown into question by i einstein's

oh

revolution and physical like here's an example that comes to mind this goes a little bit

earlier than maybe your thining

but for example one of the major moves that macki velli made

i

what between kvill and hobbs

is uh machiavelli conceives of

change as being something that's sort of like it

there isn't a developmental

orientation either within

a political community in the sense of like

aristotilian teleology where a community develops in a particular direction it can fail to but it develops in a

g the direction

i

ah

it instead you have just

constant flux and then the

a job of

the princeton administrator whatever

is to respond

appropriately and in a savvgy way to changes as they come about and then you go on to hobbs later on

a he

sort of recreates a teleology in a sense except it ends up being

an inevitable development arising from the content

of individual sub

that's a whole

state of nature

we're in ' legis sttve war

m

and because of internal jeah he states that it's a

he begins with a premise in some

deeper substance which is

the content of that substance by the way is something kind of abstract because hobbs

doesn't see the percepstance i think hobbs is a

hobbs explicitly

removes multiple subs

his theory

she's

no i think his meth his methodological individualsm is substantial astic

because he's saying that the individuals

basically this the leviathan

is an emergent thing out of these

base substance of the individual self interest

not not really you're a little bit confused there so the explanation for the emergence of the commonwealth

that's as a result of the internal drives of individual sub

the liviathan isn't simply the commonwealth of liviathan is

perh

commonwealth so it's actually

ok it's the body for a body politics i don't know why that this n no it's not the body politic though

of

very much said it's the person of the sovereign yes

ok so the person is the person is the face

of the thing isn't that what body politic means

no it's the it's the appearance of the body the body politic

for example aristotle could refer to a political body in the sense of the politic of being the aggregated no i think you're confused about the historical usage of the term body politic which oftentimes does refer to the individual

connection between the individual sovereign and the political community

sure but not not and not in hobbs viathan is the residue of

of fading sense that's why he introduces the

terms result

psychology

so so

human beings enter into community with each other

ok but don't you think or don't you think even if you were correct on that bunce that

even if you were correct on that and just for the sake of the

debate i don't know i don't want to get into the weeds of it but even if you were correct

on that

what does that have to do with the point i was making

that hobbs

there is a substantialism there because the

political community that emerges

a as you acknowledge the commonwealth

is emergent from individual some base or deeper substance

well no but he's not he's not in

he's not implying a substance though

ok if anything there are fewer substances and hobbs than other thinkers

this is why when you go later on we talk

he he recapitulates

oh that that's reinterpret that's just hinges he reinterprets like biblical history that's just that'sus really inges that just hinges on a frivolous semantic uh

contention of whether or not you want to call individual the individual

of hobbs a substance

the individual

ho hobbs isn't a subs

so it's we it's a substance with regard to the commonwealth

it's the substance of the commonwealth is the individual s if you want to speak loosely sure i guess it's like the thing of which the commonwealth is ok i aways think it's really a frivolous

point i what's isn't it does get pd we we're trying we're trying to get at like like a rupture in time and i've heard this language before so it's not

ridiculous one understand what you mean in particular by it

because it's something we can't really skirt over this why i think the rupture in time is defined by

instead of more kind of

cyclical or organic kind of experience of time

you have one that is defined by a strict

break

from that continuity

almost like the year zero of the french revolution but it's not only a break in time it's a more fundamental

kind of

universal abstraction with regard to reality

that

reduces the supreme essence of all reality to some kind of

negation some kind of negativity

that's devoid of any particular determinant content

who does that

that is what modernity is historical

well sure but when when you say historically like you're right sing that to determine

point so so

were where's the brike

that i think that's that's a very theoretically contentious argument among fear theorist in generally when does it all begin

ah as someone who is uh

has an approach coming from the dialectical tradition i don't think you can locate only a specific point one specific point

just a transition from

quantity to quality

so there's this broad historical movement

toward

ah what we call

the modern era but modernity is never

one place in time it is a specific

form of time that's my argument my argument isn't that

this is when majornity begins

it's just that there is a specific form

ofh

reality or time or ok sosation of the problem though yes its st a examtle modernity is

the distinction between the pre majority and the majority is a distinction always happening it's not just

ha something that happened once and then

we're post modern

after that

door so the problem i'm running into though is that you described it as a rupture

a rupture so yesies to me like an event

so there's there's

for the event

the event

after the eent

it doesn't doesn't that does yeah it's not listenply as a transition i get i get you're saying wces right there i you what you're saying but to say modernity is a form for example of civilization and time

implies the rupture doesn't just happen once the rupture is characteristic

of

i

characters so for example what is

the rupture of

the english industrial revolution how do you where do you locate that well for example

maybe you can locate that in the enclosure movement right maybe you can locate that in the english civil war

it depends strictly on the frame of reference

of what you're referring to as modern

so the rubbure yeah but this is a rupt sure ruption so political modernity example the rupture of political modernity

is seventeen eighty nine the french revolution that

marx right

is is that all modernity is no but

but why would that be the rupture though like like for example the

there is the the

pd

radical restructuring of

the state and like

f the fourt seent of the fifth century

you you have i but it because it doesn't just stop you know but it doesn't establish the universal rights of man

okay

well they kind of do though like like the major move that has introduced or not ho sorry

car

the major move that hobbs introduces this

is that

the didntus als in the for the sovereign is legitimized by reference to the consent of the government he derives this by a radical reimagining of the human being as a machine

so you know i'm not denying pll an you don't just reference the fourteenth century or something are we talking why are you talking about house

oh hobs i'm talking about multiple things

so moving forward from there ok politt it but ok

scere

i have acknowledged

theories of

mym

modern political theory yes you can go back to hobbs

you can go back to ops obviously that predates the french revolution

but the french revolution

was the beginning of modern politics as an actuality as a real

form of politics ok ok sure sure but the

it seems like the periodization is playing a really

heay structural role here

why i

because you're defining it is as as a rupture and an event this is this is how you're

this is how you're describing madernity in the first place as the

no i am describing it as a specific way in which

a civilization relates to itself in regards to

it's it's real content

so for example

and that can be in terms of time

it is in terms of time that can be in terms of space it is in terms of space the west

kind of was diffentven sovereinty even it can be with regard to culture it can be with regard to other you i understand but even in conceiving of a civilization quote unquote as an enclosed whole

that is capable for example of being corrupted in this way and like a categoric sense

that's that's not

and an old notion that's very recent

i

what what are what are ok i'm sorry likeo i feel likeh this has gone into territory where

can you please get to the point like what

what are you

what's the point what's your point

let me like to interject really quickly if i may

so president sunday

it seems to me that you are trying to point out a degree of

arbitry

in the definition of modernity

obviously we're not

hard linguistic prescriptivists if people want to use terms describe specific time periods

i

that's fine

why are you

intent

on undermining the certainty of the term what are you

what a what are you attempting to demonstrate

i'm actually not the reason why i'm asking these questions is because he is defining

h

the switch to madernity in terms of

andan alteration

to time

um no i was paraphrasing bruno latur who is

the reason i invoked latur is because

i didn't want to get into the for i wanted to basically ok you understand

this

the fact that it's acknowledged

by

people who you would consider to have authority and credentials

that that modernity is

can be characterized as a rupture

these are qualities and attributes that are commonly and conventionally attributed

to what modernity is so let's get to the point of well yeah but that's that's from from the present tense we retrospectively categorize these things as being modern

pret modern based on on different different criteria but you in particular

are referencing a rupture in no i'm

i myself no i'm not love i'm just

paraphrare by the way latur's whole argument in his book is

we have never been modern that's the book

but

all i'm saying is this is what he how he

h paraphrases it

now i didn't know it would be so contentious but

why what do you think are the stakes of that contention

i don't know this isn't a book i've read

and i so but are we supposed to debate about theory like what

when you're sorre you so i'm asking you clarifying questions so i understand

where does you comine like on of the building blocks of your theory or so when you

introduce for example the idea of the ons gen regime of already being corrupted by modernity

i don't know ok so let's go back to left and right because that's what this is about

right

so

all i'm trying to say

is that both the left and the right take as their premise

some kind of abstract

universal form of politics

it is literally that simple right

and i'm saying that it's commonly thought

that the right represents the ancient regime

but the problem with that is that by the time the historical rite emerges the first form of which is the thermodorrean reaction

which was within the bourgeois revolutionaries

there are the right

even if it appeals to defending the ancient regime it has to do so according to the terms

of political majernity

so for example the ancian regime has to be i wrote this in my modo communism substant

we that's why that's why it's that's why it's reaction it's reaction

would

but the but you're missing the point

it has to adopt the language of the thing its reacting to it has to defend

the old order in the language of the new order

so that's what i was referring to of the modern political right it's not some real organic past

of the ancient regime

it

itself

takes as its premise political maternity

that's all i was saying

ok sub

what do you mean by political majority then because you were laying in like all of this like like hyper specific

okay all i mean is the

form of a modern universal state

that knows no distinctions in terms of the what are you adding in you see universal a modern universal state what do you mean ok i was

i was oh sort in yeah

it knows no its political si it knows no distinction as far as its ultimate

political subject

now it may add

um things for example

okay

so this is the rights of man but only white land owning males whatever

but these are all provisions that have to be added in arithmetically

and it recognized later arbitrarily right because

madernity political madernity begins when

the subject

of politics and the state

is just this abstract individual

abstract individuality

i di i didn't think that would be contentious what is the contention there

it's not it's not that they have a specific contention it's that

in the course of giving a description of these things which form the building block of your theory of your entire political universe

you introduce things that you you do not really def

fine

o

wellor if you do define them you define them in terms of things that beg

like just up

a massive amount of specification

well i mean i still have no idea what so i have to explain to you the buck has to stop somewhere as far as where we can

come to an agreed upon understanding so most people who don't intentionally want to be pedantic

would recogniz ok you which you mean has

political majernity is this

i was

ha universal modern state

so the lie i writ you i agree with you ok i agree with you but i some most you don't but i have to point out it is you who has written quote partisanship can also be defined by a specific galan subpltion of established political distinction representing a type of political subject

interpretated by a new form of universal statehood the co jean empire plarity or termin okll sure and

ok so you want me to see wyt a lost here

please

so you want me to explain that ok you could have just be great

so

o the reason i say it's a sublation

isn't because it eliminates it's not a negation that

destroys the distinction

it's a subli sulation destroys and preserves yeah

ok

good

so it doesn't destroy the old thing it

and

it re uh

re contextualizes it is another way you can look at it

into a new form so the partisan i argue for example

resolves the contradiction that gives rise to the right

because of its telloric

it's rooted in the deeper order of rual life

the modern right attempts to contrive

some laa

order some logic

based on

a universal political madternity

to justify hierarchies to establish the relation between people things

people

to things and other people right

ok but to lark to lurk in this case

doesn't just refer to the rural right to learc refers to like of the land generally so can refer to

yeah but i would but even schmidt makes it clear and yeah but schmidt makes it clear what relation

the partisan

owing to their tuleoric character has to the rual masses oka because he's he's talking about

see i have to content give this context schmidt was a german

who was fighting partisans in world war two so his

theory of the partisan was made from the perspective of a guy who was in gamer

schmt wasn't fighting part of sorry sorry

he was part of the german state that was fighting against me he was he was he was the like the principal political theorist of the nazi

state yeah but he was he had some post he occupy i'm pretty sure he occupied some post in the german state

but

he

was making that text from the perspective

of

the nazis who were

engaged in count theor theory of the partisan is as long after this theory of the partisan is as he can you can you just let me finish

you're going as i pointed out

schmidt's theory of the partisan

was made from the perspective

of the germans engaged in counterpartisan operations

how do i know this because

i as i argued in the text

he only defines the partisan negatively

with regard to how it forms an opposition

to the state

for example it's not strictly true because it gives positive criteria for them

that's where you're getting the whole tolor the positive criteria ision the positive criteria is a series of negative characteristics

allurians on negative to laurians pretty particular and positive it's a sizning no no it's not also luri and you to lurian could be easily identified

for example from schmidt's perspective as

being outside of the urban logistical center of operation you have but i mean you could do that

same with the urban as well as just any positive statements in the gation well i have a s well that's why sublation is important for me because i don't do it smidt does

i situate

the partisan as the subject of a civilizational polarity

which is engaged in a process of

revolutionary change to realize itself

but at the same time represents a definite particular content of a civilization and therefore

a the deeper order but hos how is that revolutionary though you're anchoring it to that which has come before your anchory to an institution no to down on your it off of the closed hole it's not it's not an institution it's not an institution

or what is it then

so i try to

define polarity

earlier in my introduction

but basically to me

civilizations although they do change

and they do fuse together and they're not eternal

change at a a

scale that is not reducible to the whims of

modern individual consciousness or ideology or anything like that

so my theory is that

civilizations undergo a process of reproduction

and the

that

tendency toward reproduction of the civilization

can be defined as the source of the polarity

ok

so the partisan is an

an agent

sorry partisan is a subject of that polarity

they are partial toward the realization of a specific

civilization whose premises are now in existence yes

but it's not just the past it's not the past

you're going to have to explain this civilizations reproduce

what you mean

i

drawing from

and

so my idea is that

civilizations undergo a cyclical process of destruction and rebirth

that

you can witness for example let's say a good example this is the chinese civilization

there are various dynasties

characterizing chinese history but there's

somewhat there's a continuity of chinese civilization

and these dynasties marked the points of the

destruction and rebirth

of at least the form of the civilization

but there's still a continuity across time

so i argue that

has a deeper

that

to me there is a deeper objectivity of civilizations

it's not reducible to an institution

i gaus you said to be clear this isn't you're not drawing anybody for this is just you

m

i don't not any one person in particular know but there's

you know

it's pretty much a conventional

view in china among chinese scholars

and yeah there's the dugan guy

who will also talk about the different logos of civilizations

there's a

oh oh

ok there's what's this

what is a civilization hase

to me a civil er

what you

what it what is it

what is it ok sorry

themiteral yeah so to me a civilization

is

a specific way

in which

the contradiction

contradictions may be a bad word the distinction between the state and the civil society

can be reproduced independently

so a civilization reproduces

the distinction

between the state and the civil society

for example

that if a political community is reducible just to the state and if the state collapses it all balkanizes that's not a civilization

right

if the state collapses and a unity of the people can be re established to me that proves

there is an underlying

civilization over which

the state presides

with state presides over civilization now a civilizations usually include states don't they

and they can i mean what

but but civilizations can also

have

i

presembled

can be encompassed by an empire which is a state unless you don't want to call that a state

i really don't

so an empire is not a state

i don't i don't even know what a state means in this i'm ok do you think there's a giant so many everywere i i'm sure you'll batt like less a million different things that seem that so would you characterize

the ching dynasty as a chinese civilization

i am i don't necessarily buy into the category of civilization

su

a meaningful term

um it seems to be trying to group a whole bunch of really disparate things together for the sake of uh

categorization scheme that i

st thing holds water

like what's the content of civilization i don't know how you can have any meaning auty political forms how can you have any meaningful understanding of history if you don't acknowledge there are different civilizations

the civilizational framework is really recent it hasn't it's

history does not rely upon it at all

for example there are historical frams of reference that solely focus on

the history of particular

so there is no egyptian civilization

there's no inkan civilization there's no chinese civilization what's that what is here he answer me that what is the distinction between let's say egyptian civilization

and an egyptian state

or the egyptian states

the yeah as you said these egyptian state is part of the civilization

wh you said a state presides over a civilization why can't it be both at the same time why can't it

i mean like because because of a singles ii civilization that implies that

civilization s to give this body politic analogy a head is part of a body while at the same time

in some sense presiding over the body i don't know why that's such a hard thing to understand or because you're waffling between referring to the body as the head and vice versa

no i'm the head is part of a body that's the yeah yeah it is yeah it is

yes okay

ok ok sure so what's the problem

i just think i feel is extremely problem is that when we're when we'rean kind of wor if we're treating these things as parts of the same body then of multiple states for different agencies with their own

you know deliberate action in the world and whatever

i

the analogy breaks down you can't say that like a state presides over a civilization which also involves other states but then

some of you know i ok hold on a state can preside over a civilization of which it is a part

that i interject momentarily

i think

and i can i can see where the schism here is

i think the problem is that the term civilization doesn't overlap cleanly with a lot of other terms we use

obviously the civilization and the state don't perfectly coincide

some people use civilization to refer to like

ethnic groups but we have the chinese civilization which is multi ethnic

the persian empire was a civilization obviously that was multi ethnic with all the territory they had the greeks you know so on

i

and what's more

it seems like there are weird ethnographic cultural and sometimes class biases in how we apply it the cherokee

native americans for example are rarely called a civilization

even though there were more of them and they were more organized than some other societies that we referred to as a civilization

in retrospect

so

i guess

my confusion and i share president sunday's in this

what criteria would you use to describe a civilization has like what a

if there was a line and obviously it's always a bit emergent but if there was a line or like a

a point you could build it around

what would distinguish it from

a nation your state i think griffy i think civilizations have the capacity to independently give rise to states

from the civil society itself

so that's what i would say is a civilization

think f the civil society w s the civil society

a civil society characterized by established by convention or mors or tradition

specific way in which groups of people and i think that's an important

nw

distinction groups of people not just one type of people

relate to each other right

so for example oftentimes trade relations between different tribes

is to become conventional in some way

here i'm wich to sure

interject right away here so the problem're running into is that

you're treating civilization

consistently with how other people treat civilizations where it's something that sort of

oh

km

extends over state differences

but then you see it arises from from civil society and then you locate that in groups

so no rebably sion you're no no it's the deep

thick texture of relations

between different groups

not just different groups

h okay but

within this texture of relations

there are firm distinctions

between groups that have differences and

and practice and localy sure but but those eventually historically speaking sometimes at least evolve into common civilizations

because they give birth to common states

sometimes at least

ok

but if

if you different groups form civilizations and then give rise to states how then do states preside over civilizations which give rise to the components that give rise to them

i mean that's dialectics it's just like that

that's not

i don't think that's not likes i thingk it's just a lop

it's i like to not when's not you when you're talking about like to do when you have talking about two things that are inexorably connected together

a right though

okay well you can say they're not but

i don't see what i but i don't see why a is a tx i don't i don't suggest thatt on interact this way

i don't see how it's impossible for

a

civilization to give rise to a common empire which therein

presides over said groups

and which you know

participates in his dialectic where

that extends the empire beyond the form of the state which gives rise to an even bigger empire i mean that's

how the let that's the history of all the land and land empires of asia

all the land empires i can think of thuight is that's how it worked but these these were these were hedgemonic relationships between states

this this wasn't just like what what we're talking about

empires

in we're not talking about different empires right now like

like at the same time sure we're talking about the process by which single empires form

that's all we're talking about the they formed the bike bike

conquering each other by coercing each other into into entering into a hedgem yeah but then when they conquer each other oftentimes what happens

is that the existing form of the prior empire

cannot contain

the new relations established between the peoples and that gives rise to a new empire so i don't know what the problem is yes it's a dialectic

n know a dialectic would be

if n know it's a dialectic like for example that's not that's not a dialectic though a dialectic is when you have a relationship between two things where the

they change on another by

by the interaction

and then a new plateau is set and then

that continues in that way

a dialectic is not just you have like multiple things that happen to relate to each other in some way

what dude what are you talking au i mean like

like okay if you want ok if you know about marxism everyone knows about marxism now

there's the relations of production and then the forces of production there's the base in the superstructure

the baby that's not that's not dialectical you're just talking about a flat schemea dialectic goes back yeah it's not it's you know why it's not dialectical sunday because you just interrupted me that's why it's not dialectical because if you would have let me continue like not dialogical but continue ok no it's not dialectical because you literally cut me off and isolated something that was not

given it's you dot the escalation of the conversation to a no no sunday sunday i was i was planning on the

