My GROUNDBREAKING Political Theory

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

I died

all the time

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

Nothing Left to Say

[Music]

about

to say

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

out

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

foreign

fuck

ing heaven

[Music]

all right

[Music]

[Music]

ready

thank you

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

what is this low energy I'm seeing in

the chat

are You Ready for War

is this a shot that's ready for war

these gorillas Ready for War

I ain't gonna go to war with such low

energy huh how are you gonna March

millions and millions of miles

Awakening you

and teaching you first and foremost

first and foremost

shit

let's see those gorillas March let's see

those gorillas March ladies and

gentlemen I will tell you a secret I

will tell you a secret

the reason infrared will always be

unparalleled the reason infrared will

always be as powerful as a we are so

mighty

we make these accounts we make these

YouTube channels with millions of

subscribers tremble before our feet

because second thoughts audience will

never be as dedicated as this hakeem's

audience will never be as dedicated as

this not even boss not even Destiny's

audience will ever be as dedicated as

this

the future belongs to us and infrared is

indeed a future oriented Channel Marxism

leninism in the age of multipolarity and

the post-covered world we're here for

the future we're not here for the scraps

of the past we're not here for the

crumbs of the present we are here for

the future it is written in these stone

tablets of Destiny itself that we will

be victorious it is written

it is written that the future is ours

Victory Is Ours the future will belong

to us our enemies May Triumph in the

here and now they may appear bigger than

we are they may appear more relevant and

more prominent but this is the future

never doubt it never stop believing in

it it doesn't take how fucking

it doesn't matter how fucking long it

takes for the rest of the world to catch

up the message is here the most

cutting-edge philosophy thank you so

much the king zeros those Cutting Edge

thinking the most Cutting Edge

contributions to political Theory and

ideology are right here thank you so

much old man of the Woods

let me tell you guys something and this

is a big theme of today's stream I

believe

we will shape the future of politics and

ideology in this country I believe we

will shape the future of politics we

will make such an irreversible dent on

the fabric of American politics our name

the name of infrared will be known and

be immortalized in the annals of History

I believe

I believe this

I believe this now many of you may ask

you may ask Oz

where's the conceit come from where does

this conviction come from where where

does it come from that you believe this

so strongly I believe it so strongly

ladies and gentlemen

because I've made sense of it by means

of theory I have presented a theory that

I view is so groundbreaking so

unprecedented

that any future Marxism will have will

have to reckon with it and these are

bald bold claims coming on my part and I

am completely completely confident in

saying them

just in what you can read over from my

Maga communism sub stack alone

there is an unprecedented connecting of

dots that is there and if you see how

coherent it is if you see how fucking

simple it is and I'm gonna do that this

stream it's gonna be a by the way guys

this I'm gonna say this is probably

going to be one of the most important

streams in the history of infrared in my

view this stream right here is going to

be one of the most important streams I

ever fucking do right so for the lucky

ones that have made it here that are

here this is like if you were here in

one of my early intro to dialectics

whatever streams remember those early

philosophy streams if you're here for

this you are going to get a really

really

rare level of clarity and just I'm I am

committed to making you guys get it and

understand this right

so first of all

why am I doing this I'm just going to

cut this cut to the chase a lot of you

basically there's two types of people

I've seen who have read the Manga

communism sub stack in its entirety

people who can kind of in good faith

they can glance there's something there

and they can agree with a lot of the

points but the whole coherent

theoretical vision and contribution is

not very clear right there's a lot of

guerrillas who don't know how to read

this sub stack because it just draws

from so many reverences and uses all

these words that may not be familiar GK

because I didn't actually make this sub

stack for beginners I didn't say oh if

you're like a dummy here read the sub

stack you actually have to have some

level of Education already to understand

the sub stack and I'm I'm kind of

becoming more aware of that right

and then on the other hand my enemies

because I I shared on Twitter I was like

because I was gone from Twitter when I

released that subject so I was like all

of your criticisms of the modern

communism are already here in the sub

stack right

and then a lot of people the enemies

were like no the word salad it means

nothing it's a bunch of meaningless

gibberish so in this stream anyone in

good faith who's just like you know what

I want to learn I want to in good faith

see for myself if this is just a bunch

of jibber jabber meaningless stuff or

holy shit this guy's on to something

he's at least made some connections that

are are probably significant these are

significant connections with telling

implications about the future of what

communism is and what

applied Marxism leninism should be in

this country right

so I'm going to begin this with with a

level of conceit I'm going to begin to

stream the level of concede I'm going to

go ahead and say I has Aldine am a

groundbreaking political theorist I am

an actual political theorist no one

should be

referencing my name without adding

political theorist I am literally a

political theorist who should have their

own Wikipedia page just because of my

contributions to political Theory now

I'm writing a book you guys aren't

familiar with this about the October

Revolution and about all of my theory of

politics will be there

and that's where it's going to be all um

more condensed in text

as far as like really really

developing coherently and consistently

the theory the reason I'm going to tell

you guys the reason I went back to

zizek's sex and the failed absolute is

because I need to go brush up more on

his

specific specific connection between

lacon's logic of the signifier and

quantum mechanics right or modern

physics whatever you want to call it so

that's why I've been reading x the sex

and the failed absolute I've already

read Helen kazuponzo's what is sex I've

already read like almost all of Zizek

before then but this is like his

lightest big work I didn't read it

so I'm going back and reviewing that

it's what I've been doing and then I've

also decided to put a pause on my latest

sub stack which

although I got I went places with this

new sub stack the red pill Marxism one I

don't think

I'm going to be working on that sub

stack until I

maybe wrap up my book or make sure you

guys understand the Maga communism one

because from what I'm gathering a lot of

people don't understand it if you don't

understand the Maga communism sub stack

how am I gonna make a red pill Marxism

sub stack right

so I want to fucking at least do this

stream before I go back to the red pill

marks or some sub stack because I want

you guys to really understand the one I

did before I don't want to just make a

sub stack that only I understand because

it believe it or not guys it's really

depressing when I make these sub stacks

and I'm like oh my God it's going to

change everything and then like nobody

fucking gets it right

and that is really discouraging to me it

that people don't see the bigger picture

of where this is coming from right

so I want to do that with this stream

just so I'm more confident to do the red

pill Marxism one but in that way thank

you so much flyer the hermeneutic circle

tightens to a laser point

just so I'm certain

you know that the the one I do

the red pill Marxism one at least you

guys are going to have something to work

with to be able to understand it very

few people understood the Maga communism

sub stack all right now before I get

into it I want to talk about my

thumbnails because everyone always loves

to talk about my haters do I mean they

talk about my thumbnails

I am not using AI to make myself look

like a gear chat I'm just literally

putting

I could show you the picture I feed to

the mid journey I am I just show them

one picture of myself and then I add

something like

um sorry

shit in my fucking throat

I had something like

philosopher that's what I did for this

one I was just like philosopher

surrounded by fire and it didn't give me

the fire but it gave me that whatever I

don't actually actually like oh make it

look like a giga chat make the chin

bigger make the cheeks more pronounced

that is what it fucking does

automatically and if you don't fucking

believe me I will give you the picture I

fed to the AI and see if you can get a

fucking uh an AI version of that that

doesn't look like a massive Giga chat

now I'm not saying I am a massive Giga

chat in real life in terms of how I look

but the AI just naturally exaggerates my

actual features because believe it or

not

I'm sorry if you are going to

cartoonishly represent me uh it is going

to be a fucking Giga chat unless you're

going to like one for one

represent exactly how I fucking look

like yeah the AI is gonna be okay this

vaguely resembles

a very masculine face

in in terms of like a video game or this

a this art that I'm seeing digital art

that I have seeing on the internet the

AI fucking if you don't literally I will

show you I will screenshot my

mid-journey work and you could see that

every time I input my fucking profile it

gives me Giga chats not my fucking fault

okay

I'm not going out of my way to make

myself look better it does that by

itself now if you want to know the real

reason it does that because it's very

rare for digital art to be of mediocre

people digital art usually shows very

attractive looking people right or very

pronounced exaggerated features so me

who am yes you wanted me to take a test

uh testosterone level test I am a very

high testosterone male with very

masculine features like look at my

fucking brow very masculine features

right giant beard very masculine nose

eyes whatever the fuck right

just very naturally the the mid journey

is going to say that and they're going

to like dial it up to the max right

because that's just the vibe I give off

so anytime you see this retarded shit oh

be this is probably what it fucking does

I don't even you guys are the ones who

also do it too you guys make air to me

it does the same fucking thing I'm sorry

for all the fucking weak soy cuckolds

who are jealous that when you put your

shit into mid-journey you look like a

fat ugly bitch I'm sorry to tell you

you're just not as much of a man as me

and that's just what the AI thinks the

AI has decided that you are less of a

man than me and it's not my fault that

you're jealous it's not my fault you're

angry about it you're a fucking ugly

low-t bitch and it's not my fault okay

it's this is what the AI fucking thinks

it's not what I think it's what the AI

thinks all right anyway guys let's guess

what matters thank you so much you are

beautiful genuine compliment love the

channel thank you so much Gala I

appreciate you so much thank you so much

anyway guys let's get into the meat and

potatoes and the substance of uh the

theory because I'm gonna back up what I

said that I has Aldine

am a political theorist and I am

prepared to back that up directly

for you by the end of the stream you're

gonna see it I'm gonna make sure you see

it but to begin

I want to just give you a synopsis of

Maga communism

the basic idea of Maga communism the sub

stack

is not that I'm trying to synthesize the

left and the right it's not that I'm

trying to synthesize communism with

nationalism it's not it's not it's not

about any of that it's actually more

about

developing theoretically and

interrogating the foundations of modern

politics itself and what implications

Maga has for that

and moreover what does that have to do

with Communism so that's what I really

develop I go to the roots and when you

go to the roots of

we're getting into it now guys and I'm

going to be using Microsoft Paint to

help you understand things I'm going to

be talking about a lot of the theorists

I'm coming from I'm drawing from

um the philosophers the ideas

including ones that you should probably

be familiar with by now

um

modern politics so let's begin with Maga

communism right

so what is modern politics

what is modern politics well we're going