speaking a sentence

and then you cut the sentence off in one place and put a period there and that would not have been a dialectical

thing i but the sentence wasn't finished ok

so what i was going to say is that at a certain point

the forces of production outmode the relations of production at a certain point

the base outmods the superstructure

the superstructure which court which presides over a base

i

changes to correspond to the new circumstances so that's dialectics

so i'm saying the same thing

happens with civilizations it's the same dialectical logic of

things that depend on each other which also correspond to their mutual

transformation

we i'm going to we stry we're trying to we're trying to justify the category of civilization here not not talk about ight you know what it's like ok so we're clearly not going to agree

about whether civilizations exist i think you're just kind of

arbitrarily preventing yourself from being a no it's just that comprehend regislation

this is an extremely pedantic no what i'm not srying to be sd thatic i'm trying to understand i'm trying to understand your logic here but the problem though is that when you explain it it's circular so you start off with states

no you don' i don't thiny we started off with any but then you but then you refer to know you don't i you don't back start of hold on nobody said you start off with anything

we are talking any given thing that you take in context is

has a history

long history of a dialectic between states and civilization now

states have not always existed so

there has emerged a states at some point in history

from these s i mean that statement is false then not not everything immerse emerged that way

state states are ubiquitous in history

states have emerged in history which means states have not always existed what's contentious about that statement

there's nothing but if you're going to make a statement about how states are what give riight to civilization

you can't do that if you're going but reference civilizations a preexist the state but no but something very so a specific kind of interaction happens between different peoples

which you can say is a proto civilization that

gives rise to a state

so what's hard about that to understand

i'm

i'm my my

arsenal i mean it's like these woles like explain i think you have a very rigid like

like mechanical understanding of how this kind of works you're talking about things that are working together in tandem like

the aspiration toward the common state is something that's happening in tandem

with the very thing with the very developments that give rise to its own premises

it's not like one perceives the other in a strict way

you're talking about what wello but they have to though if the explanation of one

is contingent on the other

no they don't have to

pursue they doesn't have to be a strict line if it's if it's contingent if something is contingent on something else

it can't preexist

the thing it's contingent on so i think this is a really kind of silly semantic point

you're trying to raise where you're basically saying

if you if you can't define something aps like ok

i mean we're debating we're debating your political ok for example finance a component of no no this is like this is like when you would say like ok

how do you do this is the thing that makes an apple right ok well not all apples will

perfectly conform to that

so therefore apples aren't real it's like it's kind of

a really pedantic

i don't see the point of what you're getting at really

oh no no it it's kind of like

it's kind of like

if you're saying here this is an apple it

it ok for forget it forget about apples before

everyone was watching this i

has bad i think i think i think we're past that point so

ok

so i'm going to just try to bring this to some kind of sanity

so you asked me to define what a civilization is i tried to give you my definition of that

this seems to it seems to bother you that

this means that somewhere along the line in the emergence of the state in the emergence of civilizations

that that happened

now i'm not exactly sure what the problem is that civilizations give rise to states

which correspond

which sorry which preside over the civilization or represent the culmination of that civilization at that moment in time

and then

there but that's also entangled in a process where eventually

the state can be outmoded by the inner development of the civilization in its a

reciprocal dialectical process across history i think that makes perfect sense to me

a you have not really believe youre given me a clear objection

to you haven't really clearly

i

defined your objection

no i just i have to wonder like

do you actually want

your argument to be understood

because it's

this is this is in would okk what what are the straight wait wait

with this isn't a matter of semantics we're we're running up on the limit of

words and phrases we can combine to move any further on this specific topic

no matter how long we spent on it

what is the next criticism that you would like to bring forward president sunday

ok

this isn't a matter of anyone being more right or wrong it's just

i think we could do this for another hour

two three maybe a days for the love of god no

ok

so

to that point civilizations

if you' would like to use an analogous term

has is there anything that you think would be appropriate do you think for example the use of the term

nation state culture anything like that civil society i couldn't be i couldn't do that in good faith because i think that the the form of the nation states a modern form and i think civilizations refer to something deeper

and i think the homogeneity and so on i

associated with the term nation

would not

correctly characterize what a civilization is so

yes so this is why this is why time becomes really super important actually because he's talking about deeper he's talking about something that transcends the rupture of madernity from pre madern

is talking about this this is again why he's like

i

really emphasizing

the partisan understood as yah ok sure that we really tolloric thing we can begin there sure there's so there's a common understanding you get at least the point that

i think

there's something fundamental about civilizations that survives modernity

despite the rise of the

the pretence to the rise of modern nation states

in the modern state

there's some deeper texture of

i

relations between people

that manages to skirt by under the radar and survives the rupture of maternity so you get that point

that's great

so let's talk about the criticism

well the immediate criticism would be that the categorization scheme of civilizations in the first place is itself a product of modern thinking it's not something that's

consistent with how people conceive themselves or conceive groups to sorklely

so when you group people into civilizational categories and you attach the things that

modern civilizational theorst from spangler twin be to huntington etc do

you're not actually pointing to something deeper you're pointing to a construction that is distinctly modern itself

but it's only distinctly modern because

before where it had been taken for granted

now for the first time it's being

but it was it wasn't taken for granted though it wasn't but i'm arguing it was i'm arguing that

the fact that for the first time we're talking about civilizations in general and madernity

that doesn't mean that

civilizations had no meaningful reality before it's just that

they were never

i i i i'm i'm really um being charitable with the assumption that

nobody ever referred to civilizations in the past

something i highly doubt they didn't like what what civilization youuse i really doubt it's sort of

actually you know you you can even see it in the etymology of the term it's it refers to a process for example we don't to they do know we don't we don't refer to we don't refer to like i don't know it would be like

sttization or something wefer to states

we just refer to states just it'sus a noun

civilization refers to to

process

it's like education

oh i'm z right it doesn't

it okay

amiliaration it doesn't strictly refer to any of those things i'm just going to call press x to doubt on the idea that no one's ever know it doesn't but what happens though what happens though is from the vantage point of certain

very like

geographically localized thinkerss a reason most of these guys are german

i

they they start conceiving of

the developments of things like our

music ok sure lot lot l ceter let's just let's just let's just

for the sake of time

and for the sake of everyone being no but but the point i'm getting at though the i'm getting a so the point is there is in there is nit onn alogical development in the in magternity people start talking about why is the ok addicnsre a lot of a lot of things

are given

are elevated into the status of general treatment with the rise of modernity

so we treat civilization the idea of civilization emerges civilization in general

class class in general as a general thing

emerges for the first time

right

a commodity form the universal commodity form

doesn't just i mean like the marxist understanding i don't think class categorically does knowo like the marxist understanding of you lass yes is a scientific

very strict scientific definition

so n noo but the the marxist understanding of class is oriented around the

like specific economic form

fairly recent but the idea of classes is not

do

okay look look you what you i'm trying to do do do sunday i'm trying so hard so hard

to help you understand this

something can become intelligible only in modernity

that is revealed to have always existed in the past

but not if its terms are themselves modern product

bey not you're douse hold on fcause at that point you're not revealing you're not revealing you're not revealing an eternal future of the world what you're doing is you're redescribe you forget about it tor fictional world w thinker frederick ok dude frederick angle says

that there was commodity production

in

ah ancient greece ok

now is there any general like notion of the commodity

not only in terms of a concept like the abstract universal commodity

but even in practice in terms of production no

mark says that there might have been the economics was lost

mark says that the anatomy of an ape is revealed through the anatomy of a man so that's a

that's clear in the logic of marx a you please go argue with marx about it because

you seem to have trouble with this idea that we can

we can things can become intelligible to us that we just took for granted before and never

really subjected to any critical interrogation

oftentimes we name things because they're no longer given to us

if it's totally given to us we don't need to have but why would you assume just out of hand that what we name retroactively is therefore given to us

i don't assume that out of hand but i think in the case of civilization i do think civilization refers to a meaningful reality

and not just some made up construct by germans in the on nineteenth century ok but but even thn like the ones even the ones of which we have like

and and it

huge and robust literary awareness of like for example the greeks and whatnot there is

this is this is an amalgamation of

of many different sources

th

that very much cross civilizational bound

at every at every level of resolution i don't know what you're golling to say relig i mean

what what do you mean

an amalgamation of different gree i mean i mean the notion of i mean the notion of civilization only has

the applicability that you're assigning to it on the basis of

ignoring the things that make it fail to apply

what makes it fail to apply

because as an entity civilization implies differentiation between civilizational groups but in

we actually look very carefully we don't know no civilization can be understood

strictly in terms of the its own imminent development it doesn't necessarily have to create a spt it's but but you're saying sunday sunday civilization shows to the imminent development of another

no he wass differentiating them and sunday sunday it doesn't p a s firm wall between one civilization and ano that's precisely what it does not need to imply it just needs to imply literally its purpose no it needs to just imply different centers there are people on the border which civilization are they a part of it's ambiguous

but there's different centers

that clearly

are not the same as o but but but hang on

careful

where is the center with respect to what what defines the center it's the periphery r i say you're implying a lion

okay

so

it this seems to be lost on you that

things can be

i

intelligibly different

without

precluding a strict bright line bright line rule because they're different in terms of tendencies

and orientations

not necessarily different in terms of one strict differentiation

one border one wall

it's just that these are

intelligibly different orientations and tendencies

so said just to illustrate the absurdity of what's of you go ahead goingll because yes i think i think we actually regressed back to a previous topic that we i'm just i just would find it indefensible to say

that indian civilization and chinese civilization are the exact same there's no meaningful difference between them

because on the border between india and china

there are syncret synthetic commute syncretic community communities that are

profoundly influenced by both

i don't think it's fair to say that china and india are then the same historically that's not the implication of anything that i think it is not because you're saying just wet know how it's not line well well hang on no it's not though

the argument is not that there is no differentiation

that can even be tracked geographically

the argument is that

no i not talk abt ggrowingly why are you putting words in my mouth i never said anything about geographically i said the people

living on that border the poter when you're talking about a when you're talking about a border and a periphery that's that's a geographical distinction yeah but the but because civilizations are about relations between people

you're trying to say that oh because people people live

in places

right

like like the they do i just find this like a bafflingly pedantic

i don't you knowy you're trying to make

i would like to impose if i may an analogy

that the best thing if i'm understanding this and correct me if i'm wrong

the best thing that i can think of is that in a lot of ways it's kind of similar to the

a medieval kingdom in europe

where when we look

on

a maps made

at the time you can see distinct lines which

you know oh across this river in this forest and such and such

but

in reality where each kingdom began and ended was really ambiguous there was no border between the two obviously

am there wasn't a customs agency

there were just villages and those villages would be taxed by the nearest lord or king or whatever

and sometimes the same village would get taxed twice over by the

to adjacent

competing lords

and there was no consistency but

and i think president sunday is getting at this

the

distinction here is that while we can acknowledge ambiguity while we can acknowledge a fluidity at the borders

there is still a central concept that this is

orienting around right

the idea of the lordship

of the aristocracy of the kingdom

there's something there that you can point to and go ok well the lines aren't clear but

this is

what we're drawing the definition around

and i think he's confused about that center point when it comes to civilization

if it's not ethnicity

if it's not a state

if it's not citizenship

there's something else something more fundamental that you're getting at

yeah

well i'm just referring to

i'm not but the problem i think that

implies

i

unnecessarily a kind of mechanical logic when you could just say

it's a specific relationship

between peoples

that has a tendency to give rise to a common policy or a common state

and i think that's just because it implies a relation between two variables

doesn't mean that

those variables have to be fully developed at any point in time

rather than part of an inexorably dialectical

dilaate in twine

maybe part of the problem we're running into here is when i'm referring to civilization

like when i'm referring to civilization is used

i'm ferring literally to how it

how it's been used

and so as a

theores so for example

and and a spanglarrian mode and it becomes like

in or

an almost organic phenomenon where you have

so here's yours also hang on hang on hous one one god damn second

you have a you have a life cycle where

artistic and cultural and whatnot

things

develop

to a certain like flourishing point and then die out

and there is there is an implicit

there's a hole here that's being invoked

there is a kind of thing that grows flourishes dies

so when we're talking about civilization we're talking about

a process that has been captured

within and entity that embodies the life cycle of that process

that is still going to occupy specific geographical areas when we're talking about greek civilization or something like that we are talking about

that thing as described but taking place

between protect taking place within

and a

a biome established by the presence of

greek states and things like that

im

you seem to be wanting to imply

that

this thing it is in some sense

both prior to but also posterior to

political developments on the ground so that it survives

the radical social change that is itself responsible for

giving rise to civilizations this is the rupture with modernity so a that's where i'm kind of perplexed because it seems to be going in a circle

okay well since you don't understand dialectics i'll just reframe it so you can understand it better i guess

if you want me to define civilization in a way that maybe would be less contentious to you

then i would just take it at the level of what i would consider to be the unit of the civilization which is oftentimes

the agrarian the small holding kind of agrarian

i

unit of subsistence defining a village or a family or even an individual

which is

in the actual subject of for example the empire

and the ability for that unit to organically not only reproduce itself

but the

implicit myriad of relations that it implies toward others around it

to me is what defines a civilization

kind of like a will to be

i think

if i'm hearing this correctly

at any real i don't know i don't know that i'm talking about i speect somethingletly threw me off i think we're both l o so a specific unit of human subsistence which implies

a definite division of labor

a specific relation of the family for example

a relation to the

outsiders how outsiders are treated

how

people but has has if it's comprised of discrete units then you lose the ability to then

gradded at the border

this this now becomes like a homogenous entity with firm borders this becomes like a modern state we're not talking about a civilization anymore

no it's a civilization because we're talking about how these units are reproduced

but but the

the identity of the units remains

homogenous because we're talking about the non necessarily the not re not necessarily it's not necessarily

it's just a unit of the subsistence it's just marxism like

the mode of production how do people reproduce themselves

how do they what are their condtions of subsistence and their conditions of production for example

ok ok but like like and how is that rep how is that reinforced and reproduced

not only at the level of the superstructure of the state

but at the level of the superstructure of what hegel will call for example civil society

family life

culture the thick text of norms and so on or sure but but that reproduction and what is being reproduced is going to differ

between that which is within the state and for example that which is not within the state that

that

which is

like sort of situated between states say what

what do you mean

what do you mean what do i mean

you're saying it's going that

what how how how how a state like a discrete state within a civilization reproduces itself

is not going to be identical or synchronous

with how another state within that civilization reproduces itself

but

these specific there are different states but rd on but if those states

are defined by a specific determinate relation toward one another

that would be included in the form of subsistence and reproduction

comprising an overall civilization

if states are defined by by their relationship to each other

yeah i that might that might work in the context of like a more you're already saying dude you're already said know that of like a modern state that only exist oh the out of surrounding nations like for example a this russian state of hagel

we're talking about something that exists by reference to to it so i'm literally leveling with you i'm following you down

the whole hallway of bullshit you want to go down

you said states states within a civilization well if the're

or if they're part of the same civilization and there's multiple states

i don't know what you mean by that maybe like

how there are different that's that's the that's the you're big and how there are different principalities that are part of i'm not i'm not asserting i'm not i'm not not in y talking about in that case but i meant to level with you right now so n n no no understand i i'm not go hear to the debate

i have followed you through

down this path of complete pedantic jibber jabber

just the level with you so we can establish a common meaning

to have a debate

i've been very generous about you know defining things for you and trying to work with you to come to a common understanding

but you keep trying to obscure it into these increasingly fenos i mean youre youre it's it's kind of no no no no jibber jabberby like it's just that one is i wint what's the what i ask you to no no no it's when i ask you to explain something you refer it to

another thing that stands equally in need of explanation

but that's how everythings nots not work

so the buck has to stop somewhere everything's going to work with like that if i try to explain to you

ok what is an apple it's a fruit what's a no because ite look a i mean what's going to keep going forever and so you whatu you and say hang on hang on stngly b sh it and i not i'm sing you what you could do and what most political theorists like actually do

is they will contextualiz the work within like the domain of a specific theory and they will say very specifically what they mean i am leveraging this particular no they don't i have this includes x y andz all the there is what i have thered but you're nots a none have been

tormented

and

annoyed with this demand of

such like micro special ok what exactly we well the way the way wa wait wa wait wait wait wait

that's it

that's it

next point

whatever ambiguity remains in this subject will have to linger in your hearts ok it will burn at you

in every moment that passes

i will not hear the word civilization again or i'll start muting people please god

to another point

ok but f hour and i just want hours and im i want to

you knowbody i want to s you but to you you have have a blay up t bit b but bit b b makn ar you

ok

i s ten seconds

soap cower ten seconds for what

no ta

and what's your what's your objection ten seconds president sunday

but what's my objection

oh thuck we're doing this ok i thought we were i thought werely going off entirely

and i feel like i'm out of seconds now

fuck yeah you're getting there what is the concern

civilizational model

does not have what

wide up

no n go ahead just

it does not have does not have universal uptake among political theorists so if you're going to assert it and you're not going to specify which

imbtizational model you're deploying

then

it's the mark you have to expect you have to expect ns the marxist model marx doesn't have a bzational i am i am making literally no comment on the degree of perceived or actual ambiguity or consistency on any of these terms i am making a comment on we're moving forward

up

you must account for this inconsistency in the dream world it can no longer be here

ok i feel like if we chart the cotry so have thatut using one word it down without using that word i guess the point

that we were supposed to be debating about here

is whether or not there are

patterns in terms of

ways of life

conventions

the culture

and

ways of living i go already said that

that

survive modernity which

at least rhyme with ones that existed

before madternity

and which may or may not

be subsumed under the category of a common civilization

sorry not going to say the word

so that's what we're supposed to be debating about

ok and and as this is a critique being levied by president sunday

you have i assume notes

what is the next point

that you would like to get to

it may it may be predicated on having arrived at a conclusion here but in the absence of a conclusion we're just going to have to make it work

i don't know man like

the problem running into here is that

the point of reference that i have which is the only point of reference i was given for haes political theory

i

it incrementally builds to the conclusion

that of the whole moga communism

thesis on the grounds that it is

or i guess maybe

being charitable has like the pethuion just debate about that i was start go with the moderl communism thing

yeah but the problem though is that you get there by by using a bunch of building blocks that we can't find any agreement on so no i mem win and i don't i'm willingly commit

to retracing my steps in the form of this debate for how we get to mod the communism

so we don't i don't have to invoke any of the things that confuse you

like certain c words that happen to

like we don't have to use any of those words

let's just get into the mean potatoes

why maga communism you can we can just debate about that

how about that

and sure but it's just going to you're just going to

hitch it

is the go ahead whatever

ok well you you have a critique so do you want to

give a broad the the critique is in how you get there like the thesis is absurd by itself ok well let's talk about

that that what is your objection to the thesis

well my objection to the to the project that

that seems reasonable on its service like if you can find a way to creatively

i

redirect mega rhetoric to words

growing

the left or towards like leftist goals that sounds

iminent that's not but that's not what i say

i know it's not what you do instead is you actually redirect leftist language to promote trumpesm in the hopes that

some of them will

buy into your stuff

but i don't know what you mean by trump is the but if you're just referring to the

vaguely the modern movement then yes

my my argument isn't that i want to

just convert maga people to leftism i want

the context and meaning of communism to be rediscovered

in what i consider to be america's most powerful counterhgemonic movement despite all of

i

the ambiguities within it

i was a counter hedjimona

so i mean we can i mean i mean like like like a premise of it is a whitewashing of american history to get rid of

so cret i'm s so great

that's

beautiful

ground we can begin with

i consider it counterhgemonic because i think the maga movement

has been primarily defined not by any specific positive goal or ideology or policy