to go ahead and get out Microsoft Paint

because we're going to be using this as

a as a visual aid and yes this is an MS

paint stream and yes this stream is

going to help you understand

the theory behind the Maga communism sub

stack and by

unless you're in bad faith it will be

very clear to you so let's ask the basic

question

man what the fuck is this

okay

what is modern politics

what is modern politics

modern politics differs

gay

I'm gonna just give you some features of

modern politics before I explain the

root cause the basis the origin the

metaphysics of modern politics just so

you can familiarize yourself with modern

politics and we're going to be using the

Middle Ages by comparison

so

so let's make this smaller actually

so

in the Middle Ages you had divine right

of kings

in most history politics is either a

matter of chance

pure will of fate

um

coming from God

let's capitalize God so we don't be

Blasphemous

Etc okay

Okay so

politics and for most of History

is

not that deep so to speak

not that deep which means The Sovereign

that you have for most of history is not

because of some contrived premise that

this is the universal truth of all

reality it's something that

the sovereign

is disposed of

ontologically passive so what does that

mean ontologically passive means there's

a seamless continuity

between the Sovereign and what is

considered the whole of being in nature

and the cosmos and God the king or the

Emperor or the Divine is just as pretty

much seamless and natural as plants

animals forests and whatever and there's

just this kind of

um

let's say

cosmological

metaphysical astrological

Etc

hierarchy

politics is seamlessly part of it

so for example

um politics fits within this kind of

this is more like the Pagan world this

is the world of um

the Middle Ages and this is also the

world of the Asiatic motor production

more or less right

it's not that you you don't really have

a question of

legitimacy you don't really have a

question of what is the scientific basis

of the state and of politics politics is

seamlessly considered part of the whole

of being The Sovereign is at least it's

not something unnatural it's not

something that sticks out as a sore

thumb so you don't have this question of

oh what gives you the right to be the

king well no nothing does necessarily

right

even in the case of the divine right of

kings that is something that acquires

more precedence sorry more importance in

terms of its emphasis in the later part

of the Middle Ages because the truth is

the political power is not even

considered contingent at that point

right political power is owing itself to

these otherworldly forces these things

that are outside of our will that's the

most important part here outside of our

will so if someone is a sovereign that

must be the will of God that must be the

will of nature that must be something up

to chance right but it's not considered

the result of any intentional will

most most importantly

politics

reality does not stem from Individual

will so that's the most important part

right everyone considers themselves this

kind of passive vessel

as far as politics is concerned for the

realization of some reality that is

being driven by something unfathomably

you know beyond

our human proximity it's the will of the

Gods it's nature whatever right

so

fuck fuck this shit good morning

Revolution

thank you so much R.I.P appreciate you

thank you so much

in modern politics

um in modern politics

the state is universal and abstract

that means the state

is universal and abstract

metaphysically speaking

metaphysically

there is no hierarchy or a great chain

now I'm not even just talking I'm going

to clarify what I mean here but uh

metaphysically there's no hierarchy or

great chain

there is an indiscriminate

we understood

reality of the states now what does this

mean

an indiscriminate sorry an

indiscriminate

um

state power

that

knows no distinction between any

particular things at all

the state

hold on let's just go like

B right let's just go order these one

two

the state is Ace

object of scientific knowledge

okay now this is very important right

this part's gonna be kind of long that

explains you I'm trying to give you a

broad idea of what is meant by the word

modern politics right

official Varden I'm losing brain cells

okay if you know what if you're losing

brain cells you can come on my fucking

uh stream right now

and you can what about this is

incoherent to you so I can help your

stupid fucking dumb ass in particular

understand it maybe you're just a stupid

bitch because this should be really

fucking simple at this point right guys

how difficult is this to understand so

far right

how difficult is this to understand so

far I mean if you have a vague

understanding if you have like the most

minimal level of Education you could at

least make a simplification in your head

and go yeah but for modern politics you

just have the great chain of being it

all comes from God it's divine right and

now it's modern politics it seems like

this state is a power that's an object

of knowledge somehow doesn't just come

from God it's somehow contingent and

based in something that's not

necessarily given right from God or

nature or anything else it's this

alienated power right how hard is that

to fucking understand

this is just it's just like it's just so

frustrating like I'm trying to

communicate something very simple and I

still have these stupid fucks sit here

and like how does this word sound it's

just too hard to fucking understand I am

developing this I'm using multiple

bullet points to give you a vague

understanding of something that should

already be clear by now right but this

is for the especially dumb people who

really need it to be broken down for

them okay

state is an object of scientific

knowledge

Machiavelli now

aldouser considered Machiavelli to be

the first materialist why would you

think alduser considers Machiavelli to

be the first materialist

because Machiavelli is trying to

actually in his work the prince

scientifically understand the basis of

state power this I'm just simplifying

shit for you by the way and this is what

this stream is for is a simplification I

could get into the intricate details and

I want to be more nuanced thoughts

doesn't matter we're here for the dumb

people who can't understand the Maga

communism sub stack to have a vague

understanding of what where we're coming

from so before Machiavelli the state is

just it's owes itself to chance or it's

to God whatever then Machiavelli

develops this notion of a science of

political power a political science

right

and according to Al thus air

that is

that is materialistic that's a form of

materialism right because it's trying to

ground the basis of state power into

some kind of like materially accessible

scientific reality instead of some

sacral vague reality of the divine right

and so on and so forth right

okay now let's um

before

before we there's a lot of words I'm

using so quickly

what is metaphysics because I have to

take into account a lot of you guys

don't necessarily know what metaphysics

is

so to basically break down what

metaphysics is and again this is a

simplification just so you guys can

have something to draw from very vaguely

it's a simplification right

metaphysics is more or less

um

it's

I don't want to say the deeper reality

because it's such a horrible

simplification but it kind of It kind of

vaguely is that right metaphysics is

just kind of referring to these deeper

laws

underlying reality that are somehow not

accessible by means of the empirical

scientific method or some kind of

um deductive

rationalist philosophy right

metaphysics is basically referring to

the true nature

of well put it this way

it's related related to ontology

ontology's dealing with the nature of

being right now Heidegger will make a

specific distinction between ontology

and metaphysics because for Heidegger

metaphysics is referring to the science

of particular foreclosed ontologies

right ontologies that are just taken for

granted but then related to each other

sorry ontologies that are taking for

granted

um and then metaphysics is kind of

dealing with how that specific ontology

manifests itself in the world how it

relates to a given world right

but um

damn this shit is frustrating

okay do you guys want this stream or not

ones in the chat if you just don't want

to fucking watch this shit ones in the

chat if you just you you don't you don't

you don't think you can be um

you don't even think you have a chance

to learn this because it's like

because it's I'm just getting really

pissed off because there's so many

fucking people who bitch and whine all

the fucking time about Maga communism

but all of a sudden when I'm here to

fucking simplify to you what nobody you

don't want to fucking

you know I mean

okay

fuck's sake man

shit is frustrating Man by the way the

last stream got totally deleted so

someone tried to save the stream because

YouTube just fucking deleted the last

one they gave me three minutes they left

three minutes of the stream up they

deleted the fucking Rest by the way if

you're wondering where that one went but

I did make a post on that

all right

all right okay so back to what is modern

politics right modern politics I'm just

gonna instead of trying to give you like

the one definition of what this is I'm

bait so okay before we get this

metaphysics

so

the metaphysics of politics for example

would refer to the deeper

deeper

the deeper

reality of politics

Beyond

politics itself

so for example the way

the way politics

is based on in nature being

um

a certain logic of being Etc thank you

so much PJ appreciate you they're not

chatting because they're focusing

intently on what you're saying okay

all right so that would be an example of

how that when I talk about the

metaphysics of politics or political

metaphysics that's what I'm referring to

I'm just referring to the reality of

politics that's beyond politics itself

it's the reality

that precedes politics out of which

politics emerges and comes from right

so that's what I'm trying to get at

there okay

now modern politics

how did the transition from pre-modern

politics to Modern politics occur now

this is where things can get pretty

interesting actually

this is where things can get pretty

interesting

um is metaphysics is simply Beyond

materiality no not necessarily no

metaphysics is just usually referring to

again all you have to do is in your head

just think the deeper reality now it's

there's much more to it than that it's

not adequate but if you need to us a

quick you know mental simplification

to work with what do you mean based in

nature

um so for example if someone was trying

to say like

the metaphysics of statehood is based

basically I think Heidegger is probably

the best reference to draw from here

because it's really the difference

between metaphysics and

ontology is kind of like

ontology is a specific

um

is dealing with the nature of being

metaphysics

takes that specific nature for granted

and

um

establishes a logic

creates a logic based on it

so it's kind of like that right

it's kind of like that like specific

type I don't want to get too much into

it it's really fucking simple right

so far do you guys want me to dwell more

on this shit metaphysics and ontology or

is that clear to you because

there's so much ground we have to cover

I'm gonna trust me we're gonna get

through it but

we're gonna have a Heidegger stream

again I I the thing is I've dedicated a

lot of time to Heidi group before though

right if you've watched the streams

before you should be somewhat familiar

with Heidi were already right

okay

metaphysics is a species of ontology

um

no it's kind of like metaphysics is

where ontology is bracketed is what I

would say right ontology is put to the

side you don't question that

but you just take it for granted and

then so you're dealing with particular

relations you're dealing with particular

logic of the ontology without going to

the beginning of you know the beginning

of the ontology itself like how does

this specific

way of relating to being emerged well

metaphysics doesn't deal with that

metaphysics takes that for granted and

it's pretty much kind of dwelling with

the logic of that now

first of all Marxism

has a different definition

but related definition of metaphysics I

have to say this okay

I have to emphasize this because there

might be some retards we're like I read

the CC CCP pamphlet and it's all yeah

because Marxism tends to have a

different definition of metaphysics

which is related it's just less specific

so in Marxism in Marxism something is

metaphysical

when it is not based in any kind of

scientific

knowledge

anything knowable by scientific or

practical means

so

something metaphysical is static

one-sided permanent never changing and

never subject to criticism

or any active

um 100.

so in Marxism the word metaphysics is

related to in this way because

um the basic idea basic

idea is that metaphysics

is the reification of thought

onto reality

into a form of reality so in metaphysics

you basically have a Prejudice or a

presumption or some kind of ideological

worldview that's not subjected to any

kind of

test in any kind of ways it's just not

tested whatsoever it's it's not ever

contingent it's just a given it's it's

Immortal it's permanent it's there right

and it's some kind of idea you confuse

for reality

which it's almost like idolatry it's

like an idol instead of the real God

it's an idol of God right metaphysics is

like instead of the real reality which

you can only relate to by dialectical

means by actively and practically

relating to and intervening in it you

basically reify reification by the way

kind of means to

think of like uh turn it into a statue

right make it something static

something given right

um the basic idea is that with

metaphysics

you're dealing with this ideology right

or this Prejudice whatever you want it's

this thing that cannot be subjected to

the mercy of material reality

yeah something eternalized that's that's

another way of putting it right that's

the basic Marxist definition of

metaphysics now that is not necessarily

how I'm using the word but they're

related for reasons you can see because

in the case of metaphysics

you're basically dealing with

um

you're dealing with you know specific

logic of being being drawn out into some

kind of uh

privileged medium by which reality is

accessed right well the reason you could

say that's idealistic is because it's a

specific logic of being

meaning it's a specific form or thought

of being right an idea of being

so they're very much related but they're

not necessarily the same thing because

but but metaphysics

also Loosely refer to

some

any

type of on

tological quality right you can also

usually refer to that so you should not

be very strict about how you use this

word it's used in multiple different

ways there's a specific Marxist

vocabulary and vernacular when it comes

to the word of metaphysics there's um a

broader one as well and I'm kind of

drawing from the broader one in this

piece

um

so don't make too much of a fuss of the

word metaphysics right

so

you you understand the metaphysics thing

now right

so how does the transition from

pre-modern politics

do politics occurs

Cartesian well okay

aside from Material factors

let's begin with Cartesian metaphysics I

think therefore I am right now this is a

form of metaphysics why is this a

metaphysics because all of being is

reduced to the form of its thought or to

its the the extent to which it is

thinkable right

thinking is the only proof of being

that's Descartes kind of modern

revolution in metaphysics and from this

you kind of get the scientific method

and you get all these other things

unique to Western or Anglo-Saxon

modernity According to which

reality

reducible to the way we

the extent to which it can be known

accessed

accessed

thought of Etc right that's kind of what

you're dealing with in the case of

Descartes so that's that opens up

everything right the baconian

materialists Francis Bacon Thomas Hobbes

they're all part of this same movement

right they're part of the same Trend in

history

which is dealing with the same kind of

reduction so vaguely

um

okay

vaguely how does the transition from

pre-modern politics to politics occur

right well what happens broadly speaking

now there's a lot of theorists like

um

to understand that one has to understand

the transition from

pre-modernity to modernity right

because they parallel and they follow

the same logic now someone like Bruno

LaTour

will say that the origins of modernity

lie in a specific

strain of

Western Christian

heretical

agnosticism

Etc like this esoteric mystical Str I

mean there's some truth to that and then

that's also where if you want to get

paranoid and you want to get

conspiratorial I mean

conspiratorial

idea that the modern world is based

based in

came about

via mysticism

called

uh John D whatever I mean that's all

very interesting and it's all very true

right but since we're materialists we

want to be more specific than this this

but this is a very I mean this is really

interesting if you wanna

pursue this right

um

you know

so there's that

just letting you know that's that's also

there I just want to give some brevity

to how much modernity changes everything

right so there's all this kind of

lovecraftian question of the origins of

modernity are scary they come from this

this extreme abruption this extreme

break from the whole past everything in

the past right

so

um well regards to what he has to say

right

[Music]

um

what matters

in understanding the transition

based specific don't forget to mention

Francis Bacon with John D

yeah of course thank you so much PJ

appreciate you

um

a specific schism

[Music]