but by a collective distrust

toward hedgemonic institutions

of our liberal democracy

that's why i consider it counterhadsmonic

the contents of that counterhead

hegemony

doesn't even need to be anything i agree with

it's just

the only thing that

is true

though

that i find relevant here

to qualify it as counterhademonic

is that it's built on collective distrust

toward the institutions

of our society

but practically every political movement is built

built off of distrust of institutions

morning

society

and i disagree i don't think

all that on may go leftis

cetera etcetera

but i don't think ok what other movement and even even even the even the glasses wearing

like people embedded in universities and whatnot

there they're predated upon by admitt ders

s of the sort nobody trusts

but no i think they do trust the

you're the mainstream because the universities are one such institution by the way

that's an example of the institutions of society

so you can say those institutions

may be self critical noo but the bare fact that

the bare fact that somebody interfaces with an institution in society is a part of their job doesn't mean that they therefore trust the integrity of that in

tuition

well i for example but well for example it like institutions are straighted between

administrators who are not necessarily teachers or academics and academics who are often

thwarted or por or bullied by the

ok or vice versa there may not be a lot of a lot of women's studies departments were able to be s there can be were able just thre able to be negotiated on the grounds that

some professor or someone somewhere

was was caught quite literally with his pants down and some

in some scandal

and so to cover it up there like he

here i'll tell you what you s i'm not i'm not denying you possibility of conflicts within institutions

but i think broadly speaking and there's of course individual exceptions in everything but broadly speaking

people who earn their living on the basis of working for these institutions

tend to have a world view defined by broadly speaking

trust toward the integrity of the geminy overall

and yes of the ruling institutions of society

but then why is the big bug beear of the mega movement critical theory

it's in the name they're critical on are the critical u the well specifically of institutions and received understand no no i from from a maga perspective critical theory is not about critiquing institutions

it's about critiquing social norms you know but that's because the mager perspective is based on total ignorance of the content of critical theory

that may be true and that may be not true but

as far as they're concerned

critical theory is a critique of the social norms of their everyday normal lives

not aure find fair enough but then it but then's my question to you then though

is given that marx

indeed is one of the early not the earliest one of the earlier inaugurators

of that critical movement

i don't why do you why do you want to

he is why do you want to wed comriticism is just who don't

that's just begins with the con that's

marto no criticism no no n oh you're way off the articism goes way far back criticism goes all the way back to to russeau back to machiavelli

who like recapitally that's a reg underlying basis of states beha that's a rout which is thing sorty but marx employes criticism of course but

critical race theory in this kind of stuff magas just well critical theory sh the deployment a critical theory to race the idea of critical theory is a concept that's fairly recent

but in terms of people walk having that so you're talking about i

cultural marxism thing i don't know what you're referring to

we well i mean we could also add that as well but cultural arxism goes far so so these kind of right wing populists

catchphrases

generally refer to trends that they perceive

to be mounting a critique

toward the normal everyday life of but but and why not i do they p why do they perceive that though it's not because

they're all going to university and they're just seeing with their own eyes op the professors are teaching yeah but i think you forgot the relevant point in contention which is you use this oll no no no i'll tell you where this coming from though the reason why they think that is because this is received wisdom from a massive

massively moneyed

media empire that is forcing this down their throats all the time

ok i am willing to bet with you however massively moneyed you think that media empire i know this this because i'm a canadian and i trump if youress a result of the same am

ok again let me finish

however massively money do you think that media empire is

it is dwarfed in terms of what revenues it can accrue

by the mainstream media

as an institution and what're talking about it's

that

that's patently untrue

ok well

if unless if you're going to refer to the decentralized information

kind of

flow of right wing information on the internet

maybe as an aggregate it's more i don't know

but in terms of

like

as a one block of a hegemony there' is no equivalent to the mainstream media that comes close

coming from the right

the the right wing medias clos as you might get the closest you might get to

is tucker carlson

who's part of fox news which is huge

but

tger carlsons the exception not the norm even when it comes to fox news

so

you're dealing with

an overwhelming hegemony

let's see here so

there's a forbes article from

twenty of february actually

ok so

the fox finished first with an average total audience for total daily ratings

of one point three hundred forty nine million viewers

yes c n n has five hundred twenty four thousand

yeah fox is this is like an order of magnitude of difference here right but we're talking about the difference between for example success

a for audiences and on a market

an institutional hegemony institutional hegemony is actually

mean that actually benefits my argument because

given how unpopular the rest ofill c n n c n n is multinational so c n n is not institutional c n n is just it's just an

ok i'm going to go ahead and ignore the comment that c n n is not institutional just for the sake ofll why why wouldn't you say fox new that c n nre promoting a

there be promoted resox and c n n are clearly institutional

fox has managed to increase its ratings by allowing people like tarker carlson on the air

clearly right

but in terms of

i mean these

are mainstream media companies that are all owned

by the same corporations

so hi

can i ask a clarifying question

ya

i'm interested in the definition of institutional

when it comes to academia

professors have been variably pro or anti institution depending on the era and the context

the professors in berlin were famously pro nazi a lot of them were nazis you know which is weird you'd think normally the professors are more

progressive

here in the states there are plenty of leftist professors and

you know go for the wron like economics profession has always been heavily institutionalized

i'm not entirely sure where these lines are

you say tuker crosson is an institution

when i think of talker carlson i think of

a wealthy heir

who's admitted to being

you know a voice for the interest of billionaires

speaking on

a very large

institutional news network

something distinguishes him in your mind

i'd like to know what

yeah i mean his background he may be from the ruling elite in terms of his background

but the information he's putting out there is discontinuous

clearly at least you could a everyone here would not object to the fact that it's extremely contentious

in general

from the perspective of

the institutional agemony to define what institutional means it doesn't just mean privilege

institution

refers to the specific

way in which

power is exerted over a

it's

p

grouping individuals

under a specific form

right so pssing what does he disrupt that

well objectively speaking he's extremely consentious when it comes to how he's disrupting

the most of the information people get from the mainstream media so most of the main what is what is mainstream when this is the most washed the most money

because it's the most popular but m s n b c c

probably even other mainstream voices but what makes the main songs news okll it all mean

i'm trying to give an example of ok ple

all had a narrative about j six

now talker carlson

almost alone

in terms of people who have

this

reach that they do

on television is going against that

narrative so here you have an example of a consensus

on what j six was and talker carlson is contradicting it now regardless of whether you agree with talker carlson

or you think he's being honest

clearly he is going against

the consensus of the mainstream wll but you clearly think that the right wing makes up a large proportion of the population

than the left wing which is why you think it's of the working class and of the people and why you think that the that's not why itt all stream is that is absolutely not why

but wouldn't that definition of disruption then not have anything to do with

institutional values

i mean for and like john oliver frequently does segments

that are contrary to mainstream

liberal values and a bunch of institutionally accepted stuff

liberals being as they are incapable of understanding systemic critique

probably find his

points on slap lawsuits to be

revolutionary

there's certainly a deviation from what normally gos talked about but i don't think those kinds of an institution

but i don't think those deviations bleed over into antagonistic differences of course there's a range of difference among

and within hegemines

but they don't become antagonistic until

they become

so severe as points of contention so as to for example

be labeled enemies of the country or dangerous people who need to be censored and so on

like i don't i don't really

think john oliver is that ever said anything

that would make it

you know i don't think you would have

members of congress talking about the threat of john oliver ba what i you see

members of congress have talked about her as a threat

people on the right frequently talk about her as a disruptive influence that's trying to destroy america

and a lot of her values when it comes to economic reform in the green new deal

are systemically controversial enough

to lead to some

borderline mass panics on the effects her laws might have

yeah i mean but i don't think a o c and john oliver are comparable because

first of all the right is opposed to everyone who they can sorry i don't know i don't know why we'referring to the right here

just for the sake of convention

because there's a difference even aready and slip there's difference even growing in the republican party so i think there is a realignment

but the people you're talking about who are fear mongering about a o c

weill probably also do it about john oliver and others because they see a o c as part of the geminy so i'm not sure what is the what's the real emment the republican party that you purceue

what's the what

what is the realignment in the republican party that you perceive

between the mago wing and you know what they're calling

the rhinos and disantis and others i think there's a

acute

split that's going on there that i don't think the party will

be able to what's the what's what's the substantial difference between them is as you see

well i mean i think on face value it's simple desantis is part of the establishment

and trump

created his own movement

which

is built on collective distrust

toward that establishment of the difference with thesantas

is that

he is breaking from a lot of the cultural kind of messaging

coming from that hegeminy but when it comes to

his ties to the neoconservative establishment when it comes to his ties

to the war machine in the military industrial complex

and basically a lot of the money that's behind

uh politics

i think it's clear that

thessents is part of the status quo in

i don't think the sanust is an outsider

sure it just it just seems like to me though then

that even if i leave aside like all of the

the serious issues i have with

with your rhetoric in your positions respect to a

whole bunch of people yout toget and with respect to the identity of

ah

communism and

the mega moon is being compatible

anyway shap

forman

real way

it seems that what you're proposing is stillborn because it's tied to the cult of personality of a specific embattled persona

that has no need of

but

uh i

first of all whether the maga has any need of me is beyond the point but

the significance of the cult of personality i think is interesting

because it's a cultu of personality

soley built around that collective distrust that i was talking about

trust in trump

which is by the way not unconditional

the maga crowd has booed trump

on

debt like it's been recorded on occasions where he's talked about

things i don't think we are at to mention on you tube just

i don't want to flag the

censors

relating to health issues for example he's been booed on that

so i don't think there's an unconditional trust in trump i just think his cult of personality is proportionate to the

severance between these people and this part of the country

with

what i call the geminy

i don't know i suppose but at the same time like that distrust it

doesn't seem to be by itself to be unique what seems to be unique again is

a reflexive distrust as directed by media sources

against specific ordinances not against institutions as such

i think i want to g the institutions because well noo because what well not really though because of for example january sixth well it was

and like a real sense

against

the institutions of american democracy

it was premised

on the thesis that in some sence that had been corrupted

so

well not i think i really of american democracy

is something very ambiguous and old going back to seven hundred seventy six

but when we're talking about the higeminy that emerges after world war two

we're talking about something that is outside of the constitution we're talking about

this civil so artificials i mean it's what soros will

called the open society it's a network of n g o s

i

academic institutions

well that's the open society foundation but the open society as a concept is what those and jos and we o our purpose to wor that's what i was just say are distan i was literally just saying that the open society

which is a middle because but that's not the open society of the the open society is like

an ethical goal within a state it's not

ok i maybe you're not you haven't read copper but copper characterizes

the open society is defined by

this union of various different

civil society

organizations that will maintain vigilance in regards to

but that's that's within that's within a state though that's not like a global thing per se

of course it's global how could it not be global

ph it

because it's a the state

but you have a civil society you have an open yeah it encompasses various states but we're talking about a this

artificially created civil society defined by the promotion

of open values in the open society

which is you know

for the defense of democracy and so on which in reality has translated

tk i don't

with i don't think in your head you're incoherent the problem though is that you're using a whole lot of terms and like really fast and loose ways

so if i'm trying to like take you seriously on a theoretical level and follow you i literally can't

because you mean six different things thn a g let's just get then get to the content instead of generalizing like

i'm i'm trying that's what i'm telling so you object like i me the idea the use of the word open society we can use another word if you want

but there' is clearly these

yeah but the when we use a different word though then you actually start to mean a different thing and not just bit into doing that but

what i perceive i'm just trying to arrive at you common understanding of what i'm talking about what i'm talking about is that

when i talk about institutional hegemony i'm not

strictly talking about

the state itself because that is existence in seventeen seventy six

formally speaking he geminy doesn't really become

a useful concept

until the late nineteen twenties and the thirties because

gromsky using it in the context of the rise of fascism in italy

but it's also can be used to apply to the new deal kind of system that emerges

the european kind of welfare states where

you have these kind of corporates

uh f

these kind of social corporates

outside of the liberal state that that want to administer and regulate society

and you know

the

regulate information and for

ideas and so on and so on

so that's where the concept of agemony becomes useful but when you're just talking about the constitution

or a classical liberal

kind of uh

democracy proceeding

the nineteen twenties

hedgemony is not really a useful concept the reign of the institutions is not

is not very clear no no sure but if you're characterizing the mega movements in some sense

anti hedamonic it kind of

it becomes a matter of import

that it takes a ideological cues

entirely from

a a met

the most

money

media

engine in the world

which one

the

the general right wing media conglomerate i don't think it there is again i think the mainstream media is overwhelmingly

against margo

well it's over

it's overwhelmingly against against

maga but that doesn't mean that the maga movement itself isn't taking its cues from that

you

what so just because they watch talker carlson that means that we're going to pretend that

most of the mainstream media what if they're if they're taking o if they're taking directives if they're taking directives from

oh

billionaire is embedded in which directs by the way institutional

well on but talker carls hold on you have to understand something

people likell drgs correctorson include people things like want to be paranoia i'm going to i'm going to try to iss i'm going to try to explain to you how these things work

so trump and uh

toma crolson

come from these ruling

i mean family smith let's just for the sake of argument right

but

they

god

ah excluded for some reason and became outsiders from the big club

so they drew their source of popularity and power

from some kind of direct popularity trying to get

or working people most

elites

derive their power from networks and institutional connections well they didn't ly know because one of the way in which trump got on the map in that particular respect was through the republican party and through fox news

indirectly of course fos

fox news was covered no directly he went he went on there and was able to promote himself as a contender for the but i don't think

the

people running fox news

thought they were actually going to get trump elected i think

it was a very

kind of uh money grab like this is getting us really good ratings

so we're going to keep covering it they didn't really i don't think they're really expected

he was going to take over the republican party in the way he did but the republican party

did

to allow tolerate trump

on condition that he compromises on a number of things which he did right

but

that's not who made trump

you know trump

she trump got on the debate stage

at the republican debates

who was for him

right there was nobody in the status quo who was for him

his message resonated with people who was extremely popular

and that's why they eventually

ha's a compromise with them

but

no one will know no one can see once ay chosen by anyone

you know once they saw that he pulled a crowd they did like

that's the key thing though

but he pulled a crowd because he was saying things that no one else was saying

dore but that doesn't distinguish him

from the institutions themselves

that's just how the institution recognized him so i think trump's message was not created in instufficiently hoalatable

trumps message wasn't created on in an institution he was probably created

he was on twitter on the toilet someday

that's was here was a he's there's a big difference thre he's aor he's a wealthy heir in the media star

ok his level of wealth doesn't speak to whether what he did represents the agemity

ah typically yes you're right most people who have wealth

do so because they benefited from the geminy

but that's not

universally the case for example

bitcoin billionaires who bought a thousand bitcoins

ten years ago and that just became extremely rich right now

they tend to actually be anti establishment

despite how wealthy they are

because they got their money in a way that

was outside of the traditional game

for how you do that

but trump

was

an outsider even within the ruling league before he

ran for office he was like considered a joke

and he wasn't well liked

among the ruling class so he trumps

trump came into relevance

entirely at the expense

of what we call the hugeminy

i just i just

i don't see this as like a really

strong argument when

ideologically the two sides functionally align with everything

that they're targeting i think and so maybe that's more

ot of the bare fact the bare fact that trump happened to be

a somewhat ridiculous figure and polites so i'm not inan the idealist i'm a materialist so you can try and say abstractly but i know you're not you're not a materialist though because you use terms like universal state right i'm not evenor i'm not a materials because you don't let me finish sentences

but

n you're not a materialist because youyeah ight because you i aminiterialst it's so analysis

yet so you may try to abstractly qualify their ideologies as the same

but an actual functional practical reality

there we're doing a very different phenomena between

trump

and the trumps magle movement in the germany

your a character in

your characterization of them as the same has no explanatory value

for how to understand the development of your characterization of is anti heg a monic

is impoverished in the extreme your point of references

they're skeptical of vaccines

no the point of reference is that they are billt

on collective distrust toward the hedjemony as a whole not just when you wen at when pressed as to what the ageminy as a whole is it literally is just oh they distrust

scientists in general or doctors in general no not just scires youmre about we sl on trans ide not just scientists and doctors but also the military industrial complex

maybe that's an important one

also the new the agendas being crafted in universities with

the funding of but everybody everybody o in the military industrial complex it's a sno but in practice that's not true

see and theory everyone wants to be a hippie but in practice

no not everyone's opposed to the military industrial complex

but so you mentioned the medical and scientific esta i agree so st like so there's not how apropos it was it was trump who assassinated solmani

ya he

he did

a but he did so not

on behalf of the power that gave him power

the maga movement but because

of his agreement with sheldon adelson and the neo cons in bolton and pompeio

that was the condition of the republican party tolerating his existence

i find it completely objectionable

those and other actions he engaged in

but it

that doesn't preclude me from being able to form unbiased assessment that well the ramaes a preud from not nothing you sey precludes you from anything lately like you're just you're just going back and forth

as as the situation requires

we've gone to this point

have having

established a grounding for literally none of the congress the problem sundays you make these general characterizations of my position

but as far as really i really don't as far as a particular arguments in a particular position you're just

coming short you're not able to actually give us anything to substantiate these general i don't have to we're debating your political theory the onus is on you to substantiate it if i don't i think i think you're sd using it

you're trying to say the onus is on me

to convey is you we're debating your political hod as you are your request the sun a choice president

president sunday

should be called president cauht off

you clearly

are

someone who has come to a conclusion before you even heard anything i said

well no i had to go through the p i said ons reading fi sd don't sm to walking onus to gain this point well let's let's use this as speaking of generalities i said

the onus is you think the onus is on me too and then what was i going to say

he said well the onus is on you to make the

but we're not talking about that because what i was going to say is that you think the was complaining about being interrupted

yes i actually am

because i think in good faith i've actually

try to allow you to make your arguments without

n i don't think so i think i think i think when you think you use you think that i think when youve been i think when you haveen hes water ous is not on me i think

you talk quite a bit i think when you've be p even moderately pressed

to explain the position

you get frustrated and you say what's your point as if i wasn't asking you a question and not making an argument

no that was earlier in the whole s word debacle which

you don't we don't want to but i think this is prettyyeah let's pretty let's not revisit this so i

look my curiosity is i just want to i just want to finish one thing you would let me say

is that to go go for it and then i'll so ok you seem to think the onus is on me to convince you to agree with me

the onus is on me yes to

do the best of my best of my ability

communicate to you what i would i think i would sutll that

i think i' ight wasove of that

just just because you don't want to n no no no i disagree mean i don't think i don't think you have to i don't think have to make me agree you at all

i would be satisfied with you making it intelligible there are people who have theories that i vehemently disagree with

or nonetheless i can understand i just don't think you're operating in good faith

when it comes to what your standard of intelligibility is because i think k it took it took way too much work to get here for this to be in bad faith

consider the possibility that maybe your delivery is actually fraugh

like maybe actually the way in which you go about explaining yourself

is extraordinarily need to get my look a cif i'm not look look i'm i'm not a genius and i'm not an expert in this but i've got some modest capacities and sunday you're just going i cannot if i cannot if i cannot understand what you're saying

most people can't

i don't i don't

agree with that i think most when i say trump's a political outsider i think i'm saying something that's

pretty

not that contentious for most people

right so i think you're going out of your way to be no we're not we're not talking about we're not talking about we're not talking about

trump being so what are we talking at the mainstream so what are we talking about let's get to that insteord of making generalities about my arguments

get to your specific objections

oh ok how how the hell does does an anti communist

isolationist

a largely

largely racist and pro capitalist

oh

movement of people who

l l

categorically against any type of top down ization how do you combine that with communist sre

so you read my essay right

yeh the last part was so you didn't read my essay because i th know i

because the thgly explained and i actually i could probably read i believe you that you i believe you that you think you explained so ok

having having read it with multiple people multiple times i can tell you n know you did not explain

okay

so let's get to the anti communism stuff

drawing from the reactionary populist legacy of the mccarthy era and the john birch society

as well as cold war propaganda anti communist sentiment is as american as an apple pie