resulting from the fall

what is the Fall by the way

what is the fall

John Milton Paradise Lost you guys

familiar with John Milton's work

Paradise Lost if you want to how if you

want to understand the fall that gives

rise to modernity which is really just a

way of responding to this fall right

John Milton's Paradise Lost is a pretty

good introduction to that right

Paradise Lost was just kind of talking

about the fall of

the Garden of Eden

sorry the fall of paradise because of

the circumstances around the temptation

of Adam and Eve

yeah eating the fruit of tree I mean

that is a such a seminally important

text but I'm gonna just have to rely on

that you guys may be Vaguely Familiar

with it because I'm not going to get

into it here we don't have time but if

you want to understand where I'm just

kind of trying to build a network of

associations in your head

before I can really

light that light bulb in your head so

you can go aha right so I just want you

to have these vague associations we're

not really going to get into these in

particular again we don't have unlimited

time right

okay so the fall

self-consciousness that is a um

very

uh close very close yes you can but what

comes before self-consciousness what is

what has to happen for you to become

self-conscious right

the enlightenment

is a response to the fall

the enlightenment is a response to the

fall so what are these people Awakening

to what is The Enlightenment actually

about well it's a response to something

that had to have

that had to have been Fallen beforehand

right

what the truth of the Middle Ages the

fall the fall is the secret of the Dark

Ages there's no such thing as the Dark

Ages the Middle Ages were not a dark age

uh feudal Europe

that for most of us it was not a Dark

Age this all historians will tell you

it's a bunch of bullshit it's a bunch of

malarkey

the Dark Ages is a concept

enlightened thinkers used to

um

to explain the fall right

so

La Tour was right we were never modern

shut the fuck up Jeffrey you fucking

idiot you want to say bye bye and get

the fuck out of here you want to get in

my VC and debate about whether the

concept of modernity has conceptual

validity or

any practical validity then get in my VC

and debate it don't don't give me your

fucking dumb snarky comments If You're

So Satisfied with modernity having no

conceptual value just fucking leave

right

so the Dark Ages is a concept

enlightened thinkers used to explain the

fall now let's kind of focus

specifically on the example of

what I use in the Maga communism text

so

in my text

an example of the Fall

I use is the fall of any legitimate form

of sovereignty

seamless

unquestioned state power

turns into a malign sovereignty

in the English Civil War

so that's the example I use in the Maga

communism text

and that's really going to be the

example that is relevant for this stream

and for understanding the Maga communism

text

so the English Civil English Civil War

right

the sovereign

Monarch is no longer legitimate

according to

the logic of feudalism itself

religion succession

Etc that's one issue that is what that's

an example of the Fall

right

the fall is a type of inconsistency or

contradiction

now we're just gonna very we're just

doing this for purpose of of

simplification the Fall here is just a

type of inconsistency or a contradiction

now the first form of that is the way in

which the Sovereign Monarch is no longer

legitimate according to the logic of

feudalism itself religion succession

that much is very clear in the English

Civil War

and I refer to this I refer to this as a

heartbreak right why is it a heartbreak

because I want I use that word to help

you understand that

it wasn't as if you have a monarch who's

a tyrant and then oh all of a sudden we

just we just became enlightened and now

we're we we don't want monarchy anymore

we want democracy

so

the idiotic liberal

democracy Believers will have you think

that one day people just became

enlightened

and decided

things are bad

uh the people should rule

in reality right

there had to have been a devastatingly

disappointing heartbreak

heartbreak that's tore people away from

recognizing or

respecting a legitimate form

of sovereignty

before these

modern theories of politics

could be developed

which means it's a heartbreak because

for the most part

either you're not necessarily able to

think about it as something that's even

questioned in the first place you don't

even have the vocabulary to do that or

you know the king is supposed to be the

leader of all of his subjects and it's

just feudal system whatever you want to

call it right and

it's what you consider natural it's what

you consider normal right and then all

of a sudden nothing makes sense anymore

right

so remember the origins the origins of

Descartes right sorry Descartes

Descartes was was a guy

who wanted to be a devout Christian

the chaos of reformation

Calvinism Etc led him to a

scary question

what if everything

all of my religious beliefs

are the result of a demon or Satan

lying to me

how can I know what is authentically

true or not that's where Descartes came

from right now how does that happen

how does it happen that this doubt even

gets opened up for someone like

Descartes

how does that happen

right

well

I'll explain it

I'll explain exactly how it happens

thank you so much John Kelly appreciate

it

us I love your content but I have to

disagree with you when it comes to the

Dark Age myth the world posts the fall

of the Western Roman Empire saw a

significant reduction in Quality of Life

Education hygiene and overall

technology.watch Mariana's video on the

subject

thank you so much John Kelly appreciate

you man

thank you so much

um yeah I mean I don't know I've I've

heard conflicting things to say the

least so I'm not exactly sure

what I would say to that but I've I

could just tell you I've heard I've

definitely heard very conflicting things

as far as the validity of the notion of

a Dark Ages not not to say that the

post-roman Empire there wasn't a fall

but

I just think it's not

if there was a dark ages that wasn't the

Dark Ages that the Enlightenment

thinkers were responding to period right

because by the time of the Enlightenment

the enlightenment right

the the Renaissance had already occurred

and so on and so forth right so I'm not

sure what is I don't really have blind

to this idea that the enlightenment

returned to where ancient Rome was I'm

pretty sure

you know

so yeah

um so to be clear

okay well let's get to what has to

happen for Descartes to start radically

doubting whether his beliefs come from

did you hear that soul today he was

making his own party he's branding

himself as a pat soap now LOL I think

it's called patriotic social appreciate

the five I you know it's not really I

don't really care right let's focus on

words they're talking about here

all right so

okay

so how does this happen

because

radical doubt Descartes radical doubt

stems from

the fact that the institution of the

church

something people took for granted

or you know let's say

over a millennia right

suddenly became the seat of the

Antichrist

for example so there's a lot of this

stemming from the Protestant Reformation

right the fall a lot of the Fall really

stems from the Protestant Reformation

now does it come from the Protestant

Reformation specifically well

no because then oh Martin Luther is to

blame well

again you want to get into the

conspiratorial route then you talk about

this parallel thing going on with

gnosticism and the cathars and so on and

so forth and there's a lot of

interesting strange things going on

there but needless to say something did

happen internal to the Catholic Church

can't be blamed on any external outside

forces right

but the reason Descartes is having this

radical doubt in the first place

AKA a heartbreak right so when I use the

word heartbreak it's just this kind of

concept that I use to try and explain

this radical abruption from this

seamless you know trust and faith in

some kind of tradition right to this

radical point of Doubt right heartbreak

Arc break is the source of doubt now all

of you who are have ever been in a

relationship in high school probably

it's the origin story of every man on

earth right every man on Earth their

villain origin story is that they had a

heartbreak during High School

which changed everything for them so if

you want to really understand this I'm

giving you a lot of ways to understand

it women are the same way women become

feminist a lot of the time because they

got cheated on or something happened

where their boyfriend devastatingly

disappointed them or their father

disappointed them something like that

and then they become feminists and then

you know it's so both men and women

the rat even even on a very intimate

personal level the origin of radical

doubt comes from some kind of heartbreak

disappointment in your parents and your

significant other whatever right

well history is also that simple

um radical doubt when it comes to

religious institutions and when it comes

to political forms of sovereignty and

things on a broader level

at least in the story of modernity can

be closely

understood on a similar to be on a

similar level right

um again I'm not really getting into the

origins of the Protestant Reformation

again there is a very specific parallel

going on here

as far as the rise of capitalism and so

on and so forth I'm not getting into

that right now because we are focusing

on we're honing in on politics just

politics and such right and political

metaphysics that's what we're focusing

on right

so that's I want to give you I'm giving

you guys a lot of vague

associations in your head to begin with

to understand the transition from Prima

journey to modernity at least so you can

understand something happened something

happened right

that changed everything

now what is this something that happens

now has here and the infrared Collective

here we have a special theory of lost

enlightenment

the Mongol Factor

now we

um infrared

Canon theory is that

the universalism

devastation

and um sorry

Devastation universalism

and uniting of the world

that accompanies the Mongols the last

nomadic

the last uh nomadic

um the last

who finalized the dialectic of sedentary

and nomadic

right

is the true origin of Western modernity

so this is the idea of Mongol modernity

that comes from infrared right which I I

is is you know it is tangentially even

kind of directly related to Maga

communism and the manga communism sub

stack right because I'm gonna explain to

you where this malign Sovereign all that

kind of stuff comes from right

the first Universal state

is the Mongol State it's the first

Universal state right

um in Hegel sense

now that's what I'm going to get to here

and this is like a this is too big of a

fucking red pill right this red pill we

were supposed to do a Mongol modernity

video last year we never got to it it's

such an ambitious project to make I mean

I have to write a book on this first or

some shit it's just like this has been a

running in like infrared lore for years

this is like our this is one of our like

big

secret contributions

that it's like if you're an infrared

Freemason you you understand this

it's very much a kind of esoteric

and the reason it says what's here

because it's not been developed overtly

into any kind of like

it hasn't been developed yet and it

publicly or anything we have a lot of

leads and stuff but we haven't like

coherently squared the circle and like

really fleshed it out but

yeah

this is definitely something

that

like this is here from the beginning

when we launched the channel this is

here from the very fucking beginning

right when we first launched the channel

of infrared it's here right

um so we're keep that in your mind

though right the Lost enlightenment idea

right

the Mongols materially laid the

foundation for modernity

while the West merely subjectively

articulated

what the Mongols did in material reality

the West

Drew out the consequences of the Mongol

Revolution

Theory the theory is that Western

scientific innovation

thermodynamics the steam engine all all

Western materialism all of that science

all that stuff Western

um political theories universalism it

all is just subjectively drawing out the

consequences of this kind of Mongol

Revolution right

um

so that's

um and then the Venetian connection

the Venetian connection

right

Italian city-states and the Mongol later

gunpowder

new world was discovered to circumvent

uh Mongol trade routes

Now monopolized by Ottomans Etc right

okay

so that's all very esoteric secret lore

that we're not gonna get into right but

um

but I want you to keep it in your mind

because it's actually relevant

that's actually relevant right

okay

so

um yeah this it's a you can go down a

whole Rabbit Hole in terms of

understanding the origins of Western

modernity can't bot

uh edberg

others have