t from like thirty paragraphs taken from the perspective this is one paragraph

the anti communism of the maga movement

is even in a way endearing reflecting its grassroots nature

people are simply making constructs out of old materials already laying around at home

to view this is some kind of essential indictment on the possibility of the dissemination of communist ideas there this was what ability between communism and maga is pure philistine idiocy

maga is not essentially defined by but os what os

it is on the first placeo but i thisit the why this is

and about hads this is important is why we were talking about the media stuff before

the stuff they have lying around at home

is filteror too on the through this massive media i i call that endearing

why i call that enduring sunday

is because actually it's stuff their grandpa told them from the past the media in the fifties or the sixties that's even that

could be under consention

maybe has was telling m that so overwhelmingly a right what does that matter

it's from the past today they're not getting their anti communism from today

they're getting it from the patre alsod they're also getting it from today it's not just from the past

being

i don't think we in f i don't think the vital sources i don't think the vital sources of anti communism

are coming from the same sources

that the maga movement got it from like the victims of anti communism memorial

it's tied to neo cons it's tied to the rhino republican establishment

so no i think you're dealing with two different things i do agree there is anti communism today

but that's just what's so great about the magamva

the mogl movement is less likely to buy into the actual contemporary forms of anti communism

instead drawing on this eclectic contradictory

oh

ready made anti communism inherited from the past it's just as old and inherited as

something laying around in their garage from the nineteen fifties

it's doesn't it's not in any indictment on the essential

a possibilities of the maga movement

it's just some

immediate way there is though because they're also they're also

pro capitalist as well like it doesn't matter so you say you say t things you say moreover when we're talking about you're not talking about inheriting it from like

seventy years ago that's not so that is outright a superficial judgment and i'll tell you why

because when you as rog a superficial point because because you're just s using looking at the words they're using not what they mean by

when most mada people i'm looking at the words you're using

ok well

you can't follow the argument you're talking about maga being

well that's because the argument is incoherent can you let mein you sunday you sunday or sunday sunday statement you mad just let me finish and you've talked a lot haws i've actually you talk for the majority of the so we do have so what you can't haverry a very

i've actually allow you to speak i'm just going to continue speaking anyway

so the magad you said in the maga movement is pro capitalist and anti communist

and i'm saying that's superficial because you're just looking at the words they're using

rather than the underlying meaning of what there was my say

when mada says that it's pro capitalist it's not referring to the actual system of capitalism we have

which represents everything they hate

it's referring

to some abstract kind of iin that they don't they don't and we don't underprise i being able they don't understand a don't have don't

you know they don't understand

how capitalism is what gives rise to the fact that every every single city the live in

is an unkeppt trash bin with tons of homeless people tons of people can so foror homest is so you itt erstand that so that doesn't you doesn't matter judgment

it does not super no that's not it doesn't matter because because that's not seriousal that's them being superficial so if we're materialist

we have to look at you on you we we are not materially

i am a materialist you're like

so youre at science so is s do we have a moderator or what because i want to say something really quick

no he's on my side remember i stacked the decks it was him hisre

so

if i am going to be if you if anyone is concerned with being a materialist

thank you for cutting me off on that

completely relevant point

then

you're going to have to

ask the question of what is the source what is

the meaning

when they express anti communist sentiment

is this because of something from a material perspective essential

or

are they just anti communists because they see for example

the way black rock is taking over everything and monopoly capitalism

they're associating that with communism

theyir associating this homogeneity

look process of capitalism i to lk look at i s of the pro capitalism are they ictually were hearing to calcuize i'm going to be halfway here

as i said earlier

if you can find a way to actually repurpose the language of maga on the maga movement towards like a robust genuine

left wing development or something like that

power to you but you're not doing that

what you're doing is you're selling yourself to the maga movement as something that's palatable to them for your own benefit

how am i doing that

the the entire essay that we're responding to here and everything you've done here so far

is is

for lack of a better word essentially cutting out the language of political theory in order to make the maga movement appear more robust and more theoretically sounded for example

well your whole notion of partisanship you rely on a specific notion of partisanship that schmidt actually directly criticizes

you derive from him

just to get to the point where you can say oh the partisan is to learn what this w s is of the nation of the ground

therefore what we do is we now have a theoretical smisionfore we com sinn it maga which what what about my theory of the partisan was schmidt

for teaching

about your thory of the partisan wihmritiking you know you'd you deploy a specific understanding of the partisan

that schmidt dismisses as which one and dem

a the one in which it is simply

that which is the

independent and in some sense

has an enmity with respect to like existing structures or whatever in like a general sense

he dismisses this on the grounds that this is this is simply too abstract and you end up just the theory of essentially any sort of individual

that's but that's veryll that's not my theory i'm not saying anyone who has a different opinion is a partisan i

in my opening statement i what makes what makes mega partisan

maga is not partisan because individuals in maga have different opinions maga is partisan

because it's referring to a that's exactly why

referring to a collective political identity a collective reality of america right

that is

situate that is both based yes as you said telleric in america

but also

um

opposed

to

the form but it's not it's not to work though they had to get busted into january sixth

they travel to different conventions

they're not

they're not i want of people little i don't think people i don't think

ah

that demographic who live in washington d

would be called to luric

in the first place like

i don't know how many white people living in washington d c are

you know

i know there's a big

h black population you could maybe say that's to lurc because it's kind of like

a similar

role of rootedness in the community

but

why would of course they would have to be coming from elsewhere if they're going to be in washington d c what is what a stupid point

wll weill know the point is they aren't

artisan

it's not it's not a partisan movement

i think it is abar a partisan the individuals is of partisan

it's a partisan movement

because of the way in which it has transformed american politics it's genuinely partisan

for no other reason than it is genuinely and dot know but the definition of the pars and is notthing to transform here's what here's a here's why that's start heres why it's partisan according to me

because it is a genuinely different political movement i'm not talking about individual opinion

different political movement

then

the

hegeminy the two parties wopoly

re the hejeminy the

whatever

but has the reason why you would call it partisan and why the would have meaning is not because you've decided just label what you think they are partisan it's because

it's drawing on i develop my t of relations between the partisan

and

regular forms of politics or warfare

yes but i th but i're very they're very right n for example in the normalm populus in the the case of schmidt about it schmidt

is very

very stressing on the asy symmetry of the partisan right with regard to the conventional army

so there's a conventional established form of politics

and yes here you have a partisan

unconventional

form of political mobilization and what but it's not it's not really unconventional though it's actually very typical

what president what there for maga in america

it it's it's a popular voting and social interventionist movement

that's that's based on slogan airing that's not

new

that's been around i'm going to ask you another question what is a movement you would consider comparable to maga

in american history

most of them what makes maga toxic isn't its organizational form it's the policies thatre they pursue and their

toxic attitudes towards different can you so you can't give me a specific example obviously everyone sees magas pretty unprecedented

far as america in what senses in what organizational or actually like robust structural senses maga unique

i because for decades and decades we've been ruled by this like

one big club pageminy and then you have a movement

who which is getting its information and getting its ideas of

who rules us and whatever and

how to establish power and w what kind of things do we want

what kind of things do we accept

forming a collective political reality completely outside the hegeminy

so i think that's pretty onunprecedent you do you just ust attach that into there like they're still they're still operating through

eminently mainstream sources they're still like one part in in crols and what ional conventional political activism and what mainstream source besides talker carlson do you have in mind

they're using all of the same all the same resources and points of contact as everybody else

you mean like truth or social

like like what

like truth social or what are you talking about

don't know what that is

well you exactly so that's what they use is truth social you even know is what is truth social

it's the it's the trump twitter app

i'm sorry are you saying there're us are you suggesting are you you're saying theing all the same n are you suggesting the fact that trump has has a social media mxes themuni

n what you just said they're using the same methods of communication and interaction and all this stuff

to tons of people are using like like separate telegram spaces and they're

twitter twitter alternatives are prolif dude i think i think you really underestimated to what extent like this country's very divided it's a separate world

like n no i there i may sa i haven't but that's neither here nor there no it does here and there beingo inside fact the fact that you're the fact that you're defaulting to the fact that there are like a servi sides taring prs and why have' united states so that i suggest that it's more common because you're folding into a larger hole so besides starver carlson what do you have in mind

from the hed geminy or the mainstream

i don't know what you're asking me

you're saying oh maga

isn't

operating outside the mainstream because it

using the same mainstream everyone else's

i just what are you talking about

no no the partisan is not defined by having like a hyper concentration

ok clearly i would ok carly my my concept of the partisan is unique it's not exactly the same iss schmidz i just objected but if yous not it's not only not exactly the same as schmidz it's actually like

contrary like that's what i object to that's what i object to because you said that schmidt

expressly reject the one i'm drawing from

no because smith

you said he critiques it for being individualistic mine is not no no he doesn't pretict for being individualistic he he yeah because it's out tract because anyone with a contrary opinion is then a partisan that's not what i said

not what i'm saying

no instead you said

somebody with a contrary

twitter no no i you you you you said they use the same mainstream sources and i said what do you mean by that and then i would they do is a bre the bare fact that there's also an app doesn't

the lie that

w i ok what are the ones you have in runble what are the ones ok sunday was sunday was what twitter sunday what are the ones you have in mind

i don't know what you're talking about are you talking about an app are you talking about the internet what are you talking about

i'm referring to all of them that they operate and can you name one just name one dude just name one please well run you tube right now this this would be ok so that's that's a beautiful example

so big tech you too be saying wolmago uses the same sources

are you not even aware of what's going on

all the youtube censorship in the controversy surrounding it the rise of rumbul and all your censors you for that same reason

it's extremely sensorve but this is an extremely and sorry right and to try this is huge hugely contentious in america and because everyone rans

sor do some do i'm to say they said you are so out of sat wre thea sic answer you're so out of touch about the basic sent know your entire average when i a person do know

is not entire your entire e you use all you to byanll that's really sar it's extravising cause it's your entire defense of the partisanship of the mega movement

is that like myriad other groups they're victims of you tube censorship like i'm sorry that just way way way how can you justify such a reductive accusation

i asked you for an example of the mainstream sources your example doesn't stand my my argument didn't res whyre yes it done and sudainly get dont always sunday this is it's a similar es under is that it's a similar people in per i you ok sunday mako we're talking about we talk abt the definition sre haart of sen so sunday makes the claim we're not same as so sunday ma the know that maga is using wmy why nw wa

not o wait you was well

ok

that was getting a bit too much

no'w mind a bit of back and forth but that was that was simultaneous

all right

haus did you finish your sentence there no no

ok

finish your sentence ok

so

you are saying that

a magas operate operating in the same mainstream

i think that's wrong

but in order to allow you to defend yourself i asked you for an example of that

you said you tube

your example doesn't stand

in no way does that does that make my argument that maga's partisan because youtube censors them

but it is an indictment on your ability to provide evidence

that maga is by and large using the same exact sources for information

and platforms that are part of the mainstream

no mes monday

thank you

mogan gauges in propaganda through the exact same media sources as everybody else censored or not as many other groups are also censored

they vote in the same way they engage in the same kinds of

o scene forms of political activism

what distinguishes them are their their

there

policy position

and their and their social attitudes and so the're and wrong coorum inform they're completely different in all the things you mentioned

but you haven't been able to substantiate that exceptans i have it

clear up so you wanted to bring up big tech but if you want to talk about how they i didn't want to bring p big tacch gay most run up the orter when most people vote

for example

they do so

not because they're part of this homogeneous movement

which and you're not understanding even in the eventional your law you're not understod you're not understand what actal here the reasons w got to matters of jason ha on ha just just chill for one second

the reasons for voting don't matter

which distinguishes the partisan from the non partisan

is the action itself not the reasons behind it

ok so they also have to have like an atitue and not political fashion that would be a dot bact that maga people

participate in elections in the electoral system

means it's in no way possible to describe

their methode of

organization

and political existence in general as

unconventional

that's what you're know but you need to establish that it is unconventional and if your point of reference once again is that they are persecuted on you tube and have a twitter app that's not no i've

reference

for example the different methods

by which they do not only disseminate organizations

but

vote in the first place how do they vote and how do they respect the outcome of the vote

thats know but leately hoss not not voting behaviors as in who they vote why i think that's unconventional

so yeah that's the voting behavior is unconventional

very clearly

you what do they sneak into the voting booth what are you talking about

no like january sixth it's pretty unconventional and that's not voting behavior that's well it's behavior resulting from their participation in the electoral process which was unconventional

it's an unconventional way of participating in the

american democracy

well know yeah yeah and it orce act is uninventional and that would actually source that would you to mot was not that would actually get you close there but the one defining characteristic you now have

is the attempted insurrection of january sixth

no the multi the myriad do every time i try to name anything you just interrupt me so you

you're not even letting me speak i could give you a lot of their speaking right now just stop whining and get to the point

okay

so i mentioned information right

that's complete the method of disseminating information which is the most important thing by the way

is unconventional

the method by which they situate themselves in american democracy

the is us comples in social media is what

they used the use so you interrupted me so we're going to be so im socing to tell every good i can't name multiple things if you're going to get fixated on

one of the things ok

i'm talking about all of them these are all everybodys so the media

where they are roots so we're n literally new social media platforms

are being built because of the

yes disproportionate censorship

of maga people and it is not just all everyone gets censored no there's a disproportionate censorship

of that specific political movement because of the in conventionality per when people across the border censored it's not just a mega move

okay

what is the right wing what is the right wing if we're not what are you even referring to that

i don't know every everybody from like

mainline conservatives yeah but that censorship is in the context of a unified

movement built on collective distrust toward the heijemini the maga movement

i think it's important to stress it's not just that it's go no no i'm talking about people as as like

as as milk toast as like sargan of a cod for example it

it is it is not specific the are groader the broader censorship of the right wing voices

is within the context of the emergence of right wing populism

and the american form of that was the maga movement

i got i got nothing

it's

i can't i can't

hold you to to any definition just everything you're not in good faith you're not like leveling with me and no no im that standing that's what we saw that's not you

that's that's you has

you you're not using any of these terms in good faith and your entire strategy is how m i not i'm trying to be really simple with you dude it's like clearly oh you're like with a way over your head trying and i'm sorry basic thing that you were trying to be simple

i am really trying hard to simplify this for you yes

like i'm being very charitable with like

like just to help you understand like what i'm alluding to at least maybe there's a common do we live in the same reality are we living on the same planet like

yes i'm asking that obviously maga is unconventional in the context of american politics

how is there but that's not an argument ok ho was that i saying saying ho is fine i something possible someone could fod sensing something

saying something is obviously unconventional

is not an argument in favor of establishing that it is unconventionalle that's

tautology

i know buting most people understand

that's that's that also does what you mean right and knowo

you know most people most people understand the ma a movement no no most people understand

cause most people understand the mega movement as being toxic racist

and negative that does not mean they think it is some kind of revolutionary organism we're just using the word unconventional sunday and here's the problem we're limited by a discord call right now and a discord video call i if i try to say the sky is blue i can't force you to go outside and level with me there

i can't recreate reality on a discord call

so we're going to have to try and come to a common understanding ok that haws that typically speaking if someone says the maga movement is undterve ser american misr when it has an un but typically if when people say that the maga movement is an unconventional development

in american politics at least within the frame of you know the past two decades of neoliberalism

most people would understand what's meant by that it's very common even in the mainstream media to acknowledge that

you are objecting to the use of the word unconventional

because you're saying oh it's the same thing as everything else

well i just think you can't really meaningfully engage with reality wll no ok what i want to ask you i'd like to talk to you if i may for a mot president sd please

so uh so

with regards to your definition for unconventional so here's the way i see it let me

see if i can maybe bridget's got ok

so

a so in a lot of ways january sixth and the mega movement because it kind of facilitated jan six was unconventional

obviously differences

exist

but

if i understand you correctly i'm hearing echo by the way if i understand you correctly

president

it is that

even though it was unconventional in its expression

the

underlying

systemic

institutional forces that beget jan six the mega movement

those are

still plainly institutional it's so this this seems like a distinction

in expression

verses

underlying motivation is that how you see it pro the reason why yeah well the reason why we're even talking about conventional versus unconventional in the first place is because he's trying to characterize

im

he's trying to insist upon a distinction here where

this is

and the hede of monicc

essentially because partisan or consistent with its partisanship

the problem here is that the simple fact of

a rally turned into a riot turned into what is a defacto insurrectiony movement even if in behind the scenes there were people who absolutely had that intention

and there are people in the crowd who did as well as people in the crowd who were just

along for the right

that is not sufficient

to characterize the movement as a totality

or or even just a movement by itself as apart from a single event as being unconventional we're actually dealing with here

is an unusual event

which is distinct from unconventional or irregular we're talking about irregular we're talking about iss something that is defined

by a kind of activity

that is not generally recognized as conventional at all the problem is that when

press the so alow me to arle w i find our right coectivity

what we find are them engaging activities that basically every other movement

does including mainstream one

i

like the storming of the bastill is not up

heartisan

movement even though it is extreme radical and violent and unusual

okay so

unusuality is not my qualification for partisanship

but i'll qualify what i mean by conventionality

i'm just talking about how people are mobilized

organized

and given a collective political reality

and i think that in the case of maga that was very unconventional at least

as far as what the norm was within american politics

because within

the norm of american politics has been

that

people for example obama obama had a movement right

but all of that was still firmly situated within

for example the conventional form of american politics

and the conventional form you know by which

participation in that politics occurred

here's the thing

the thing you have ignored is the key concept of enmity

right

in the obama era i get there was the tea party and there was polarization

but i don't think there was a real friend enemy distinction

between republicans and democrats i don't think it was real enmity

i think what marga brought to the table

is it introduced enmity right it introduced this

almost civil war within america

which yes is an extremely unconventional implies an unconventional

movement and p political development

and it's unconventional because the prior convention had been a lack of enmity internally

enmity was directed toward the terrorists and

people who did nine eleven and that kind of thing right

and maybe the russians and the chinese who knows

but enmity was never really internal at least recently in american politics

i don't think

you can try to give a counter example i welcome you to

a before maga

well enmity in the sense of

a firm intensification of the line between friend and enemy

i

that does not have to manifest simply

as

a single violent event

that can refer to for instance

it's just

a rigidification

of opposition between

political parties for

you can have

political differences

that that are not

the intensifications of war that's just the most

this is the most obvious case

so this is why the concept of the political for for

carl spit

is out its most clear

at the line between friend and theenemy but that doesn't exhaust

but no one' saying it does but

what you're saying is that you object to the view that enmity has been in do know what i'm what i'm saying is that

enmity here is not a distinctive

feature

of the maga movement ok still nonetheless what you voting movement what are examples the oral form us to what are examples or forms of enmity that you think

within internal american politics at least recently

let's say since reagan

existed because i don't i believe you ha for example if maga for example turned into a terroristic move

that was concerned with repeating events like january sixth over and over and over

and and materially interfering

with

with the politics as usual and like a violent

insurrectionary way

doc

could not be absorbed

heres and any any type of normal party youre the problem the you have a case yeah you know here's one i go to sunday up here's a problem of good faith and plain spoken language

if i went

to an average person and i said

this country has been divided like it never has before

with this trump stuff since twenty sixteen

most people would either agree with me or understand what i was referring to this is an unprecedented level of division

ok

and you're trying to say

that that doesn't cross into enmity

but it actually

does it crosses into

hatred

of one half by the other a complete

inability to have in no ho matred hatred and political mity are not the same thing

you can but i think it has cross come overly

i think it has crossed over

crossed over into amity and just because it hasn't spilled directly into violence yet

doesn't mean yes he's not there but that's beside the point

i think

that enmity

is fard like like january sixth was was violent there were deaths

ok we that's a gretter that's more credence to my point than

well no it's not because you're you're

that you're relying on the fact of a violent event

to justify characterizing a movement no i'm not i'm i'm relying upon the

unprecedented qualitatively acute polarization

that followed trump's election in twoentusyd sixteen

but ok but but partisanship is not defined by polarization i'm not saying it w i manner in which that i th matter and wllzation can be ribed as a form of enmity

for example an example of that amity is the russia gate hoax

where

the maga movement

and the people behind it and the phenomena

was reduced to the design of an enemy of

the american state for example atl

russia the outside foreign enemy is behind you know where that is an example of mity internal n american policy ok ok but the problem here is that you're actually overlooking

like

why this term is used in the first place

the reason why emity comes into play is because if you have a a logic of just war but not of a just

bo so for example

if you criminalize

an entire category of people or an entire state or whatever

so that the

you do not

seek for example

as as

the end goal of military

tension

a state of subjugating a foe

or a state of

ou

of getting like agreeable terms of surrender from a phoe but instead with

the

the total

destruction and subjugation you have a superficial reading and you can't go below the surface that's that's not superficial at all

aight because you're trying way wey presence and finish your sentence you

we're near the end of it he didn't finish it right

yeah m

the reason why enmny becomes important for specifically revolutionary partisan

is because that is somebody who will still engage in that kind of activity

even outside of

the the scope

of state defensive action

so the first kind so p s two kinds of partisanss the first kind of partisan which is like the ukrainian

truck bomber who's like disrupting russian

wireline

then there's the revolutionary partisan who is like

v

may be engaged a lot of the same activities but they're like part of the bolshevik say

and they don't

stop or their goals are not limited

by the defensive needs of a particularly geographical region

and one that'sur point of bringing that up

well because in that particular case there enmity to words like a political entity categorically

that could go towards satisfying the conditions of them being a

like partisan in the sense

but the problem is that the mega movement doesn't do this the mega movement while they do target like different

demographics within american society

they still deploy almost entirely actually basically entirely conventional methods to do so and with respect to january sixth once again

the justification

is wll the a receptions that the democratic process was corrupted

wait but that doesn't mean there you again

hed geminy is not based in the seven hundred seventy six constitution ok geminy is based on what happens afterwards in world war two

so the them holding the constitution is a sacred thing that was violated

and the democratic process is a sacred thing that was violated

is not an indictment on the unconventionality of their position

i didn't partin that he sd i did i'm sorry i didn't follow that so don't so just because they think the democratic process was corrupted

doesn't change that it's an unconven no no no you you're misunderstanding me what i'm saying is not that the fact they think the democratic process was corrupted

means that therefore they were partisan

the point though is that because their goal was

even if it was comically misinformed

even if their goal was

because their goal was to

o

correct

an institution

that is

domestic

ya um and and not

actually enmity against

an enemy per se

they're not engatting a good actually just like not any popular sos ok i'll explain what action is so if a revolutionary partisan is calling for an abstract return

to some prior existing status quo

that may be idealized and not grounded in reality which i think democracy is by the way it's an idealization

that doesn't change os ags thatans but that doesn't change the partisan stace well no but you've assumed the partisan stance in the example were the question is what makes them partisan

right ok so you sa if a partisan does and so or so let's say a revolutionary partisan is acting on behalf of an organization with revolutionary goal goals

for the overthrow of the status quo

ok

just because those goals are

based in an idealized version of the legitimacy of the prior state

for example democracy

doesn't make it any less revolutionary when the

actually existing state not the ideal state and the constitution

or democracy

functions in a way opposed to that

that i agree however in this particular case we aren't talking about them

doing anything at that scale we're talking about them

being under the misperception

that there is a criminal cabal that has

tainted an election

ok from their bd wy the belive s i don't why you t focusing on january sixth

you know because because why do you matters bessing on the

why can't you just focus because we' going is the closest it's the best example you could all know you youre right abvering all over know i'm note we weed to get to going to know in a recent i'm not

p

p

i'm perfectly willing

to throw out january sixtm example the problem for you is that that's the best one you've got

because otherwise what you have is just a toxic community that is voting

battle

no no it's not just that

it's a division that has cut across the social fabric of the american people

that most people would recognize and acknowledge what you're not doing for pedantic reasons

nw let's call by the bear i we're talking about what makes them cas let me let me let me qualify what i'm talking about and then you can give me your curtique because you're taking this into directions that are relevant

ok allight i'm going to simplify this i'm listening

so

and don't interrupt me by the way because we're not getting in the weeds of your bullshit

we're going to just simplify this ok

so

in the case of enmity

we are dealing with

a conventional ground

of

political existence

which is not only the sacred institution of democracy in the formal electoral process

but everyone being

interpolated i don't know if that's too big a word for you

as the same

political subject of the liberal democracy by the mainstream institutions of society

so to translate that to you

at the end of the day no matter how we vote we're all americans and we're all on the same team

and we can at least all agree that you know

we don't hate each other we don't see each other as an enemy

right

but with the rise of the maga movement there's a perception from one side for example that

these people are not even american anymore this is the russian agents

or these people to be fair with you are the globalists they're not true americans

so you have a level of enmity that just if you interpret it at the level of the information being communicated before january sixth even happens

at the level of the information being communicated

it is enmity it's a position of political enmity no no i understand that and i'm in agreement with

obviously i've mentioned multiple times

there there are demographics within america that they have marked out as the enemy

the enemy like that implies

enmity

but we're talking about what makes them

partisan

and that's not the sole distinction because again

the friend enemy distinction

is the most the most

clear case of the political and i'll explain that in one second

ok

uh if you just don't interrupt me i'll explain not one second exactly but not too long ok

so the reason i'm saying the enmity thing matters is because that enmity is cut across the line

of an established conventional form of politics that used to contain and be the vessel

of political difference

and a completely new

political movement

that is

that has its guns metaphorically pointed against that

and that's the distinction on which the enmity is based

one is unconventional one is conventional

so one is partisan and the other is based in the higenao n so what i mean by partisan by the way let me just do this simp simplifyed ok one is partisan

because it's actually a political stance it's an actual political stance

that will go so far as yes january six can be an example of that

but it's actually real a real political

partial subjectivity partisan subjectivity

it's not like one

system with two parties where ok

no matter our differences we're all on the same side no it's actually partisan

really partisan with regard to the entire system in the hegeminy

so that's important

real politics has not existed in america jt a long time sig you're doing how it's american politicy partisan

but because here's why because before maga

politics in america is like a sports game you have different sports and teams but it's still the n b a is still

on the same court right

maga is what upsets that and that's what i'm trying to say that's why the enmity thing matters

this you best partisan a partisan isn't just any splinter group within a political party hose that's not what that on

it's not about the political party it's about the entire

basically in functional practical reality the state

the states in it but we already have multiple parties then parties themselves aren't simply partisan well party but urmman rout german i wk ab the partisan parties are not partisan i agree with that because they're subsumed by a single ageminy

maga alone is truly actually partisan a real partisan stance

but

how

here's here's where you're losing me ok

because you have a violent because it's a the no no lit i that goes beyond one sec

just one secon one second

you have

a violent event

that

sort of roughly corresponds to the kind of thing you would expect n forget january sixth we don't have to mention

but if we forget it we lose this one and you want this one this one's important

ok

no i don't even need this no this one this one helps you

this one helps no let's pretend it never even happened yet let's pretend it's january fifth right now

and let's have this debate because

you get into the weeds of so much irrelevant bullshit

let's just talk about what i was mentioning before at the level of information

clearly it but then literally literally all you have then is like a subgroup within a party

that is generally disdain

that's not

but which has but hold on it's not a subgroup within a party because it is polarized the country down the middle

ok but but it did it didn't though because

a republican party as we were talking about earlier is itself bifurcated

between

mega and the reprian but who are by it is puldin

but you mainly parties not but the republican parties bifurcated

what are the demographics is it really a popular social base of the rhinos no they don't have a popular social base

they have suburbanites that are rapidly going like wens i as mega though like like wf if you look at themp yes maga does have a popular social base if you go down to east palestine ohio and talk to a random guy

he'll be forrom maga there's chances he will be

wh who are you going to go find some random guy who likes mitch mcconnell

i'm sorry i don't i you go to the gas station you're not going to find it but i think i think you're a fan of know you're not you're not following me here

the point is whether or not there are a lot of people

who are

it's a popular it's a movement of the people it's a po i know it's popu i'm not saying it's not popular but ok you're

was even argue ain so sunday this is the debate

you're saying obviously my concept the partisan is not identical to smith's but you're saying schmidt directly contradicts mine

and that's not

i don't think it's just but he does and moreover you don't he doesn't rive no haven't given you one example

you would you identifying this is a partisan movement is critical

to to your thesis yeah but you seem to

pull it from nowhere so if you're just making no i don't i've given you multiple reasons why i think

it can be characterized as a partisan movee yeh but every single one of yourm the real its outm hold on because it operates outside the established form of politics

done

but it doesn't though

ok why dot then let's debate about that instead of arguing about semantics why don't you think it operates outside

the established form of politics

because it engages in the same system as everybody else so you're saying because they participate in the electoral process

that means it's not outside the established form of politics

that would actually be a critical one but in addition to that

they also use the same sources for propaganda

for propagandization

propaganda even even if i were to

concede that extremely tenuous and outright wrong point

that's not tell you difference what it really nothing that distinguishes them except for fee fees like a that's and doesn't do it no distinguishes them is that it's a unified movement built on collective

distrust

toward the status quo and toward the agemini

that's not just fefees that's actually like a but that that also so for example thether resublicans also complain about the mainstream media

they might and about global the might about like all these they might it's that they might

but you do ask them what they think about you that's their bread and butter

they might

but ask them

when push comes to shove

who is more likely to be critical

of

s foreign interventions the maga movement or these people you're mentioning

and why is that

them them having policy preferences be it's not just val the preferences no no noy but the gose policy preferences so much

p of the hed gemo his agenda

use

maga people are not

wying

to to where the united states has military interests and subverting them

they don't have

dude even th the leader

ir what you're referring to are opinions they're just have to we're talking about the

we're talking about the third world war according to the

marshall mk i don't know how to pronounce his name

information warfare it'says

national security concern according to the military

it's important

what do you think the russia gate thing was about you think a

information war is not a theater of war it is according to the u s military it is ok but but a foreign

if

a foreign

power

a being speculated to bankroll

a pollt within a country doesn't make that political movement partisan it definitely ind of a definitely proves that according to the people in power they don't see this movement

as coming from their own hegemony so whether they want to attribute it to russia

or timbok to

but not someone ha their own houses that's for sure so that's the point that doesn't matter it does matter because it means that

no look a there was a point in time a the means theyre outside the establish all it's now doesn't us us there was a point in time

when catholic presidential candidates

were heavily discriminated against on the grounds that they thought they would be

influenced by the catholic church

that does by theeminy hold on by the post war b

globalist to geminy that we're talking about

by what by

prejudiced people on the ground prejudiced hillbillies living in the

some rural part of america by whom were they accused of this

it matters because one represents the

n know what doest one doesn't matter represents yes because one represents the hegemony of the homogene is

universal state

and the other represents prejudices of cause that the natve farmer in idaho

the death

what a political organization or movement is onto logically is not determined

by what its critics

call it

that that doesn't work

no but

nobody's reducing it to that but it's clearly an example of how

even the ruling class recognizes them as outside the established form of politics if they're accusing russia of being behind the maga movement

every dayy don't racett clearly even the national international

even the mainstream media recognized international media meddling lts international media meddling is youll it's done on both direct how could maga

deep

be an extension of the established form of politics

when the established is it was extension of thell form politics so we outside the established for inventional politics no s engage

they engage in conventional forms of politics

is it outside the established form of politics yes or no

no

but then how could that be when they're accusing it of having russian origin why would they say because them being accused of having russian origins even by the way if they're correct

doesn't make them unconventional in terms of their political so is russia rather the established form of u s politics

what

is do you think russia's part of the established form of u s politics

no then how can maga be coming from russia

i didn't say margaret but but the establishment thinks it did

it also doesn't matter if gas coming from russia we're talking about the

form of yeah if it's ok do even the establishment recognizes maga doesn't come from the established for politics because they think it comes from russia which you accept is not

part of your soys form of politics

kind of simple dude

sorry what's simple

that maga is not part of the established form of politics and is outside of it

no no no it

a partisan is not defined by being a part of established politics or ok now we're back on semantics we're back no not it's not semantics yeaes we are becuuss you know we just agreed that we're going to get out of semantics and talk about whether it's inside or outside the established how you want to go better to what the deaf part it is

d jt your president semantics you're not president sunday youre president semantics

think it has

as per your insistence we are discussing theory this means we are discussing concepts you need to be able to justify ok my concept of the partisan

in the case of mago

one of the reasons mabda's partisan is because it's outside the established form of politics

there's other reasons we can get into the weeds of

but you seem to object to the label of partisan because because look look look he here's how you here's you define a concept right

a thing is defined by being x y and z and maybe no it's not strictly justified that's a one sided on dialect school view because there's a lot of other things too

well no it's not on dialectical or what is on dial i w yeah n know because i've actually

just reference the

corresponding defining a thing thing

reducing something

to any kind of definition

whatsoever one definition is how his work

that's one dialectable

frederick g i and i understand that i understand the frederic ganle calls it on dialect school explicitly so

that's what he when when i die marxs will judge me but

when we're dealing with oncept

well i'm i mean by dialectics what angles me when we're dealing with definitions we are quite literally dealing with what a thing is and what a thing is not

okay

mod becae even even if you i think it's i can sae because has ha even if we want to take a dialectical approach

we have to know what the dialectic is between if we can't

differentiateor concepts and we can't do no dialectics means you don't just look at something in a one sided sense

you look at the broad no on but you need sites right that still implies lines between you just brought

you just brought up one and there's multiple

one what

that's outside the established form of politics

and for example

it has a specific relation to the american it doesn't it doesn't have to be a so established for politics for example n it does i think it does

it it doesn't

to repartison it does

far as not not not necessarily not aecessarily explain in no the reason the reason why the

you end up being able to characterize revolutionary

political actors as being partisans in present day

is because we have the total politicization of the entire population

but for example you can have partisans that are deeply embedded in conventional politics in the case of

an invading force occupying a territory and nonetheless

despite the fact that in international law

they would have the right to govern with a certain minimal degree of humanity the area that theyre o so still there nonetheless it so undercutting sunday whats conventional form of politics exists when of

foreign country takes over your fucking

how does that well for example for example

it may be the case that this place is occupied but they still maintain the institutions and the police force

and let them run more which no longer has any sovereignty

no doesn't it doesn't have sovereign

ok but that w is out iron or there so the not so it has no political power er go it is not no i nn't know be is no it's been subsumed under the sovereignty of an invading force

but the sovereignty of the invading force is the new but there ours but but hang on hang on on just because you di't so stupid this is don'o it it is not because youn that was point the don't know hos has the entire soice of the partisan you know you mire point about has the entire point of the partisan

is that it's irregular ice of the conventional i think newjor aarinary flwen you your argument

let me nuke your argument

when an invading force comes intoes country

when the invading force comes and takes over your country they become the new established form of politics any vestigial prior no no no no you're any vestg youal establish morench

any stigial rior convention of politics subsumed under their sovereignty wen weaponized against them is indeed outside the established for politics because the es that was for politics is the invading o the established form of politics is not defined bys

there being a

persistent

so my god yes s does because paulo about no that's why you know ho because the politics is the hig as i thought you were a marxist haus the entire international holiday liberal is hot up and w way wait wait wait ok

president sunday

the entire international system of liberal states is itself

conventional and if people are taking part in

politics

consistent with that and the c ofv that they are engaging in political conventions this is why we have for example the idea of international law

and the idea of the partisan

which specifically emerges from a case

of of

of an invading force

having the occupancy of a region and then being undermined by criminal by what they would deem to be criminal actors

on the tail as they pass through

this this is like resistance movements and things like that are these are partisan

so

so politics is based in power

and if this some

priorly established by convention form of sovereignty

is recognized by some international system

then the international system is the real he gemony in which case it's not really a partisan movement

at least from a global perspective it's part of the international agemony you're talking about if you're talking like that look like politics is like ose power

it's not about sey this you see this like this is a statement with contact politics is about power you may as well to say politics is super duper with how much content you put but you know but you know you know what's stupid especially is powers not power is not med if in my sovereign mi uses the example for example of

the pasidant rule agrarian partisan

which is very much rooted in forms of power or forms of politics at the village level and local level

that are oftentimes subsumed

by greater force

and it's still deployed in a revolutionary way that's outside the established form of politics

so just because there's a structure that mist the reason though the reason though is because in the event of an occupying force

with internal to the occupied territory a state of stability with a police force and with government in place

nonetheless axnos can independently or as or as

not the ile sometes the were in some sense illicit groups

can still engage in violent or insurrectiony action vi c ofv the invading force

so for example you can have resistance movements that do not have the sanction of government do not have the sanction of any like police force or any military

but nonetheless by their own by their own lights and direction

will will bill bomb supply lines will assassinate

like enemy enemy like officials or whatever

and and likes this is one of the reasons why as well i

schmidt points out that there may indeed need to be a situation which we have to consider

the what about the gjimmerj what does that even have to do with any civilian population as itself requiring protection from the partisan

sorry ok but

the fact what are you saying the partisans establish a new i'm saying ma i'm saying the maga movement is not partisan not the is not none of what you just said theyre because they're not bombing supply lines what are you trying to say because they're not doing anything that partisans do and they vote conventional like you're not re going any of the things

schmidt observed partisans to do in his time but were an information warfare age

where i am i have a new congent of the partisan i just rejected the idea that schmidt contradicted my be an export on you tube does not make you a partisan either

no it no it doesn't but

being part of want roger

being part of a broader political movement

that is built on collective distrust toward the reigning institutions of society

when you're when you're situated in that context you're part of a broader partisan move nore a liberal remember

sorry what

so

yeah sunday you haven't engaged with the point at all you object to the view that magas outside the established form of politics i find that baffling

you haven't been your argument is only that you sy so let me let me re president sunday's argument is that magas not outside the thouse for politics not bombing supply lines

ok

the

good luck that has no explanatory hey hey look look if you can produce something else

the bombing supply lines is not exhaustive all the things you can do that would be

irregular

and by the way unconventional is not my term that's

that's your term

the irregular

is not exhausted by the unconventional oh my god these f smanic around the regular holy regular now we're going to hinge on the difference between irregular and unconventional it's a theoretical discussion has we are talking no they're the same you know what but i want to minimize it down say

irregular and unconventional are the same fucky thing like

we're not i'm not this is such a studento because their regular irregular can be contained within conventions and indeed they are

like for nample the change the convention

is partially concerned

irgular when on combact with irregular regular and unconventional

can refer and often do refer to the exact same thing

so we're going to stop with this and what you not in this case in fact if you've actually reads say this psident amantics let's get to the objection not semantics this is actually the no this is sometan some theory this is fucking obscure semantics is it no it's really short anybody can walk in say read it it's like a f the would be irregular activity that is situated within regular activity that'sw fuck stupid you sound no no no the

the category of the irregular can be subsumed under convention

right

we're doing so when we talk about a right a category of irregular can be subsumed by regularities what a student of b by

what will actually why o little b a difference between presient with you because because so absolute no ha such average average s has we're talking about international law here we're not talking about like absolute metaphysical irregularity we're talking about irregularity respect to conventional military forces

as those are understood by the canon of of

military and political thinking

ok what is the point of raising this pedantic legalistic because

because the pointre in alling what you're calling talking about theory we're not talking a international law

international laws is going to be

it's law has what is what is law

comprised of

because when someone refers to an unconvented to be interpreted and someone read and someone referst to some unconventional method of warfare

and an irregular method of warfare they tend to be referring to the same things

well no not necessarily and i didn't say necessarily i said they tend no no because no because the atally wre tend to n no the where