logo they've all kind of done more than

I have I recommend them when it comes to

if you want to really dig your nose into

like what the fuck what is the origin of

the modern world right anyway guys we're

kind of focusing on the manga communism

thing okay so specifically when it comes

to Modern Politics the two

the two

ways the old

the transformation

of traditional sovereignty into malign

sovereignty

so okay to recap right internal

inconsistency

Reformation

English Civil War

yada yada yada right

so there's the internal inconsistency

right then there's the um

inconsistency with modern subjectivity

which is you know

uh Rousseau

law I'm not spelling that correct

that Rena notion of

uh human rights

Rights of Man social contract theory

innate Liberty

man's rights to Liberty

yada yada yada

temper ten

from throne in response to heartbreak

okay so basically there's two ones that

I outlined in the sub stack right

there's one is that internally The

Sovereign can't really

justify itself even according to the

traditional ways of legitimating itself

that's kind of like

you know the circumstance of the English

Civil War and then you have the

inconsistency with modern subjectivity

you know the whole thing that oh the

king is illegitimate because that we

didn't enter into a social contract with

them the king is illegitimate because

you know the king is violating our

rights the Rights of Man the king is a

tyrant the king

um is

extinguishing our Liberty this is not a

legitimate government because the only

legitimate government can be a

government of the people

reflecting the general will right let me

add that General will

okay so that's the French Revolution

French Revolution right

so there those are the two kinds of ways

in which the transformation of

traditional sovereignty into malign

sovereignty occurs right so then

basically you have the two forms two

forms of statehood

modern Universal statehood

French Revolution you know French

Revolution French Republic

liberal democracy

liberal democracy culminating in

American unipolar human rights

New World Order right

malign sovereignty

now that one I'm not going to give you

examples for because the first one

should be easy to understood but there's

this kind of this schism

the Schism of state power right there's

a Schism that occurs right the Schism of

stage power happens between the

legitimate kind of state a modern

Universal state right which recognizes

the equal rights of everyone it's an

indiscriminately Universal State you

know um

all are equal before the law the uh rule

of the law and so on and so on the basic

formalism modern Universal

formalist state right it's a formalist

state it's based on the dead letter of

the law right

whatever even in terms of common law

by the time the judge hits his hammer

it it uh it functions in the same way as

a as a dead letter right

okay so this is what we're dealing with

in terms of

the legitimate formalist statehood right

now

the the idea I kind of want to get to

here

by the way

um before I get into alliance don't

worry I'm going to get into my line

sovereignty or sovereignty right don't

worry I'm going to get into it thank you

so much PJ people on the right will want

to draw a strong distinction between

Locke and Rousseau

um I'm not as interested in that for

reasons I'll probably get to now right

here right but um

now

there is I want you to get this idea in

your head one universal

State there's one universal State

divides into left wing and right wing

political orientations

okay

now this needs to be strongly emphasized

okay this needs to be strongly

emphasized okay

it needs to be strongly emphasized that

the left and the right both belong to

the continuum

one political

the political Spectrum

Spectrum

of the same modern Universal state

okay that's so important to understand

okay before I can explain to you my line

sovereignty I need to explain to you

that both the left wing and right-wing

political orientations

emerge in relation to one universal

State one universal modern State okay

the modern Universal state

um

is abstractly universal

formalistic

formalistic

um

rule of law

indiscriminate the four particular

citizens

corresponding to Marx's

Universal Labor exchange value

Etc

company modern capitalism okay

no I bet you didn't make that connection

right so all these features of the

modern Universal state in terms of the

law and in terms of right it's a direct

parallel to Marx's what Marx is

describing as you know the universality

of exchange value exchange value is

indifferent to use value right exchange

value is universal it's indifferent to

the particular form of use value it's

universally commensurable 10 coats of

linen is equal to whatever 10 yards of

linen are equal to two coats or whatever

the fuck Mark says

the same thing is true when it comes to

the emergence of the modern they share

the same object of of modernity right

at the the modern abstraction

corresponding to modernity right

so that much should be very clear right

um anyway okay so just so you can

understand the modern State okay

so

uh

what about malign sovereignty what is

the malign sovereignty factor of this

right well

for one

for one

after

modern Politics the ancient regime

is seen as a malign sovereignty bet you

weren't expecting that huh

after modern Politics the ancient is

seen as a malign sovereignty

the tyranny of the Dark Ages

the tyranny of the Dark Ages yes so

malign sovereignty emerges as this

excess

so how do we understand this right

fuck fuck no fuck I have to delete this

all this has to be deleted

all right

you know what we'll just work from here

fuck it

fuck it fuck it fuck it we'll just work

from here

okay

all right

tyranny of the Dark Ages right

um

the malign sovereignty

malign sovereignty

is every form of sovereignty that cannot

be legitimated

Within

thank you

by modern politics

or within modern politics it is in

excess

it is an excess over the complete

modernization of politics

there is an aspect of statehood

that remains as that

continues to exist as an indivisible

remainder okay

so this is

fuck what is this is it not bolded or

okay

all right

so

malign sovereignty

is associated first with the ancient

regime

now how do I explain this

The Gangsta King

The Gangsta King all right let's have

fun guys let me explain I want to

traumatize you into knowledge okay the

gangster King

the gangster

King don't give a fuck about

these whack ass political

theorists like Rousseau hot sorry lock

or any of that dumb ass shit

the gangst the king

is just the King by convention don't

need to be legitimate

Justified just his just exists based

and shit makes sense

it's normal

the enlightened are seething hard the

gangster King okay

the gangster King

that's the first malign Sovereign that's

the first malign Sovereign okay who is

the Gangsta King

who is the Gang

The Gangsta King okay the gangster King

just refers to

an irreducible and indivisible path of

sovereignty that resists

um that resists

uh what do you call this

um

being domesticated

by scientific knowledge

it can't be be reduced to Modern

knowledge sentiment or thought it is

it's this natural aspect of state power

that

X

somehow exists out there in reality okay

somehow

um

that cannot really be explained

so that's what the gangster King is the

gangster King okay

I love this uh you know because I just

came up with this term on the fly right

with you guys together we we came up

with this term guys The Gangsta King

that's the difference between me and

moldbug mold bug is a formalist Haas is

out here

engaging in Cutting Edge political

Theory

coming up with the idea of the Gangsta

King now who was the Gangsta King

who was against the king who was a

gangster King

no European Kings were against the

after the Renaissance

the true gangster King is none other

than the OG Genghis Khan and the

Oriental

dynasties that claimed succession

to him

of the gunpowder land

Empires

so you want to know uh The Gangsta King

right it's pretty much that

the Real Gangsta Kings

Genghis Khan was the OG Gangsta King

um I would not call Napoleon against the

king I would not call him that no I

would not call him that

um the reason Napoleon's not a gang

Napoleon is more like a you know

he's a he's a Sublime

Napoleon is not some kind of precedent

intuitive material power Napoleon is

like a layer on top of the western

Enlightenment he's just kind of this yes

I'm an emperor it's the romantic kind of

passion

that exists in excess yes to the modern

um sentiment but at the same time

the reason it doesn't make Napoleon a

malign Sovereign is because

this excess of romantic passion that

defines the Napoleonic form of uh

sovereignty and legitimate which is

based on these like impossible victories

and whatever and the world Spirit on

Horseback and so on and so forth It's

that is the kind of scandalous

yes he's kind of like a myth he's like a

mythological

truth of the Enlightenment itself

so he was not a gangsta King not not by

any means Napoleon is this kind of like

um

he's not really a king either right

Napoleon is the Incarnation of

what we would call This Modern

Enlightenment itself and that

Incarnation takes a form

that can't be explained within it he

can't justify his rule

but

there's this like quality of Napoleon of

he justifies it in reality the reality

speaks for itself

it's it's hard to explain right I don't

want to get too much into it but um

the ganks the first gangster King was

Genghis Khan that's the truth right okay

so

malign Sovereign equals Gangsta King

now I wanna before we explain more about

malign sovereignty which we have to

contemporary examples of gangster Kings

Bashar Al well I don't know actually

Bashar yeah he is Bashar Al I said uh

Kim

Jong-un

um G Putin

you know

uh Maduro

Chavez

you know

um

Trump was vibing Trump

sort of trump I'll get more to Trump

right

Gaddafi you know

Etc these are the very contemporary ones

Gaddafi yamini you know

Saddam

not endorsed but he was right

objectively

um

who else

Castro yeah

Ortega sure

I don't think evil Morales is no I

wouldn't say that

all right

Maga Trump symbol

yeah I'll just say the symbol right as a

symbol he was not in practice

necessarily

um

there you go

this is the theory of Gangsta

against the Kings right oh oh I forgot

um

Mugabe

hell yeah

could not forget Mugabe okay

okay this is just like within the 20th

century that I'm naming okay 20th

century sorry 21st century 20th

centuries is every story yeah 20th

century you could you could you could

get all these other people too right

foreign

these are the gangster Kings okay

these are the gangster Kings okay

so

yeah okay yeah we kind of got everyone

right Luka shenko all right I think we

got everyone

these are the good guys pretty much

all right let's uh continue okay let's

continue

I got pooch in there yeah I got Putin

all right

now

that's the first form of malign

sovereignty so

malign

projection this vague

notion of the Tyrant of the Dark Ages

that enlightened

according to

sentiment

but paradoxically what happens now what

in the 18th century also comes about

that also represents a form of malign

sovereignty

that doesn't come from the ancient

regime now this one's going to be easy

okay this one's going to be easy

okay well I'll explain it

the reign of terror

robe sphere is the first modern

real malign solver

robespier

robes fear in the reign of terror so

something happens

in the construction of the modern French

Universal state

something in a

hair

occurs a pair

scandalous inadvertent development

the universal French Republic

enters this stage of Terror

evoking the likeness of get Genghis Khan

robe sphere ruling on behalf of the

French peasant and

am I spelling this correctly

sansko is either

small vendors

you know

um small vendors right

the plebeians

angles even refers to it as a pro

right

foreign

state power in a way that

was

regarded and remembered

by the ruling class as malign

gay the first one was robesphere

actually so that's really interesting

because

robe sphere in other words

in other words

it's Rogue sphere

the most consistent

virtuous and real modern

Democratic modern revolutionary

sorry let's say um

you know

modern revolutionary right

who brings

who resurrects

the malign sovereignty

of the tyrannical Dark Ages

so that's first robe sphere right

that's first robe spear

and in response to robe sphere a lot of

people have this wrong idea right

many have a wrong idea about the

the origins of reaction and

reactionaries

reactionary

as it's

has zero origins in the actual ancient

Ridge

view those reactionism has its origins

in the modern bourgeoisie

a lot of people don't know this

reactionism has zero origins in the

actual ancient regime and feudals and I

think reactionaries are the vestiges of

the Past coming to haunt us no they're

not

the ancient regime by 1789

was deeply corrupt

it had no authentic