hor house

in the context of talking about military issues

conventional can refer to

for example

to the types of weaponry deployed but not actually not actually but what i said risk conventional warfare

but but

that does not touch on whether that you knows involved are regular or irregular like for example

state armies can engage in unconventional warfare

but it can be comprised entirely of regular troops

ok what's your point

' i said in unconventional warfare

irregular warfare and unconventional warfare irregular warfare is referring to the types of actors involved not the types of war involved

i am referring to the type of war

regulars war once again once again regular warfare in which case ha but haus

if that is indeed

where you're going to fall on this

then the sword you'er falling on is

you have one violent event

that

no that's not that's stans par fro again it all it's usual we're living in it's when you were is about it's january fifth two thousand and twenty one that's it happened yes yes yes yes that's what he just said

so what you've got then

is you've got a bunch of mini duche bags

ah who happened to vote in a way that a lot of people don't like and some people speculate that they were paid off by by russians at some point

but that's that's

and i those people just so happen

to not carry the baggage of like re similarly let me ls like a lot of them we were to holy shit wi also ok

and those people when you're invoking globalist and aly sing ok

you're jibberjabbering those people happen to not carry the same baggage

that for example the average

ah

the average political

subject outside of the marga movement does

therefore it is

much easier for actual partisan

political move political ideologies for example to find fertile soil among the maga people

i'm going to a worfare so you're saying oh it's a bunch of it's a bunch of doush bags or whatever a suse bags cause are more receptive

like who do you think for even if you want to refer to real warfare

where do you think the american militia movement will find more fertile soil

the maga movement or starbucks erist does

it's like its so fucking stupid no n house house i'm not saying i'm not saying the can't be a part of who's calling for the abolition of the f b i

i don't know who's

situating themselves against the entire state i mean i mean i don't know it's not the bard wor a lot of people outocate for the abolition of the f b i they but they're not but nobody takes them seriously they take the maga people seriously for a reason when they say that

because there's actual political

sitting membs ok off i wre i really i really this conventionally regular point is actually kind of important

convent unconventional warfare includes drone warfare

arere drones partisans

or drone pilots partisans

but

unconventional warfare can just refer to asymmetric warfare

no that's called asymmetric warfare no but unconventional no no no no no you're actually wrong unconventional warfare there are multiple i know i tht there are multiple senses ino word unconventional

you you're you're wrong here though and there are ml the world senses of os unconventional unconventional and runer second p i beeve that are like novel technological developments

they also refer to what carl schmidt decies in a sz war for hos unconventional warfare is engaged in by an agent as a strategy

asymmetrical warfare is a description

of a situation in which you have one force that has

some set of characteristics

and another one that has different characteristics so for example

a state base we know what it means get s criminal insurgency ok we know what it means but you're saying i can't use the word unconventional to describe that form of warfare even though it was a no no n no no for all in sens of purposes no i w s it was describing for example if you have polian wting the spanish guerrillas in spain

or for example the forms of partisan warfare that emerged in world war two

which were unconventional right so yes

ok so unconventionalan guerrillas yeah unconventional can describe guerrilla warfare

what

n know that's that's asymmetric warfare by irregular forces

eight

it's so stupid

there're go to no sense in which one can refer to guerrilla for fareld one directly one record one recogions ofur conventions

t have uss one

dude this was you know what one is onunday causes the

ho jabber palace of semantics i don't want to

dwell in this palace with you let's just get to the point of the

actual debate i

besides semantics please

i know you're stunned because you're president semantics you have nothing beyond semantic o noo if we're getting to the point then please god get to the point

i should have i should have set an end point on this that was a poor decision making on my part

i figured i figured you were a busy guy you would just have like o going to do this for like an hour

not not oka i know welcome to hell people no no no i'm worried we're all here together as as as compatriots

ok the point hus you said you mentioned a point i missed those

what

do you have to say

please

is that be or sunday

now you were going to say ha so go right ahead what let's let's coalesce this let's bring this to a nonpartisan point

ok well he was objecting to my use of the word partisan to describe the maga movement

all i meant to but i mean something very specific by that he doesn't want to level with me there

so

sunday how so are you do you even intend to meaningfully you know you really i really do but the problem though is that you're using terms in a contradictory fashion

because what's conferen igree

ow can i explain

so

when when i say

that no a partisan has to engage in

an irregular

action

and your point of reference for ir regular action is

they

are in some sense

unconventional and your point of reference for unconventional is

they have

particular attitudes towards particular things and you will even disavow

the one case that would actually work in your favor of like an actually violent action bc i think and i very pretend i think it's a

i think trumps

within the frame of information warfare

trump's kind of phenomenalization

of the american state

in his maga movement is both irregular and unconventional

how about how about this so if we're talking about information but let's look

let's try and find the

corresponding equivalent in

information warfare

what i would look for there is i would look for

a political movement

that is engaged in somehow

ah

in a serious way actually subverting the function

of the mediums through which that information is conveyed

so i

that that can range from like

somehow subverting like

algorithmic tools

it could be maybe you do the vifer vendetta thing and you hijack a t v station i don't know but something you realize information warfare also includes a war of soft power and ideology not just a

u so it doesn't it yeah yeah i mean ok so it literally means nothing then to you

it's just whatever you know because there there is an ideological

suwerstructure what is not go what does obscure the ability for it to

be disseminated

okay but

that's what the whole fake news thing was about that everyone was talking about ok but soft power isn't a form of politics

soft power

is the idea sing of

the government disagrees with you the state department disagrees with you the governments of every country disagree with no s soften heart no formation between sofce and existing bew no

yes it is yes

information war involves soft power because soft power includes information

but

thft power and hard power are distinctions introduced

by international relations theorist joseph ny

to talk about

the purposing of different

types of

forces there we go so it's a mat hewleveling what i mean you have to give it atm etymological fucking

run thatu that's not anim logical th i know it's not anim a logical but you have to give some kind of like death

like encyclopedic fucking description of the term i know the difference are you so hod sayd on terms

you know what i know what s i mean information you're making it up as you go no dude you don't we don't need an encyclopedia wikipedia article for every word i use we don't need to go through in seventeen zero four it was the first usage of this term

by joseph b

semantic do introduce se whatterm you and you haven't justified them

what do i mean i that would be fine by it also all you re wch someding is a perfect example of your know i hang on this is i not goingo example of your bad faith debates that wait what do i mean by soft power what do i mean by information warfare what i mean by soft power

ok what i mean by soft power

is that maga is engaged in forms of information

that contradict the soft power aims of u s unipolar you haven't you're not defining soft power you're just involving soft power in another sentence about something else ok soft power are the forms by which

but

the s exercised its geminy

that are not just ust going to ad

soft power by itself what is it when you say the s uses soft power what are the using

i was literally trying to give a description of that but you and i don't believe you can you just just do i then then it's n you're n if you don't believe me then how can i say youre just going to keep interrupting me because you don't believe me a priori like

do let me talk

ok

soft power is cultural soft powers through the media soft powers through what ideas are being spread

soft power is what kind of sentiments are being cultivated those are all forms of soft power

for example

do you believe me now sunday

so when you say because they engage in information warfare

the content of that is

they engage in information warfare

because you just recapitulated that

food because every because look i could literally ok what is the what do is the word th mean

uh it's an it's an

artcll

specifying it so it's so god just means the

no it's an article specifying a part so the just mean i am sooring to all you just said was the means that dud

we're never going to be able to communicate now because

you're trying to like you do i literally have to like noo do ily have to like have a lightning bolt and like i'm just i'm just i have to like are you do iver like i know star the discurse was

p video screen and like

like i

kind of

enforce the is your example of meting behind their meaning of word based on like u all words are you know all words are metanemic right they're always going to refer to other words that in its autological way

just describe what that word means i'm trying to give you examples no that's not true that's not true

president one one thousand percent it's true

hold on one moment president sunday

make your point and then i would like to say something

go ahead please no

you go you go ahead a gun out the

ok

m

so this is what we're arriving at and when i say we're riving at what i mean is we've been at for nearly four hours

an insurmountable gap ok this is a river that you cannot cross

and this is a difference in communication styles

it is

in the humble opinion of this moderator

and

the responsibility

of people trying to communicate their ideas to understand the language of the people they're talking to

you two speak very different languages this might literally be insurmountable

so the gold then

is to understand the concepts that are being discussed the basic ideas on a fundamental enough level

that you can talk through it without needing to grasp the subtleties of the language that's being used

we've been arguing the definition of partisans for a long time now i'm willing to bet

that whichever of you came out on top

if

ever there could be a winner in that discussion

it would be immaterial to the broader point or at least

very minorly so

probably

because this is one of

what could be like an innumerable number of such discussions

so

leaving aside definition

if we could avoid definitions entirely if we could just communicate

as much ass possible

in a vibes based fashion

let's move on

to the next point

obviously

working away from definitions means that it's

difficult to mount to more systemic critique

president sunday

because the definitions are important

they're not unimportant they're just leading us in a really circular conversation

and

so

if at all possible

i would like it if we could

gesture

a definitional problem

rather than getting into the weights

because we clearly can't get anything

is that fine with both of you because i don't think there's an alternative

yeah

so

i will try to

you've said yeah has i was sorry notus your hoe president sunday as well yeah or id like to make one final remark if that's all right its a short one

ok as long as it's a pair to hazs ya you know

affirmation disagreement go ahead

i just want to note

as as like a final observation on this that he has simultaneously denied russia's involvement in maga will also relying on russia's involvement in maga in order to just wll i didn't i all i need to rely upon is the accusation that russia's involved

which implies that at the very least the ruling ha geminy doesn't think it calm that's weaker than them actually being involved so that's not great either but whatever

yes so you were wrong on that point

i don't know i mean what it doesn't mean russia has to be behind it it just means that

there's a perception even among the ruling class it's not coming from them it's coming from somewhere else

i think it comes from the american people

not russia

by the way

and i think the american people are just as alien to the elites as russia is

and that's my whole point about why they're partisan

what you mean the american people who are

like slashed down the middle by

by macka

that the the people who were left behind and forgotten about completely the real pit establishing

the you know

people who lost all their jobs in the midwest in the flyover states and so on

but anyway

um

yeah i i don't i i you know i didn't it shouldn't have gonten that deep i'll just simplify it really completely

i think that maga has disrupted american politics in an unprecedented way and that anyone who's interested in alternative

political ideas in general will probably have a better chance of working within the maga movement

then working within the thg on this is a commercial

okay well i'm just trying to make a point for you to

disagree with but

no we're koks for moving of the next section whatever that is i'm not

ok well i was trying to move it on to something but you can go i agree that this semantically counts as a closer to the

m

previous topic of discussion has continue what you were saying and then president sunday

your final thoughts and then we'll move on

no no we can close that other one if that's

because i thought

that other one was just the black hole and i'm i'm going to reset it so we can actually debate

do you have any final thoughts that president someday on that specific subject

not really know

ok

so

since you're the one mounting the critiques then president sunday

was there another subject you wanted to bring up

again i know it's a long document and i

i have no idea how far it's a very long document and the essence of what i was

what i was primarily interested to discuss was the conceptual stuff that leads to this conclusion which is what we were just talking about before which is why we got hung up on the part ofan thing because

that's that's what all this hinges on

im

i am

i'm not sure what else

there is to talk about i suppose

it's a little bit

except except for once again remarks on like the strangeness of some sentences so for example

one thing that just sticks in my mind

is

quote a complete takeover of the hitler right kind is

all but now inevitable

which will attempt to satisfy the patriot patriotic aspirations of the mega movement into consensus for war

a war which will seek to preserve the power of the bankers and globalists

i

it's odd but there's not a whole lot else right go off of youre want to go deeper on it

what you find out about it or

no because you're just going to

we're just going to loop

so i don't know is there anywhere you want to go

but i stand by that statement

yeah but you understand why it's funny right

can you define funny for me i just i think you're using that and not it no not even as a joke

that's not even not

just what

we kid do you do you have way besides jokes

sunday

no do i want to answer that i think that was a valid question has do you do you understand why he might

have an issue with that statement just at the face of things

m my best guess is that

see

ah is confused about why there's tendencies in maga which might be exploited for a consensus for war

while there's also simultaneously tendencies that can be in the other direction

i think it's an intermediate

strata generally and that's the whole point of

kind of romsky's idea of a geminy and even lenin's

notion of the

the two tactics where he wrote about what i'm getting at here

is that

uh

is that you fear a takeover of the hitler right kind which is all but now inevitable

but then

you you

you place this the responsibility for this fear

on the nefarious actions of bankers and globalists

the ruling class yeah who are definitely blaante both bankers and globalists oil bankers in particular

you need to know but yes globalist as well

i mean if you want to if you want you can just say you

beneficiaries of the unipolar american system if you don't like globalists but

pretty much the same thing we'll no because i

what what is it whene ficiaries is int deefinite you're not referring to a particular

group of persons like

is is any group who doesn't benefit in some

capacity for ok sry way wea w really question before before the spirals out really quick

you said it was funny president sunday

why

is it the ambiguity of the term globalist is it

the idea that a beneficiary could it's maybe it's maybe the juxtaposition of bankers and globalists as a as a nebulous

world manipulating

cabll

a as as the the the

hypothetical or theorized

ah

staticable

it's not not a cobal ok

they're they're

no

theyre there

are globalist okay to' be honest globalist

probably refers to like

more like you know think tank people the ideas that are coming from the think tanks

and the bankers are referring to where the money for those thing tanks is coming on this is the

don't reduce it all to the think tanks but that's an example but you you know knowsn' they know you know and you know god damn well that you worded this in such an ambiguous way so that somebody who wants to read you there will reaj

you know it's funny

you that was you thought you

globalism is referring to

the post war

globalist

that's that's not

i don't think at least that's not a primarily jewish thing jews

in traditional anti semitism

are accused of being internationalists

international internationals those a as imposing as opposed to globalists

international yeah because globalism is encompassing not just

continental europe and maybe the americas of anti semitism was never that popular

in the americas but

through continental europe

there was the idea that all the jews are internationalsre not loyal to any of us sure but and they stabbed on the back in world war one hause the global system

there i don't even think

in most people's head if i tell a maga person yeah the globalist they're go ya but you're

i don't think they're going to think jews rightre you're a duganist who primarily relies on people like schmitdt and heidegger and you're trying to appeal to the mega movement ah i could but i could probably exccept schmidt and heideger

are probably anti semitic in some sense but dougan is not

you say so

but by the way we're not going you want to lean where do you want to go next

i don't know i don't know it's s my my

my analysis here is exhausted largely because

it was intractable litle by the way wight well i i'd like to add something if i may

i stepped out of line a little while earlier by being a bit too inquisitory and doing more of a debate than a moderator thing that just me sliding into familiar habits but

i do want to ask this uz

i

regardless of how you may feel about the term

i'm sure you're aware of the fact that nazis do use globalist as a dog whistle

i say i am i am but i think that's more of a

niche internet

ideology kind of thing whereas on the ground when i talk to people

and they say globalist

who are not like terminally online like boomers for example

they do not mean jews they are talking about

you know

people in washington and washington was

they're not they don't i don't think anti semitism is that prevalent on the ground as it is online among

younger people

say read that lots of people use the term outside of an anti semitic context i mean if you go back and you look at some of the stuff that bernie sanders ha said for example i

if you were really uncha it well he's sjewish but

if you were really uncharitable you could be like ah what you mean by that

so

it's not so much like the innate definition of the term or anything like that but

i

it is such an ambiguous term

like to you i ask

you s well i think that cand mean a lot of stuff do you mean like

food

like you know they say a kbab on every corner right do you want every country to be a ca i think i'm referring

i'm referring to this kind of the

the ideology of the unipolar american system built after world war two but

you know i think it's an inherent

in the nature of

anti semitism that

of course when you say the ruling class when you say

those who rule us and those in power

just because you're not qualifying some specific theoretical analysis

will some people read that and say oh you're talking wat chose of course they will

but i don't think you bear the responsibility for that

unless you you know the

says fss

on the subject of dodgan does he not distinguish between quiet loyal good jews and bad jews who are the rest

where where does he do that

this is referenced in a couple of places i am not a massive dug and reader but the s i am a dod reader and i was never

heard him say anything of that what you might want to you might want to

get up on that a little bit

seems like this is i'm asking you to cit your sources on dogins anti semitism

oh i just i just i just searched u goan and jews i was curious

and i

it it's seems to be a fairly ubiquitous

point on that

oky give me citations

well actual me one second you're on hiszone apparently

sir

hoe

that would be an

don't

just read it out and tell me where it's from

this is from dugan by yourm has only who is a jewish conservative in the united states

familiar with the

m

this from do goin quote completing the palestinian genocide is also part of the zionist plans then there will come a period of jewish rule on a global scale when the peoples of the earth recognize the supremacy of the jews and submit to them this is what israel lives on

where where did do can say we

this is quoted in the asia times i believe let me pull this up

yeah please find the primary source because doesn't really sound like i and i'm getting there

does though honestly

ok

here we go

dougan is a

russian of physical

ok so in his may sixth essay for the chinese website

which is called

there we go duggan's website

funct which makes sense

shoulder

but the quote is the traditional pre modern european order was defeated and completely distorted in the twentieth century

the the

or

quote hang on yeah it's not the stor it's up here

i was reading it wasn't much well no no no no no the on the article it breaks after a photo of dugan to to

somebody else

so wheres the quoe

es

the qualitude

right here the zionists do not recognize the decision to create a palestin whis is the primary source for that

what

can you lit yourory it appears to be from dugan's website now defunct we're not here to debate this we not just link wointing out primary s amcae i would be surprised if you can said so link wll the the primary source defunct it was dugin's website also it doesn't also it's

i guas that's

i guess we just have to take whoever's word for no no but i'm not i'm not aning on dugan being at the semitic i just looked out of curiosity and i found a pright of os thats i're not familiar with any t so this seems to be well there's

a lot of discourse about him being at the semitic so maighte you were he's he's accused of that a f on he's accused of that but he's acused of that with with with quotations so if you want to a the qutations are false that would be interesting

i just want you to cite them from things he's actually said or written

orce

and by the way the reason i know dugan is not anti serretic is because he has

routinely defended

judaism as a legitimate traditional religion of russia ok sure so that's like that's like how wes all sensor is also n no no no but hang on ress spencer richard spencer insists

i don't havere other other races should also have their own state to maintain their own but dokn doesn't say that doesn't thk reuse who are russians our brothers and

there

religion is tradition a part of our civilization yeah but he defines he defines being russian by being quiet and submissive to the russian state

o i don't know what you're talking about here but doogin uh

also says that he admires many of the aspects of jewish mysticism in the kobalah and so on

i don't ever see him say

anything anti semitic

anything bad about jews i've never seen it

it would be a surprise to me actually

but it's interesting how jews just get brought up

for no reason i just think

a

that's well no no that they got brought up in this context because you through was mentioning where did this angors a globalist

in the context of fearing a hiter eat we are ruled by bankers and globalists that is indeed true

rockefellers when we were specifically when you're specific rockefellers are not even jewish rockefeller your we're oil bankers

these are only been your when you're specifically all the rocke weellers and they're not specfally when you're specifically appealing for merging

communism with

the maga movement in particular which is so do you want to know why thinkers globalist matter

because that's the form of monopoly capital today

i'm a marxist leninist it's supposed to be h

united front against monopoly capital that's the whole you're not a marxist lenis though because you keep defaulting to fetishizing the universal state that's not a marxist len this position that's a gellan position

which is the route of

fascist ideology

no it's not it's yes it is that's literally what the dog axandert the corresponded to geneo giovanni j no was no

no

that's hegel is not the legitimate basis of giovanni gentillly who departs and breaks he was a heg gill and what are you talking about giovanni gentillly

breaks from hegel in the most fundamental of ways

and he's not a real hega and he's a not very doesn't

yes

the universal state is also employed by coj of to describe the soviet union i think stalin would agree with it cod wrote a letter to stalin

completely

can read it yourself

but no it doesn't only i mean it originates with hegel yeah but

well i don't argue that ogh so if you want to know the marxist leninist position which is the socialism and one country thing

civilization states and universal states will indeed

survive possibly for hundreds of years

before the final dissolution of the state as such

but the soviet union in marxist likeing this

yeah

doctrine at least

is

a unit can be described as a universal state

and there's nothing about that that's incompatible with marxism leninism

he knows nes it's actually direct that's why

marx literally wrote the critique of the philosophy of right

which was directly criticizing but if the universe and stay is the universey universal state is based in the proletarian dictatorship

then marxist criticisms don't apply because it's based in class struggle but it's not it's not a universal state if you still have

class struggle schisming the whole thing right that yes it is that's precisely what makes it universal

but but it's

it's not

though yeah it is because the roletary not a universal class or a state based on the dictatorship of the proletariat

which is suppressing the development of all not the universal class if they have to

be dictators right yes it is because class you didn't read my you didn't listen to my opening statement

class does not refer to discrete

strictly defined social formations

fighting it refers to oscollations

it refers to virtualities competing over intermediate strata

so there's no pure proletary or pure w was was it's a virtual orientation

it's not it's not like you know

class classical physics of billard balls hitting each other in the fucking

in an empty space it's referring no nosease it's reflaects orientations

no it's not just referring to orientation that is classes are no classes are defined by having

real control over real resources or

lacking thereof

or having real relationship how does the o production of the ho labor how does that know

how does that control work

this is like marx is crittyqual going how does that control work because you think somehow that this is like

the aggregate of individual does how does who owns the youth know youll of production control work how do they own it do they own it as the sum total of individuals enter intoing a locky in agreement with each other to own it

on a basis of individual discrete a don't n know by by social convention the state reinforces their decision so it's social yeah you're right it's socially mos and it's

it's social not individual so yeah class

what does the class that refers to something social not the of course their social

their social classes haws yeah that's my point dude

so

you can have my having it i feel like i'm having a stroke

the the pro first of all the proletariat is identified

by marx as the universal class of capitalist society

it is the class which epitomizes the universal interests of all of society and all of humanity

point one

ok

in a proletarian dictatorship when this class is elevated to the status

of the supreme subject of politics and a dictatorship

that means you indeed do have a universal state

whose interests coincide with the interests of

wo

country

n prather than a specific sys s somebodys a link to the duban clip

send it to me on twitter don't don't

try to post it to you tube i can't see it

we're back to the duge and stuff

well just it's interesting

alright

le's

this is this is purely for your benefit

you've been educating me i want to return the love

ok

i'd love to hear what this is

think i think vosh is completely checked out at this plan

no i'm still here

what are you what are you playing

i'm playing anything i've been staring blankly forward for the past four hours

i'm fully engaged

locked in committed

all of my neurons

right here

with us

open and vulnerable to the skelling they've been taken

you got it yet sunday

now hang on

people or i don't think you're going to get it but i

not everyone not everyone is as technically savvy as i am

so how's everyone's night going

good

i feel like death

i'm glad the power hasn't gone off yet that's that's

yeah i got some coffee it's really helped

i caught some kind of cold the other day

everything hurt

like i'm i'm

the

fine i'm just like

intensely uncomfortable

i'm sorry

what about you has

how's your superior

what archaic ethnic term do you use to describe yourself

what

as

yeah

what

how are you doing

what ethnic term

yeah don't you

don't you have a t what what do you describe yourself as

this there's like a youtube video on this he's like you say he's a mongolian con isn't it

is it is a mongolian yeah how a your mongolian

your superior mongolian jeans holding up are you doing

well it is certainly a night

and a debate

those are both true

over and o ago it's actually the day

so are we waiting for sunday's

thing about do going weber car ok apparently i found it give me one second

to translate to english

oh there's a video

which is playing automatically can i stop this i don't know if this is going to be t

oll to requick

oh god this is a massive brick of text i don't know what this is guys

well after this conversation you should be familiar with those right

yeah i'm i'm this this do isn't helpful guys

i don't i don't know what you're looking at here exactly

but

this i don't think this

is the thing that we're

for

oh here we go

oh hang on i see so it was the

and we just assume that dugan is anti semitic because all russians are evil

that's the logic i've been using for my streams for the past year and a half works out for me

ho

one

tough crowd

um well uh

hawses and iything you wanted to talk about are we just going to sit here

sulking

i thought you were going to provide something

w the doogan thing but

well i don't i don't i'm not invested in dugan being an anti semi

i just i looked at in

when you said it was i mean you just brought it up forus again so i thought it was going to be your saving

no no because you were insisting you were insisting that you were just come

completely

innocent when you were once again appealing to the mega group in particular what bankers and globalists as the

i

yeah i think i am innocent big historical bug i think i am innocent

oh here we go right

got it

here it is

bless you web archives

hold this up

okn you sharre it in the group chat

yeah i give me one second

someming

fund

here we go

so

globe

the completion yeah here we go

you'll have to f to trans

but

he i'll send it i'll send it to you in

the completion of the genocide of the palestinians is also included in the zionist plans and in their opinion there will come a period of jewish rule on a global scale fifth monarchy when the peoples of the earth are goiz

primacy of the jews and civi

wh's he talk

t

aking violated someat commandments of zionist leaders in fact yeah

so it's

y

it's not it's not like a hitler right approach to it but it's

so isn't he just describing uh

isn't he

describing ultra nationalist currents of zionism

not what he think i mean he might be i'm not a fan of your haz oni i'm not invested in

defending

the integrity of what he says

i'm just saying there's a lot of people talking about this

i am not

i don't have to hinge anything on whether or not dugan is an explicit anti sumit nort

yeah i think he's just describing

some what some crazy people believe not what he thinks

oh well there you go

no love lost between you two ha

no banter

what's your what's your favorite sort on the wall there ho

pause you have to answer the

so

i mean just to be clear ogans also making a lot of like opposite of anti semitic arguments here he's saying

that zionism is against the jewish religion and stuff

from the orthodox jewish perspective

so it's interesting you use the source

i just someone just sent this to me i didn't

i don't have this to hand

alright

i think dgan's a

that

political theorist i have not

invested in him also being like a nazi

yeah but i think things like that matter

when we're talking about w he's not far off he's he's he's in a

pologist and theorist for a

theam

murderous aggressive

fascist regime but that's

beside the point

so you have no objections to raise anyre anymore

i have i have

myriad objections however i am

ve we've canvassed i think

the extent of what our generous host is able to

well no i'm not i'm not the weakest link here don't you quit on my account i got my coffee i'm fine

fll

what do you want to talk about a

you can also stop

you want

not like i i i can't

i am i am i am unable to

a rule now

how are you doing has well

you seem to have objection sunday and it just seems like you're unable to

defend those objections without

getting into the weeds of semantics

well know when you're giving definitions of things ok instead of trying to just that of trying to

accuse me of using words inappropriately which is already tenuous

to not inappropriately

contradictory and inconsistent

yeah which you haven't been able to support and that's why

we can't get into the weeds of that because it's a loop

but i would love you to be able to have effective argument against

my political theory or my position

for example do you think it's

in contradiction with marxism

do you think it's a

somehow do i think do i think i

yeah

okay yah it is

why is um

well for a start

you're once again like

moving heaven and earth in order to justify

orienting this around

i

a a

particular

community that is is

originating on the basis of

a capitalist expansion exploitation

so if you mean you mean so or ca on to be clear

you're referring to the united states of america as a poliicy

yes

ok to luriansm the toloris well w wa wa and then how do you to learn hang on hang on i'm not done yt youre to learings some of the mega movement

is one that's going to be rooted on

a community that established itself

by

exterminating and abusing the natives and slaving african and other ok but

speaking of marx and marxism

are you aware of what marx and engels themselves thought about this community that you're saying is a

the worst thing ever

because angles actually advocated for the annexation of

canada

marx defended i don't even agree with him on this point but he was

so fanatically pro so the i to you're censoring that they were he was so fanatically pro ninet century america

he defended the annexation of mexico

he famously in a racist quit

called the mexicans lazy mexicans and he was glad

the america expanded and took over mexico

so i don't not saying i even agree with marx in that regard i think was mistaken

but marx and angeles thought

in his letter especially to abraham lincoln they thought

that seven hundred seventy six was a revolutionary development

and that the united states was a legitimate

ah

community and soil for socialism

as a matter of fact engle said

that even european socialism

in some sense

originates

in the americas

and america and the original settlements and

the shakers which angles uses an example directly

both marks and angles are you almost ubiquitous they're very clear that

they you like

they think america

is the future land of the future okk but but has ok

but marx and angles were also racist isn't like the we're talking about theing on retort that you do you think that we're talking about marxis

you're saying i'm not more we were talking about marxism

for you're saying i'm not marxist

because i'm trying to i'm saying i'm saying the fetishies i'm saying the fetishization

of

of historical states

what do you mean fat is

but i mean treating them as if they have in your language some some deeper underlying reality yeah

so the communist manifesto

says the class struggle will be national in form

ever since then

real marxism

has acknowledged

that

all class struggle is national in form but that doesn't mean the nation is theend you have situated the noo no one's talking about the end but we are talking about the definite context within which class struggle but you are but you but you are though if you are situating the nation or the land or something like that as in some sense a deeper reality

beneath convention or beneath

like historical change or whatever you would even go well or no the notion the notion that the

a civilization

are we're not going to use that word

is deeper than the artificially contrived modern state

is in no way

opposed to marxism how is is not deep in the artificially contrived state

but that's a materialist you realize that's a materialist insight right the idea that the real

for example

well that's that's not that go nither i'll give you an example of this

so i think lenin was a marxist you might disagree if you say lenin is not a marxist

then there's no common meaning we can have but lenin says for example

as simply and as readily as

he says for example we want to abolish the modern state that's what lennon said

so how will laws be enforced when lenin says as simply and as readily

as any crowd of civilized people even in modern society

interferes to put a stop

to a scuffle or prevent a woman from being assaulted

and secondly we know the fundamental social cause of excesses

which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse

so he recognized these rules of social intercourse

that are somehow not reducible to modern states

i am situating those rules of social intercourse

well into the deeper i'm not we there is there's a difference between saying that

all norms and conventions reduced to modern states

and saying that there is a civilization exists deeper than with modern state yes

but they don't exist deeper than the modern state just because lenin thinks were independently lenin think so

but lenin thinks so he thinks when the state is gone they will still be there

wll know because civilization has not been invoked there either is nationality what we're talking about it is definite no we're just talking we're just talking about other forms of what it isnvolle says the word civilized people of course it's involved

well civilized doesn't necessarily refer to a civilization as a discrete unit so leting on about the word civilized you know but that this is where once again like the distinction between civilization

as e

cultural unit that has an inside and an outside

and

civilization is a process of essentially kind of cultural education

that's where these two things are distinct

know you'r tase so here when he's talking about you ask like we will refer to civilized as like people who are well mannered sometimes we're not there for invoking like a specific type

political entity

but what lenin saying in my view implies there is a deeper texture of social relations

than the state

but that doesn't necessarily mean it's civilization

well i think it's i think it's civilization

and i think lennin would agree with me and i think the russian state soviet state

agreed with that insight

i think even stalin agreed with that insight he said for example

in the aftermath of the invasion of hitlery said the hitlers come and go

but the german people

remain the german

basically civilization remains

so

there was a recognition within marxism leninism

that civilizations are indeed deeper than modern states

uh

in practice i mean and then we we get to mao

in china it's like game overdude

that's not even up for dispute

the idea that china is a deeper civilization than the various states

contending and i not china is a massive and highly varied place

well

i'm just telling you what chinese marxist thing

and their marxis

they have no problem referring to china as a civilization deeper than the

modern sty

and if they're not marxists

i guess i is that is that is that because they have a robust reason for doing so or because the policy of the

chinese

communist party recently

has been to try and ferment nationalism to patchwork but it's not recent it's not re syria social skill it's not recent at all even before they came no it's it's not that reason it's going on for like

thirty or so years no no before mao

when ma was a guerrilla in the nineteenh thirties fighting

japanese

h

in late nineteen thirty s there were yearly tributes paid by the chinese communists

to gang is khan

for being and this is there in their own words having fundamental contributions the chinese have ok that's cool but you're invoking just once again like another propagandistic

reason for doing this ok well male was a chinese marxist and chinese marxist clearly and a partisan by the way and a p and that would being chinese marxist

clearly understood

unequivocally there's no room for dispute

that civilizations deeper than just

modern states

not just resle i mean

and that's why they you wt to say well that just serves your political purpose i mean

no no no i was going to say and that's why they destroyed and desecrated all of the the

fusion

who are you to say that

br me home i to sad this is a matter of historical they didn't destroy all of it but if there was most of it in fact they made a big show of

bring them back you know you would say that's not recard of whre you to say that's not far back it was a big thing in two thousand and eight when you think when they were

when i think was yet you're talking about it was quoting confused like we just got your point and you're just talking about it's ok we got the point

p i haved a call soose you do

we got your point it happened during the culture but you but you didn't though

n no i wasn't talking social revolution i was talking about two thousand and eight k talk about two thousand and eight or two thousand and twenty three it doesn't matter

there's nothing written that says civilizations can

undergo these iconoclasms where they radically try to

overturn prior traditions that happened but then

n was it sags the quot it begs the question though you say the german people remamber llers come cok what are you referring to the the people clearly were referring to a organic histor there outic stor frend the

i was going to answer what you want to keep talking but i was iering but you were i was answering you but i'm referring to order youre already interrupting me i

so if indeed the hlers come go over the german people remain well then how do you account

for the radical restructuring of germany

yeah because civilization i change they change

you know you're referring to it as a deeper reality so that talked about so the changes underwent going

underwent by civilization

does not eliminate the continuity because it's still the same people's history and development

it's not like

there's some idol and then if you burn the idol the civilization disappears

sound like there's no at you that everyb ization for something for something to change

right

it has to have some fixity as well there has to be something

that is enduring the change

it's not just dying and being replaced by something else it's changing yeah the people

the people's history that's what history is

a people's history that's what's

history of civilization is

this is like the archimedia but clearly not because multiple peoples can comprise a civilization and they never interact

they have to interact in some way

well not necessarily because civilization doesn't

involved them constantly interacting with you mean individuals family someimilars not every individual interacts but

historically constituted people's

like pe i'm sorry i don't you mean this individualistically or like different ethnic groups

because within a civilization all the groups do interact

in some way

but not all the individuals obviously

oh no because

the civilization is defined by common practice ritual and culture and things like that and like f i don't want to get back into the semantic i don't either

but we're just talking about whether i'm a marxist or not you're saying i'm not a marxist because i propose

there's this deeper kind of

even now i'm saying i'm saying i'm saying the marketing is donn saying i'm not a marxist because i think that the historically constituted community of america

so you think this storicly constituted community america's illegitimate

nancy feticle to marxism

but marx and engles

and land because your basis of that isn't materialistic it's based on this

mystical wo perception that there's some

embedded cultural identity in the soil despite the fact that it was literally appropriated but you can to you can give a bad faith interpretation of what i mean by the deeper embedded reality

but it was a reality acknowledged by all major marxists in history

was

including mao and especially mao with regard to china where it's just ubiquitous but stalin understood that

for russia we're talking about ok whow we're talking about china

i

because you're saying you're calling it ok then mo was also mystical deeper reality of china

h beyond maybe maybe like

okay well i don't know what but i do't youk malhs mar

like maoas i'm a maoist

if you think that's not a real marxist

you can have your real marxism and you're covered in your books sitting down so make mega communist is mega maoism

yes quite literally yes it's something i

a you know that i think i make it clear in the

that tag i'm a molist of course

mouse its own thought specifically does that does that just refer

as far as you're concerned to

the invocation of no i think l on you show what are we referring to i think l i sag china and the sino soviets well damn it my internet stad dong

thought i can hear you

you can't

yyes you know ill hear you

mous sy tonge thought is a propect vans

in marxism leninism because of his introduction

primary and secondary contradictions

and his' rad it his radical contribution to the i thought you were a stellinist

yeah uh i am a stlinist andi maoist

stalinus will typically be divided

between the holder and the mou

i'm a mal gui

so

ok i thought that was common knowledge

apparently not

oh here here somebody wanted me to ask you this

so i

in your essay this is com have left field

and it thrusts to the fore the basic question did america have to culminate in what it is today or beginning from the very same premises would an entirely different outcome have been possible

make america great again really means roll the dice again repeat

with all the delusion connotations

the origin of america

reset american history return america to the mercy of its progenitor

nothing could evince the sign of middle class midwit consciousness and historical nihilism more than the slogan

america was never great

thank

america was great it was great when it was was other when it was other than what it only seems now when it was ladent with culminating into something else

a time that has been forgotten because it is impossible to remember

time passed over echoing forever into the annals of a lost past lost but still felt like de javu like a trace memory from the future

last ss i promise maga is there in real america and not here in the empire of lies whose most principal and founding li

s in the notion that the highest necessity of spirit culminates

and the now putrescant modernity

i i'm a little bit perplexed can you explain this one to me

is that what your reader

has asked you to explain

yeah in particular they want to know what the delusion connotations are

ah okay so this is drawing from also s a

from slav was us called repeating lenin

so the basic delusian idea is that novelty emerges from repetition

typically one thinks that when you repeat something it's just going to be the same thing

a but

for delos

to truly

so the freudian kind of

slogan or whatever was a

that which we repress we are doomed to repeat

and de los kind of inverts this

with

that which we we

repeat we are doomed to repress

so the moment of real repetition is the revolutionary moment where you

return to the origins

of uh

one's being

truly return to that

and thereby

enable the possibility of another alternative and that's where novelty comes from

i'm given to understand it and to lose the

difference is repeated not a thing

it doesn't matter that's the point

difference

difference is what's truly repeated yes

the point

um

o ok are thefferent you're not referring to difference here right you're referring to

and a conception of america a thing

like a thing in the

if

ok

on that what is that that's a past thing no you can say it's a particular difference though if you're going to go from the dels thing

but what how then why don't you take your gribe up with slavoics music who

talks about repeating lenin well lenin was a person not just an abstract concept of difference

because you don't know how these concepts are used sunday

you try to have a wicked no i don't i i'm a mouthpice don't lose you don't know actually un your sys and i my my my dy your problem my reservoir was exhausted on sunday your problem was that on a part of ten you tend to get you

kind of

caught up

in

trying to give like wikipedia descriptions of words no this isn't this isn't i says i this isn'o w i thescription i've got i've got i've got it you've got to don't atus know how to i've got a robust following of delusiions

who are who are most distressed by this use of de lose and i promised them i' bring this up well they can i'm i am i'm out

okay look

just because i invoke a concept from a thinker by the way doesn't mean

i'm saying oh delose agrees with everything i'm saying

because szak doesn't

agree with dolo's fundamentally because

their alogies are totally different even a post right

ah but

he can still employ delusan concepts to try and

as something useful

so what's wrong with that that's what i'm doing

well there's nothing wrong with that if if if

you're going to blame sheak for this being used in in the

weird undlusion way fair enough no it's not on i dot know i think your understanding of concepts and thinkers is metaphysical

you assume that there is or what does that mean

because instead of trying to i i literally just said this wasn't my understanding i was just asking some bey have somebody else

okay um

who says ss agrees that the lose to loses lakonan reading which doesn't

contradiction you knows you say it's ontology

was built

in contradistinction

to delose just because see this is the point of there what do you what do you mean by me being metaphysical can you explain that

yeah you assume that if you don't agree with every single thing a thinker says

you cannot

actually employ

the spirit of the concepts they use to illustrate

like for example

delittle thrueh it all no n no actually it's entirely the opposite the my issue for example with your use of rol schmidt in the notion of the partisan