it did not authentically succeed

Europeans

traditions of sovereignty dating from

Charlotte Maine

they were

these were courts ruled by Freemasons

Frozen furians satanists

Skeptics whatever

Etc

uh

Church State Etc were kept

for appearance or

as Voltaire put it for the stupid masses

who need

God and king or else they become Savage

reactionists were cynics who did not

believe in a sacral reality base thank

you so much would you say this trend

started with Henry VII I no but that

definitely is part of it I would say but

I don't I don't know if I could say it

started there right

they

are just as modern as the

revolutionaries

one universal

left and right wing

back shots okay

so

the reaction is right

the reaction is where the right wing of

modern Universal politics

the reaction is didn't come from any

traditional past they were just the

right wing of the modern Universal

politics reaction is

critiqued the French Revolution

but took for granted the Glorious

Revolution

at risk that um

took for granted events like

the Glorious Revolution which put the

fake

Dynasty the house of orange am I getting

this correct what how embarrassing would

it be if I got this wrong right pretty

sure it's the house of Orange

um

inch

to keep the stupid

masses

um

passive while in reality Parliament

ruled as an oligarchy okay

it's right okay good all right

so people need to understand this about

the origins of the right wing the right

wing does not come from

the past it doesn't come from the past

all right

so now we are clear about

modern Universal politics and the left

wing and the right wing okay

difference between left and right wing

sorry I don't know the reaction is we're

reacting against the

malign strain of the French Revolution

that culminates in the reign of terror

and robe sphere

reaction is we're not

really against constitutionalism

um you know

formalism

Etc

they were

against a perceived excess and wild

tendency

that perverted the purity of modern

political

warm reactionists were usually

constitutional

fuck institutional monarchists

gradualis Etc

wanted to establish some formalization

of the ancient regime

so this needs to be strongly emphasized

right A lot of people associate

reactionists

with you know

some kind of like oh deeply conservative

right wing even like the vendee no the

vendi was not

well the vendi was headed by

reactionists but those peasants in the

vendee that were taking up arms

were not epitomizing the reactionist

subjectivity those are just backward

peasants to I guess rooted in the past

whatever but that was not based in any

kind of like reactionary the leadership

was yes

but that's not the source of the

reaction right it wasn't in these

peasants resisting change

the jacobites is a similar case the

jacobites were not really reactionists

so

reaction is base and term their critique

of

the French Revolution in the very same

vernacular of enlightened

rationalistic modern thoughts

conceptual arsenal of enlightened

rationalistic and modern thought right

reactionists

were

represented the bourgeoisie

Jacobins like robe sphere represented

the small Petty proprietor and even the

property list four

right

so this is uh such a important thing to

keep in mind okay

this is such an important thing to keep

in mind because listen

by the time the French Revolution

happens

there is no real force of sacred

restoration

the whole ancient regime is already

corrupted by modernity

and the conflict is between

the French people

the oligarchical powers of Europe

the Insurgent

awakened and revolutionary French people

represented by robe sphere

for example

there was others right and oligarchical

powers of Europe

gay

now why I'm talking uh that you're

thanks for pointing out PJ while I'm

talking specifically about the French

Revolution

um is because it's only in the French

Revolution where you're dealing with the

overthrow of the ancient regime

apparently by like a modern Republican

order

in the U.S the colonies

were already in all other respects

separate from England

in the case of um the Dutch

uh Republic and the conditions of its

emergence

I

probably I I'm not that familiar with it

actually but my my vague impression is

that

that one was just based on some kind of

like

moving of chess pieces between the great

powers of Europe at the time

you know the 30 years warrants when when

did that happen actually I'm not really

really educated on it

uh

that's the 80 years war okay

yeah that's between yeah so that's

that's within the wider context I think

of the reformation and its consequences

right so it's similar to the English

Civil War

um

16

foreign

is what you're referring to okay

all right yeah that's the 80 years war

okay so yeah

all right

well um

I don't I don't

I think the French Revolution has more

of a obvious conceptual significance for

where I'm trying to come from because

French Revolution is the origin of

left-wing and right wing so what what

origin of left wing writing origin

of right wing and left wing

aka the political Spectrum

the political Spectrum

is a spectrum on

via

a spectrum

of modern

modern Universal state to it politics

if

the left and right are on the Spectrum

you know

really in a way you do not have anything

if they are right

uh-huh yeah okay well they are okay in

both ways especially today

in America on the internet and on

Twitter especially on Twitter

especially on Twitter I'm just kidding

what am I talking about right no they're

on this spectrum

of the same

metaphysical

political power

okay

same metaphysical political power okay

now based in what what is the difference

okay

based in what

okay uh

so

how do I put this

the emergence of modern uh

the modern Universal state

entailed a radical change

of the ancient regime

a great change or movement

but in doing so it also provoked the

question

of

how this modern Universal state will be

ordered

it can be compatible

Etc okay

and that's basically if you want the

imminent

the imminent difference between left and

right okay

the imminent difference between left and

right is simple

left

revolutionary change

right

order okay

the modern

the Revolutionary change

brought about by the one universal state

the one universal state is like a

heuristic device

okay when I emphasize this one universal

state

heuristic device to understand

of

the Anglo

-saxon modernity to come

in British Empire

um

or American unipolar World Order

rules-based order

midternack whatever the fuck God I don't

know how to say his name right

yeah whatever right

it's a heuristic device that's what I

want you to keep in mind it's just a

heuristic device don't get too caught up

in trying to pin that down in something

specific

anyway the Revolutionary change brought

about the one universal state

the in internal order of the one

universal state

it is

one universal state

one universalism one

specific

metaphysics or as Dugan would put it

one

specific Western logos

right whatever you can think about it in

many different ways it's one universal

State and the right and and it's based

on a contradiction

on the one hand the universal state

continually

forms of

overthrows

stab

orders

smoothing them over into one universal

reality on the other hand

it assimilates them into a new order

right

basically basically

this is just a paradox

left and right wing emerge

imminently

foreign

paradoxical object okay

so

that's the the paradoxical object is

really going to be the focus of the Maga

communism substack

in the form of um you know it's going to

be called

political difference

now to be um

to be now I'm gonna we're gonna explore

some of the things I assumed you take

for granted wrongfully I shouldn't have

assumed that it's stupid to assume that

um the IDE first of all the concept of

okay we're gonna get rid of all this

and yeah we're gonna get rid of all this

cut okay

we're gonna get rid of all this and

we're just gonna go to here okay

no no no

no all that is solid no

fuck

dude

no they're not objects of each other

don't fucking pervert what I'm saying

they are

different responses to the same object

okay

they share the same object

they share the same object

that object is not each other it is

is a third thing both form in response

to okay

God

all right and this is what I was about

to explain

so

she Jack's contribution

uh let's just do the French turn 20th

century really quickly

idea of the Primacy of difference

before identity

Villas

Lacon

um

and their successors like Zizek today

okay

basic idea in any given

binary difference

the difference itself

precedes its terms

so

Zach on sexual difference

sexual difference is what is itself

objective material Etc whereas man and

women are both failed responses to this

shared

primary difference

the difference between the terms

precedes the terms

themselves

in fact the terms just form in response

to it so if you want you know it's like

Mao right

think of Mao one divides into two

if one is contradictory is inherently

contradictory

it splits into two right

to give form to that contradiction so

for example right

that's like kind of

Tau you know in parallel Mao Zedong

thought and the French turn of the 20th

century kind of

dealing with the same kind of logic

right

by the way this is also a result of the

quantum term right

uh

atoms no longer really exist as primary

substances

primary substances

are inherently contradictory

etc etc etc right whatever we're going

to get into that one too

oh boy that one's we're going to get

into that tonight by the way we're gonna

get into it tonight

but bear with me okay bear with me we're

gonna get into that so you can look

forward to that

um

all right so

okay so the the basic that's where I'm

drawing from so in the text political

difference

proceeds left and right

political difference is this paradoxical

object

the paradoxical object

of modern political statehood okay

the political difference is the

paradoxical object of modern political

statehood okay

um

is one object

and the left and right

are results of the contradictions in

turn

this one

impossible paradox

okay

so this is very ambitious and it's not

it's not gonna be that it's gonna be

like a very you have to be like a very

vague pop scientific familiar trust me

I'm gonna explain it it's gonna it's not

gonna be hard to understand okay

the the quantum the quantum mechanics

angle to this is like the easiest

part of this to understand all right

uh because it actually will help you

understand

the some of the logic kind of implicit

in the Maga communism text

okay

again

so I want to establish some associations

all right

the line sovereignty

malign sovereignty

um

the Fallen

sorry can't do that one

um let's do um

the Fallen right

these are and and uh paradoxical objects

somehow okay European

Enlightenment or modernity proper

emerges in reaction to this paradoxical

objects now what's Oz's thesis

infrared the whole infrared collective's

thesis is that this

paradoxical object is none other than

Mongol universalism

okay

the

universal civilizational state of a

of lost Mongol modernity

or what Dugan calls

the hypothetical Russian logos

okay

if you're familiar with if you're

familiar with Dugan then this will be

helpful if you're not familiar with what

this refers to I'm not going to break it

down here if you've watched the Zizek

and Dugan lecture you will know exactly

what this is referring to okay

we'll get into it though we'll get into

it okay

so

there is a repressed origins of Western

political modernity

which it responds to

via the left and right

now why is it repressed

why is it repressed

because

it is impossible right it is actually

impossible it's not because it's

being deliberately it's like there's

there's no way

there is no way to make sense of it

consistently

or somehow reconcile the contradiction

between

for example

faith and reason or you know

intuition and

and scientific

knowledge sorry intuition and certainty

uh whatever you know kantian antinomies

whatever you want to call it right

the West is authentically responding to

Bongo universalism

so the West is not actually evil

it is doing its best to try and

articulate some subjectively what

had happened

objectively in the East okay

all right

it is limited

imminently Limited

not its fault okay

now that's why it's repressed okay

after all after all how do you reconcile

order

with change

how do you

remember heraclitus

the

Scandal of era am I spelling this

correctly Eric light is the dark

remember heraclitus the dark guys

right

for example right according to

heraclitus

this is

very

shit very deep roots in Western history

Universal his

which is part of the universal history

of mankind

okay

so

yeah okay

so the left and the right are not these

two arbitrarily discreet Tendencies they

are just

left and right are equal

metaphysically equal responses to the

same problem

none is necessary

necessarily more true or more correct