is because you're actually betraying the spirit of what he's talking about in order to well you haven't jos a conception a maga communisms being you haven't justartisan on the basis of word association but the problem is that you haven't justified that i think in the spirit of what carl schmid's trying to say

but i did though

but you didn't you got into the weeds of what i did cement i got to we got into the weeds of cementsicple your garden needs weeding you're sunder you're going off a strict literalism

of the dead letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law

ok

so that's the problem and iss not ok not a low it's actually the launching point of the theory that you i liter it's literally

like you're doing even with the framer you know that rase the spirit of the law the dead letter of the law oh we're not actually literally talking about laws right now

dude it's like this is the parent worlss we're going not go and here's why it matters so stupid no no it youre here's why it matters i know i know you're tired to here here's why it matters

if you are making a theoretical account of a thing and you are leveraging somebody else's theoretical work to justify it

no i'm not reproding anything i'm not faile to follw no i'm not using delos as an agthority to bold or like muchight no i'm talk i'm talking about schmidt right now

well i'm not using schmidt as an authority to benefit the credibility you do because that's the only thing you have to motivate the use of the term partisan in the first place

and your level that's not that has nothing do with ilady artisan nor do i don't use schmidt to impress people who wear glasses like you i use schmidt

because

anyone who's familiar with schmidt will see in good faith the continuity and it's a useful

against what youver against uits it is useful

for the pp aganst classes i'm not a low hapy because it's like you're this arrogant ph d guy whatever i took your ph d from this debate i have three of them now

but

because it's clear that schmidt's concepts are useful for the purposes of my

political theory elitism as well i so i am using schmidt to

make it easier to understand where i'm trying to get to

but you're reading it in the opposite ways h you don't have the right or the a you don't have the authority or the credibility

so you should because you're using him improperly from the perspective of what's allowed in my academic institution

well you're looking at the dead letter of the law and you're being someing but i'm not though you're invoking a se really a sunday sday justifying president semantics the only reason you' not semantics that's that you focus on ustrial component in your know in your notory no it would be so it would be aemnice if it was in consequential to your connotion it's but all the way you get is your one hundred percent inconsequential when we're talking when you're using the jibber a it's and

it's in consequential

because the coherence of your theory is not to you a valuable component of it

yes it is it's just that you are constantly calling into question my use of terms

so as to kind of call into my own my back no i s of i'm actually i'm just objecting to the use of my terms and the way i reference thinkers

because you're trying to somehow prove that i'm not credible enough

right on hold the ph d so i'm not allowed to reference them

and i'm not

i'm not i don't i'm not i've never i've never my goal is not a my goal isn't to give some kind of neutral encyclopedic description of the lus

or schmidt but to actively put into use

the concepts they were employing

to

analyze our current realityk but if the atercepts more more fundamental way

so you are the work hang on you know were institution on your goal is the wordre using has

if the word you're using

is invoking the concepts they're deploying

but you misrepresent them

then that's a problem

i still gn still i know but you're still you're still leveraging the work that they did

you're just misusing it

i' not is your meaning of any m matter you haven't

you have not shown how anything has been

improperly used

you're just s crossman was talking about war

there's no way you could apply schmidt's concept

to something that is not literally referring to blowing up trains and supply ship lines

that's the extent i n know i gave you i gave you an example no and that no no no no so that is the extent of your gity so there is a way here and hang on not like ability of

what my use of these thinkers and turno let's say let's say if if if if

the mega movement did all the stuff that like anonymous was doing right so you know you want to go back to the stupid

maga movement anonymous anonymous is not a political movement

done

well it's not a political movement but what i'm saying though is if they start en gaging in for example

breaking down

like like

typical typical like security barriers

no that would just be illegal acts that would be a state of

literal warfare it's literalism you're engaged in

because it's the

direct dead letter of the law g if the maga is not committing illegal attacks against infrastructure

that means it's hang on out artisan

i think the problem sunday is especially when e what you're what you're doing what i'm talking about is partisanship you're sorting a geminy in the grounding int and i'm not talking about partisanship

verst necessarily be putting in au soling about a lot

cause you're putting an astonishing amount of effort into justifying you basically just making shit up as you go

okay which

again that's just that you're just posturing you're just posturing you claim i'm making it knowo i'm not what i'm saying is that

what you're calling your political theory is just you posture

no i'm not posturing for anything everything i've said

but you'r only posturing your only p you can say that but you haven't this vius i'm going to pak my glass of this in to say it you can say in all you want

you can say it all you want but your claim is tauto logical and i don't know why anyone should be convinced to take it seriously

how's my claim tut a logic even even if i was making it up i don't make a clot you know you know what's you know how disingenuous such a

even if i was making it all up as i was going

what does that have to do with the meaning that is attempted to be conveyed

there's it doesn't mean it's meaningless

clearly i'm trying to say something

in good faith your role would be to try either to decipher what i mean to say

what's a far cry but this whole game of like oh you're improperly aring the sacred objects of academia

dude i shit on your academia all your professors i'll debate all of them it doesn't matter i don't care about your academic institution

and i wiped my ass with it

ok

you can say that

oh you don't anything about schmidt ok let's pretend you're right

let's pretend you're right which you're not i don't i don't wint you go to have this is no there's n no i actually i actually give you credits i actuallyt cred it no i see quite a month because

it has to do with how these thinkers are being read by pot like you

you read these thinkers in this like you're putting them in a box and it's just like these it's the dead text this dead letter of law

i am reading these thinkers and i'm trying to relate what they were writing to the things that

at least i find important because it's today rightre there n but reading there are examplely

ps

there are examples

of what schmidt is talking about in the theory of the partisan that exists today

the magamu yeah i know but i think so what you're actually doing is using the dead letter of the law as you put no nor no rey those other holdings to the advantage of something i don't know sales to sunday the problem with you

is you can't

comprehend the possibility

that a concept can be applied in a novel way

applying again no but you're not applying it in a novel way hold on youre you si up for a second no no you're me be more precise with words since you're semantic and let me be more precise with words than since you're semantic andy

i am extending the concept of the partisan

to domains and spheres that schmidt was not

directly but you're not with though because he covered so as well as well no

he didn't know over the internet he didn't cover the

the american two party system he didn't cover in which ca look a lok in which case you could find an analysmic didn't come but information he didn't know if you found do you hat ok let me ask you a question what would schmidt have written about the nature of partisanship

in the information age

you probably don't know that no one knows no nos fuging dead

i'm trying to do that but'm writing i ca actually have an answer to that because history has actually pha i actually have an answer to that you

i actually have an answer for that

so for example

if

a some group

was engaging in in

once again like

breaking down the ability of countries to

like

exchange

over the internet

which which has been done as a form of sanction recently

things like that

that would be an example

that would be a very interesting so so so wiki leaks what about leaks you what about the breaking of the a little bit similar what about breaking the ability for the geminy to exercise ideological

pygemony over a population

that's a goal that is not descriptive of of

a mode of engagement

yes it irregularity that is literally you was no ss because you could do that with a bomb or you could do with a no one you s with an army read nonsops's not

nm osy regular it's called manufacturing consent

that is how the system fuck and engages

yes that's how the media works

they do actually

functionally yes in it's not just a goal of something they actually do that sit ok

it's not just a fucking goal it's actually we got we've got a we've got a umpki

it's actually i'm not a shomsky it's just like

to be to

to bring up someone who i think

shouldn't be too contentious cause he's a typical left lib

even people like chomsky acknowledged that

how can you say it's just a goal of course it's not i'm i'm i'm i'm not

but what you're describing once again is is not the activities of the partisan

vm not the any but using p giing this whole i'm not the have't even is the partisan like i'm not the activities of the partisan as strictly and exclusively defined

by

cakrl schmidt in his work

but whether or not the concept of the partisan can be extended in ways that schmidt did not directly foresee

you can't say

that you can't make a definitive judgment and say no that's not possible that's an arbitrary stance or

that's completely unjustifiable you can't answer my question

what's re was your favorite which is your favorite sort of there

can i see i accept your surrender dude simple as that

thank

you have to answer if i if i surrender the can i see it

no

i don't surrender them

fuck he

i'm going to ser you my sword

i don't want to sink or tw

i don't min there wre than yours share my minor core and they are' just glittery showpieces they're actually the cold steel

when the last light

battle ready stuff

well i pray you don't go to war with words because you'll be ended up getting cuht up

i don't care how big your sword is those words will do a number on that is like that is such a clip ook

someu somebody

somebody please say that and chact that

beautiful

old on hos you are

really

or your poet of the modern

thatway i'm sorry

you're using the word poet incorrectly

um

clearly that's not what the concept of a poet refers to

and there's nothing you said was meaningful just now

you're improperly using and abusing words

no i there's no communication that's possible it's just an improper use of language

as i said it is

and i've defined the the matrices and boundaries of what meaning is

arbitrarily because i'm a guy who wears glasses and has a ph d that

was coincidentally just taken from me

because i will i have you i have a bachelor's degree so i'm sorry to

form me you give

taken some

significantly lower value than a phd

ok all right

hold on

that's enough

all right

all right i'm sure we can all agree that this has been extremely productive conversation

we all gave it our best and that is your systemt n know and that's what i us go on for this long dear go now this is in punishment for ther flower ship if you don't want to be disqualified both of you have to say something nice about the other one and it can't be ironic or thinly veiled insult all right

president sunday your first

your beard is magnificent

okay

straightforward

p you're up next

this is a nice cardigo

one

i don't know what a cardigan is but

i am saying what is what are beter i'm saying this in good faith i can't think of a single thing

and i'm trying hard

ok then by default president sunday wins this debate

on that and hauss inability to answer the favorite sword in the wall question

a congratulations i as well sday

if you want if you w in dtle if you want to say so i'm confident in the neutral audience ability to judge it themselves but

i'm i thought for a second i' tried to find something but i just find

sunday to be such an insufferable and pedantic pretentious person

and i don't think it's i mean i think it's just extra

she's extremely arrogant

posturing and just

doesn't want to have a good faith

human debate

historians will not forget your inability to say which sword was your favorite

this is been unmitigated suffering i should never agreed to this

i hope you both have a wonderful day

i'm going to go eat a day's worth of food which for me is quite a lot

thank you for the opportunity to

remind myself what true suffering feels like and

are there any final words

not so much for me thank you vosh for your excellent

moderation

i

i'll also fuck you for letting this go on for this long

uh and uh

thank you has for agreeing to whatever on thats y final words this sunday you should probably just read the substack again you clearly failed a the first time so just

don't give up

don't give up

that's my word for you

brother you'll learn off you'll understand one day so anyway

that's it

bye bye

al right

thought

i got a piss so bad

i gota piss so fucking bad holy shit all right i'm gonna

yes

or i should i should just

i'm going to unpause the dougnors

you so much line appreciation colen underscore s and gerrilla colin underscore son guerrilla colen underscore son g somst ice cour s and so like collen underscore son guerrilla colin underscore son guerrilla balking bass man thank you so much

appreciate you so much ma'am

oh man

oh my gosiest debate ever thank you p j

thought it was going to be tougher because i thought he was actually going to like

bring out arguments is should this guys sunday's a fucking idiot dude thank you anonymous your osh all you vosh sams

vash is done

infrared is rising

marxism leninism in the like sunday was of the focus more on dud that guy's not smart at all and i like lost sleep this is the definition of school pparing thank you stays tag maagic com i like was prparing to go in might you guys read you guys saw my introduction like

i was ready to go in in depth

holy falcan ooms in the fifty bring so much money thank you so much theay human

like i thought i was going to get into the weeds of some shit

and he's like been preparing for next sunday and thank you all of aw a level of rericor illustrates the impact infrared has had

even on his enemies

thee window shifted

appreciate you right thank you so much shayep preciate tmsy and chat if you're as confused as i am

oz is winning i just need to spend eight years getting my ph d to figure out why thank you so much my appreciation thank you so much pj jms point

as your history of philosophy deep dives are among your best videos

i think many of us would love to see more of those

thank you so much p j appreciate you man

appreciate you so much

um sun yeah sunday didn't even put up a flight he's a fight h what

the is entirely captured by decarte and is unable to see it

extreme tea with no te

yeah

but thank you so much lion appreciate

but thank you so much emila appreciated

ius like my main point of maga being partisans like

it's clear there's a difference between maga

and established political differences

that's not just the traditional democrat vers republican like it's clear it's a eper difference there

actors are saying the tea party but the tea party was a minority movement

yeah no the tea party

exactly it w and also it wasn't really a political movement

that was national in scale it was never a popular national movement by thanks much old man

w infrared rising thank you so much old man of the woods appreciate you man

b thank you so much emila collen underscore d can bas

thank you milah

i got to piss bad guy so i'm going to pause the donos again

when i go take a piss i'll be right fucking back i'm literally like

of my kidneys are about to explode give me a second

i'm back

i'm back

how's a long pis

i took a really long piss not going lie

not going to lie

a mamen

ho unpause the dougnuts

but they seey oh holy fox thank you so much carlo appreciate that

he's the hack

he only wanted dama is your image

he is a fed

yeah

that's literally it has you don't know what you're talking about thank you cab the wfle appreciationly

sunday is a future american

canada will cease to exist

his country has to be liberated so the anglo box doesn't i even know he live in canada in know that but thank you so much iron rosepreciates very charitable of you to privately tutor a disabled man for free

there it's like what do you mean by civiliations thank youmila i think president sunday wants us to say that jeves which is typical of lefties

yes

so bizarre but thank you so much maywist

wh is the widest guy in this stream calling you racist

i don't know i don't know what's i didn't know what was going on

when it came to that

but thek you so much a mela

president met

were

yeah what was was a very oddly wor fair i don't know why president you i spent over four hours saying nothing and making no arguments

yeah

thank you crack w'll appreciate you

hash dag mega nioism

but ik sunday such a sorle ho you so still didn't prepare

yeah it's so fucking stupid

they think a fast i don't care

thank you for your jurnels on categorizing phenomena

that's not theory

that's data entry

yeah

civilized no it's not even that civil i'm a fascist for saying civilization it's that

civilizations don't even exist it's not even real

okay

and sad what do you mean by civilization i just like the thick texture of social relations

that are below the surface and typically are unified

by you know

a

a universal state of some kind or at least aspire toward such a universal state

yeah i would think

i said

you you're going off the letter of the law not the spirit of the law and he goes that's not what law means that was fucky crazy

that was the best part to me like that was

holy shit it's like that was a fractal

that was a frack if he can't stop himself

he canny i like dude

you're just doing you're being a pendant

getting into semantics oh here's a semantical objection to that

define semantics well that's not actually what semantics are actually

semantics are it's like dude do you have any do you want to even respond to me or are you just

his thesis is that i said nothing at all

if your thesis is that i don't have a political theory

when he came to debate i don't have a political theory

do you want to debate my political theory or do you not believe i have one if you don't believe i have one

why debate me

you know

why debate me on it

doesn't make sense

i couldn't find anything nice to say i was

really trying hard and i couldn't

because i just think he's so insufferable in every way thank you care appreciate this debate with such a clear demonstration of the anglo box

a mirial with the fifty did i not thank you for that yet thank you so much ma'am

i kind of uh didn't want to

you know my goal was to just be right have a rational debate

about the substance because it's not often

people

will debate about my political theory which i do take seriously and actually care about

so i didn't want to like you know

go crazy and start

yelling at ah and all that kind of shit because it's like

you know i actually take this s seriously

and if someone's out there who wants to actually

debate about it it's like i want to focus on the substance thank you captain os literally said he hates russians and assumes they're anti semitic because they're russian they were trying to get a rise out of you w us

yeah

no i i i uh

was very

i had it very easy in this debate because

yesterday something happened

i to tell you guys about

i spent like an hour or two

not an hour or two i spent several hours

uh going back to my writings and consulting my notes

because the actual book about political theory is something i'm still working on

pj thanks so much for the twenty gifted

um

and something happened that reminded me of my law school days

where i had insomnia for some fucking reason

and i

it's like it's like i was studying for the test

cramming it right before the test

but it wasn't about the debate

and i just wanted to brush up so i'd have a good grasp about political theory in particular

in the debate

but they so much ami

conmentitation on the eve of battle

based

i bet if i even went back and read that

long text

i am

yeah i think i make it clear like you know

he says all this is inessential to schmidtesus said partisan isship is a political alignment

you actually schooled presiding stdunday try to think he more than i did

i kind of wish i would have just said this because one back to reiended him oning back in reading what actually said thank you so much chris fosh's shirt was more interesting than mr sunday's deaf and here's here's what i would have said skated i would have said s

enter krl schmidt's theory of the partisan

partisanship is itself a political alignment regardless of

where internet

our words i'm going to send you to try to situate it on their

political spectrum

partisanship entails an actual political position

which means actual contestation for political power

the partisan goes down to the people repeating the origin of modern statehood

by returning it to its real rather than formal premises

i do think that is essential to a schmidt's usage of the word partisan

because what schmidt is describing

is how

the power behind statehood becomes this mobile active force

not

any longer established in a state

but welded by the partisan right

and i think maga does that for america

except instead of f

the violent basis of state power with

guns

it's the basis of the hegeminy

which is through information warfare yes

so maga

is a real contestation

or

political power

and

the basis of political power today

at least formal state power

it' iss somehow downstream

from hejemini

and the system of alignment

hegemony is more important

than actually formally

having guns for example hegemony is what

motivates people to

defend the violent power of the state it's more deep and fundamental

so i think that was my point

which of course

i didn't say

because

i was just responding to him

throughout the whole thing

i think

you know i need a better debate to debate opponent

i think i need a better debate opponent because he was not putting up a fight

he was just kind of sitting there i think sunday was kind of just

like um

you're not

following the rules dude i don't know you're doing

and what's going on like

you're just like basal ridiculous thank you so much i watch the debate because i'm in the united coc down but i'm confident that you defeated job at the vosh again indirectly yeah

see the problem is that sunday is kind of like

just relying upon this

established

reputation i have of being an unserious silly person

and he was hoping that would carry him through the whole debate

b these passive aggressive kind of

like all

what

like he just thought he wouldn't have to make an argument and it would be self evident

that because of my reputation i wasn't saying anything

with any substance

but i think for any neutral observer i'm confident at leastd fath they could see happy putting away il government thy all this all hash isse

if violence is substituted for happiness the result is the same

government

culture and business are now one

marshall all see luhan

but i'm so glad i was able to talk about

for example

how leftism is an establishment force

when it came to actually debate about substance i think i exacted

sunday submission almost unequivocally right

he

had to concede on a number of points that make me satisfied

not only with winning the debate but demonstrating and the

cultivating perhaps an interest in the study of marxism leninism

you know what my problem is guys when it comes to theory

if anyone is debating me on theory they have to acknowledge

yes i've said something

in that sense

someone who is really going to debate me

is going to be building off of my fory

because by acknowledging it

and responding to it you're acknowledging

that that it is making a novel point

of some kind

it's not really possible to respond

to me or debate me

without

acknowledging that i am saying something

worth consideration

and i think that's why it's difficult for people like sunday to debate me you have to

acknowledge that

i'm on to something

right you have to build off of it somehow

and

say ok you're right about this but here's where you really fuck up

but for you to say oh you're wrong about everything you don't have a point whatsoever

you're using words completely incorrectly

you can't get away with the

wh

sustaining that position

i think that's the problem like

but mak you me magician can't believe that guy had a ph d guess they're just giving them away now

it destroyed him so hard he had to start reading his chetlow

yeah i think that's sad

i wasn't reading the chat once

but thank you so much both di this feel like they ask yourself debate to you

yeah it kind of did

kind of did

it was just insufferable

down the line

i guys i will see you guys tomorrow

great debate great time

but i'll see you guys tomorrow

bye bye