than the other

they attest to a central

at the physical paradox

base so much PJ do you see the expansion

of Islam into Spain in the Balkans as an

extension of Mongol universalism

you know it's very mysterious PJ because

where Ma where this is just about Islam

and where this is about the Mongols

is not very clear to me right

um the Spanish Reconquista was obviously

the impetus of Islam basically is the

reason the Spanish Empire came into

existence and the Spanish Empire was a

claimant it was an early modern Empire

right

it was not an Anglo-Saxon Empire the

Spanish Empire

but it was still kind of this

proto-modern Empire

so whether it's about Islam or whether

it's about the Mongols or as I like to

say the Mongols were part of the Islamic

eschatology itself it's very clear in

the early days of Islam that there's an

anticipation that these Nomads in the

form of the Turks and the scythians or

whatever that are outside of the gates

of Alexander Abdul karnain the gates of

dulcarnate in Persia have this

existential threat to the Civilized

World which is pretty much the Roman

Empires the Hellenistic world and the

Persian world right

and Islam is this kind of religion

eschatologically anticipating

thank you also please watch The Wolf in

the Moonlight yeah I've been trying to

get around to that I did see that that

came out thanks so much I appreciate you

right

okay so

um

that it's been I I that's why I'm like

just kind of vaguely alluding to the

whole Mongol modernity thing because I

want to put you guys on the track that

I'm on but there are contradictions

there are inconsistencies there there

are unresolved questions but very

broadly and vaguely I'm very confident

that yes this is there is really a

connection here that that much is very

clear to me right

anyway

um

so so okay the basic basic idea is that

the modern political Spectrum

is itself the problem

the ways of articulating modern politics

suffer from a problem

the same problem

the left and right both

do not actually

resolve all right let me just put it

this way

because that's not necessarily

what I mean

okay so let's just talk about

let's talk about hops okay

let's talk about tops

now that we've gotten that hard part

clear this part should be kind of a

breeze

I imagine right modern political

metaphysics

Ops

ABS is a reactionist

trying to understand the deeper order

of sovereign statehood

he is looking for the building blocks or

primary substances that make up a state

Hobbs is a materialist

he is looking below

or what makes mistakes okay

think of him like a guy playing with

Legos

he is looking for the right Lego

pieces to make sense of

piece together

what makes the abstract modern Universal

States okay

now this stems from baconian

baconian

metaphysical materialism reductionism

the notion that

all reality is reducible to

you know

um

substances or atoms right

indivisible

self-same things

that are indifferent to the content of

content in reality right

that makes sense

so for example

uh Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes

they're dealing with this materialism

According to which you know

all of reality can be reduced to these

things right that are primary

these things are primary

before reality

all the world of appearances

now let me explain to the interesting

materialist platonism inherent in

English materialism

what is the materialist platonism the

idea that senses do not actually

um

how can we know the world with certainty

through our senses

right

but our senses do not actually

um

give only an imperfect impression of the

real object

the real object

right

is base vulgar

antecedent

pre-existing you know

um

but too perfect to Sublime too real to

be sensed

most a satanic inversion of platonic

forms right

give me a second

all right

so

that is kind of something going on in

what we call English materialism okay

this is not this is not based on this

thing based Mega communism let's spread

it far and wide among the masses

appreciate you so this is not like

kant's thing

guys forgive me I'm all this shit is off

the top of my head so just be patient

with me right this is not like Khan's

thing

because kant's thing in itself

is an object of

transcendental knowledge not the senses

okay so that must that has to be like

strongly emphasized here

not the census okay

okay

so

there you go okay

all right well for for

um Hobbs for Hobbs simply put

the foundation of modern

politics lies in simple self-interest

the substance of the state is none other

than the atomic individual

now this is kind of clear when it comes

to cynicism actually As Americans

we assume this

you ask Americans what is a state oh

it's a collection of individuals we

assume that right

that's just like a given to us but for

most people it's not for most people a

state is beyond the individual right

it's not reducible to the cynicism of

the individual we have a we have such a

strong skepticism of big government and

big States because we can't separate

them from the individual right well the

state is the rule of what a corruptable

corrupt guy a corrupt person right

she doesn't understand this idea kind of

philosophically at least traces its

Origins here right uh in in English

materialism and in the European

Enlightenment and it's not always been a

given throughout Mankind's history that

they view States this way right

the idea that the state can be debased

in the individual

substances that make it up right so this

is what Kant is what Hobbes is doing

Hobbes is basically taking a knife

and butchering open

the steak to try and see

what makes it

the state right that's kind of

the basic gesture of all modern science

is in this knife

okay

so

this is what Hobbes is doing that's why

it's a political metaphysics that's why

it is a political metaphysics okay

foreign

that's why it's a political metaphysics

okay

now

um

now for Hobbes for Hobbs

the individual

the substance of the state

because of a dis

sorry a um

split between IND rational individual

self

interest and the interest

states that was very clear in the chaos

of the English Civil War

is also a reason why you might expect

Hobbs the kind of ground the substance

of the state and rational individual

self-interest

Hobbes basically assumes

that individuals

and their

rational self-interest

precedes the state and is there for the

truth of the state

the state just emerges out of some

aggregation of individual

lock is somewhat similar

individuals come together and agree to

protect each I'm right here right

rights on some contractual basis yada

yada yada right am I correct about lock

to have this impression of him I'm gonna

confess to you I've never read Locke I

just have this vague impression of them

that that's kind of where lock is coming

from whereas Rousseau is kind of dealing

with the general will Locke is still

basing it in a contractual relation

between individuals all right anyway

um

okay that's English materialism all

right

Okay so

all right so uh for for for Hobbs it's

quite simple

Hobbs articulates the atom

The Germ of the modern state

in um

the absolutely

self-interested individual

the war of all against all that's where

the war of all against all that's where

we're getting everything from here right

the war of all against all okay

so in the war of all against all

um this is the metaphysical

the basic metaphysics of modern state

the reality behind and which gives

and what is this

uh remember how I gave that stream about

a communist theory of gender relations

and I talked about how feminism is based

on this primordial distrust

of it's a it's a metaphysics of sexual

distrust right something similar is here

very similar except primordial

metaphysical distrust of individuals

toward one and another

okay this is like absolute state of this

trust

the distrust arises because

individuals have conflicting

itself

interests

I want this you want that

guess we have to fight over it

hello LMAO hehe

okay I don't know that sounds really

weird actually but um We're not gonna do

that one

but uh anyway

so yeah individuals have conflicting

self-interests

and Hobbs articulates

Hobbs articulates the origin of the

state

in this conflict

in what you might recall from

pre-socratic Greek philosophy as the

explosion of the atoms

there is

is a

foreign

State arises as the conclusion of a

primordial Republican of the atoms

individuals

self-interests

are inherently different from others

they coincidentally

coincide right so I had to say they

coincide by chance

therefore there is an inherent

metaphysical repulsion between them okay

and why why is this true if this

confuses you even if they coincide by

chance because there's still your

self-interest and my self-interest the

separation between you and me as a

subject

separation of individuals

between

each other is an unbridgeable golf

right social relations

can have no

real

Trust

nothing inherently

unites individuals there is no organic

sociality for social horror

again this

metaphysical satanism

based in the Heartbreak

right

all Traditions right

foreign

and ought to be subjected to Cartesian

certainty okay

we can only be certain in the Cartesian

sense that individuals exist society and

the state

has no prior antecedent

existence

must be something that is the result of

individuals since

for example individuals and their

self-interest

empirically appear to pre-exist these

distractions

remember what Thatcher said Thatcher

Society doesn't exist only individuals

right remember Thatcher said this okay

remember Thatcher said this

remember Thatcher said this

Society doesn't exist

only individuals

okay

so this is um this is hobsonism right

this is the hobbesian

Hobson and this is a metaphys again

Hobbs

is not an ideologist he's not an

ideology or a political idea it is a

metaphysical assumption about the nature

of politics that corresponds

the reality of the emo

calculus mode of production right

very clear clear Marxist analysis yes

yes this is all capitalism yes yes we

all get it very clear

okay

okay

so

in the repulsion of the atoms according

to to Hobbes

right

or the war of all against all emerges a

sovereign

individuals

consider it in their self-interest to

just kill each other over

differences

they're different

differing interests right

but then they realize it is in their

rational self-interest

it is in their rational self-interest

to uh you know

to submit to a

the biggest and most powerful guy

who makes a deal with them

to safe

guard

a bare minimum of their

self-interest rights

and protect them

in the end the guy with the biggest

stick wins out and decides that

it's in everyone's interest to just

restore order right

there is no point in him killing

everyone

and people

uh

uh what is it called the trade-off what

is it called

weighing the pros and cons

idered that

they cannot

beat the sovereign

it would be more beneficial to just

submit

solver sorry twos

sacrifice some of their self-interests

to preserve

the bare minimum rather than die or lose

all of them

okay

okay

so that's kind of perhaps it's kind of

like yeah think of

repulsion of the atoms

leads to an outcome

chaos of atoms conflicting to each other

leads to some general tendency

from General Mac

basic dialectic seada yada yada okay

so for hops so how does that explain

criminality

how does this explain cost benefit yeah

Isaacs explained criminality

for Hobbs

or Hobbs

degree of melanity remains

one of those individuals who do not

obey the law of the sovereign

that is the criminal

criminals are

non-aligned sorry unaligned

aligned with sovereignty they represent

atoms that

do not culminate

into being a part of the leviathan's

body

the Leviathan must

either punish them to sit

to you know

bring them

align them or exterminate them right

so that's criminality right

that's criminality

criminality

the founding sit

crime is the foundation of the state

Naked Bear anti-social self-interest

any you know

the Leviathan labels individuals

who remind it of its foundation

criminals right

isn't that interesting right isn't it

interesting how Prime is the foundation

of every state

according to

obvious metaphysics

I guess criminals are like spooky ghosts

that font

the modern Universal state right

Okay so

let's talk about malign sovereignty

sorry let's do um

post modern in the vagus sense

now this is where things get interesting

guys this is really the Crux we have

gotten two two hours and 30 minutes into

the stream to the Crux of the Maga

communism sub stack okay

we've gone to the Crux of it

thank you so much PJ

thank you so much PJ appreciate you

because Hobbes agreed with Locke about

property rights so Midas right is

essentially Criminal

thank you so much PJ appreciate you

um now this is gonna be tough

this is gonna be so hard to fucking this

is like the Crux this is the hardest

thing to explain not malign sovereignty

but okay

in the era of globality

or what I would call

a Triumph

production

under the capitalist superstructure for

example right

in the era of globality

foreign

s are not

to be all

end all of

political power hmm

in the era of globality

sovereigns are not the be-all end-all of

political power

the easiest example

is the Deep state

American sovereignty is the form of the

Constitution

the Deep state

is a higher form of political power

than the Constitution

but in practice

what is the Deep state right

the Deep state is radically accident

meaning

it is the external network of you know

fill land through throated foundations

intelligence agencies

policy making ins

institutions think tanks ngos

universities

um

you know

uh corporations right

deep state is not a secret cabal sitting

in a room

it is not the King on a throne

it is a pattern

of power

that is more like a network okay

that's the Deep state

that's the Deep state

and yet

the Deep state

the Deep state for example

does not

destroy the sovereign

it's just that the Sovereign seems to be

assimilated

into a reality larger than itself

Leviathan

is being

controlled by something bigger than

Leviathan itself

no not the state of emergency according

to Schmidt again Schmidt still works off

of hobbsy and metaphysics so Schmidt we

are beyond the realm of Schmidt okay

okay

now

quantum physics

oh

mystical I'm just kidding it's like whoa

quantum physics all right basically it's

pretty simple

it's pretty simple as far as

significance

the era of atoms

monads

simple substances

individuated

um particles

basically over

as

primary building blocks of reality is

basically over

uh even scientifically even

scientifically

the radical logic of

most modernity

Okay so

what is what can we learn from quantum

physics here right the basic idea within

quantum physics is that

vaguely

by the way if you are one of those fizz

who goes around trying

to correct people on sickle

technicalities

and their inability to be precise has

evidence they don't know anything about

what their

talking about please go fuck yourself

and

other things I can't say

you fucking piece of shit I fucking hate

you right

vaguely

vaguely it is fair to say this

quantum physics establishes a

paradoxical relationship between

um quantum physics physics

introduces Concepts like wave particle

Duality superposition

um

spooky action

contingency uh you know

so on and so forth right and wave

function collapse or D coherence so on

and so forth

um

Etc okay

the mystery

the mystery of quantum physics is that

I'm drawing a lot from Z Jake here by

the way but I've done my own research

over time yeah entanglement that's

another one I forgot that

um there's another one that I uh

I've done my own research research

though right but the basic mystery of

quantum physics is that

you cannot really you cannot discern the

outcome

outcome of

uh

a given super position or oscillation

Quantum oscillation

uh

before measuring right

once you measure

a given Quantum system

it

Bears the outcome of a single particle

additionally

decoherence occurs

the coherence of waves occur

to reflect just a single outcome

out of many possibilities

Okay so

Okay so

very vaguely I'm gonna if you're not

familiar with quantum physics if you're

not familiar with what you're probably

are from pop science almost everyone is

but if you're not I'll just basically

explain to you that instead of having

beginning with these units of atoms

in quantum mechanics or quantum physics

these extremely small Quantum Quantum

basically means small particles exist in

a state of superposition right which

means they're in multiple States at the

same time and this is also reflected as

a wave function big there are literally

waves right like they're in multiple

places at once this is called a Quantum

oscillation

and there's no way from this Quantum

oscillation to know

where that that particle sorry where the

thing is right exactly it's an

oscillation

very I'm not getting it exactly correct

but it's just like a vague it's vaguely

correct what I'm saying okay well after

measuring the quantum system or the

quantum oscillation it culminates into

one outcome only one possible outcome

one particle so it's a wave particle

duality before it's measured it's

detected as a wave but then once you

measure it it's like reality gas lights

you and says no that was never a wave

that's just one particle

that's just one normal particle right

so basically it's like reality is just

gaslighting you right

it's kind of it's kind of the idea right

so

um then they call it the D coherence

that basically once it's measured these

waves

sorry this particle can even interact

with its surrounding particles with that

it's entangled with right

like small subatomic particles to

produce a macro physical outcome so this

extremely yeah this this uncertainty

that's going at the micro subatomic

particle level the outcome of

measurement this is the scary part

actually comes to determine or at least

culminate in some macro physical

uh determination right

so there's many many ways of

many stupid ways of interpreting quantum

mechanics

Heisenberg Coke Beyond empiricism sorry

no sorry sorry

Niels Bohr

sorry Copenhagen

opium

after let's just ignore it

many worlds

Fringe tardation

each of those

um

superimposed States action

literally exists but der in just another

dimension der Marvel Superhero verse

okay

if you believe this I mean damn you must

that's horrible this is like the dgg

view of the world right okay

um

all right so there's many

interpretations I kind of uh I I

recommend

gizek's way of proving

of interpreting them via

the lens of dialectics right okay but

anyway the other way you can think of it

is that you know I agree with Zizek that

basically

I agree with the basic

thrust of zizex interpretation

that

quantum mechanics should force us to

change our view

of what reality is instead of many

worlds

Theory or positivistic copium we must

change

develop a new ontology itself

the nature of being is inherently

paradoxical dialectical

contradictory

Etc et cetera Etc right

so

yeah I basically agree with zizex

uh view here but I will introduce my own

point

um which is

retro causality

now what is this

according to this View

uh reality is still in a sense

deterministic

strangely this is what's guys this is so

fucking important for the Maga communism

thing you're gonna see why in a second

okay

just I'm giving you a vague introduction

to the quantum physics thing

and you're gonna see why trust me trust

me trust me you're gonna fucking see why

okay

trust me you're gonna fucking see why

all right

strangely

um

the

outcome

retro casually

it's not that Quantum superposition

his act is necessarily

um

imminently random or chaotic

it is that

the outcome

determines

the decoherence of the waves from the

future isn't that fucking interesting

guys

so the outcome the outcome in a sense

influences

the

beginning

that is spooky right

yes it is hyperstitious it literally is

hyperstition literally yes it's

hyperstition

yes you know what you know what else

basically

has this

Communist Manifesto

the communist

Manifesto is literally written this way

this thing

from The Future Has Arrived to come and

fuck up reality

sorry to come and change everything

everyone is going to turn into

proletariat

poor bourgeoisie

the final confrontation is already here

from the future right

that's like basically how the book is

written that's literally there in the

Communist Manifesto right more or less

but yeah you think of Terminator too

yeah Terminator

you're a normal

cool kid

then Arnold comes get to

Chopper and all of a sudden you're

running around and explosions of crazy

shit going on

have you looked at CFT Theory qm and

gravity have so far been irreconcilable

qm deals with a small gravity with the

lounge

is a way to unify these seemingly

opposite phenomena talks about that idea

of quantum gravity I'm not thank you so

much Bobby I'm not too I'm not I haven't

gotten too much into that or thought

about it but it's obviously on my list

to do that right

this is basically what marks angles do

to us in the manifesto right

or are at least saying capital is doing

to us

it's the same thing right

conflict of the future

just like Skynet versus Humanity right

that's that's literally how the

Communist Manifesto is like more or less

that's very much the the it's why it's

called The Communist Manifesto Germany

was not some like developed capitalists

no it was like 98 percent of people were

farming and just like a backwoods place

it was just this thing they were

anticipating which was changing reality

from the future so

Anglo-Saxon metaphysics the Primacy of

substance

Chinese metaphysics let's go out Chinese

because we don't know what else to call

it right Chinese metaphysics

um

Chinese metaphysics the Primacy of

the virtual object

the thing that is

animating all reality

comes from the future retro call you

and it becomes determined only

as a Unity of opposites

okay

not some

vulgar substance that pre-exists

pre-exist spirit

okay

so that's kind of really important here

right there is and basically he's

talking about alluding to the fact

in the 20th century there this is what

my book is about guys by the way there

was this metaphysical Revolution

basically between these two right

based

we Mecca tankies come from the future to

terminate the cringe yes also I watched

wandering Earth one today it was very

good but very sad underscore Skynet 20

30. I still have to watch wandering art

too I still haven't I don't even know

it's still in theaters but whatever I'll

get around to finding a way to watch it

somehow

okay

okay so

um we've got that part clear right now

I'm going to explain to you the

significance so retro causality should

be clear to you

the basic the basic idea of retro

causality is that all substances and

things in reality are oriented

toward

virtually

toward something coming from

from the future

the future is influencing the past

basically

making sense of it

sorry basically

creating itself

from the future

this is

not some obscurantist or mystical

points what do I actually mean here

because the key the key element is

virtuality

that something

um

is oriented in a certain direction

but not necessarily there

so it's not really like uh this exists

in the future already it's more like

the future realizes Itself by creating

its own past just a way of describing

how things emerge

things emerge already latent with their

own outcome

outcome

the outcome exists

before

it becomes

uh

fully determined okay for example I'll

give you examples of retro causality for

example right

um

if a fucking I don't know if a uh

subatomic particle is charged in a

certain way

ah fuck I don't want to fucking do this

right it's so hard to explain this logic

um

the outcome doesn't actually exist

somewhere in the future

a future is not a place

it's just a way of describing how things

are emerging

emerge like for example give me give

fucking bear with me I'm doing this all

the time my head

um for example

the outcome

is already implicit

in the moments culminating in it because

those moments

because

you cannot really explain the parts or

moments of a thing not taking into

account the direction and orientation

that's what I mean for example for

example

for example take any human individual

if you just reduced the individual to

their specific

features you would get an incomplete

picture of that

in order to understand an individual you

need to understand their dreams

their goals

their ambitions

what keeps them motivated to wake up

every day that is

their virtual orientation

what gives

purpose to their life right

things are the same way

material objects are the same way they

are already oriented

towards specific outcomes that in a

sense

not simply pre-exist them but

determine

but uh

are there reason for existing

as a moment in the development

a given material

objective material reality okay

other examples of retro causality other

examples of retro casualty

hegel's

hunting of reason

the hegelian universal state is a retro

causal state

it

via history which culminates in it

keep this part in mind because I'm going

to talk about code Jeff pretty soon so

keep this fucking part in mind okay

the eagle Universal state is a retro

causal State via history which

culminates in it

um

be motivations the actions

there's still

um details of individuals and their

self-interests

the coming and going sorry the Hitler

and bitter of conflicts

Etc

are all being manipulated

by the cunning of reason

which is realizing

merely realizing itself from

from the future to culminate in the

universe

state which is the basis of absolute no

okay

um

Eagles phenomenology

is spelling this right

of spirit is written this way right

getting from

simple substances to animals to humans

to um

state

through religion and then to Absolute

knowledge

the end of hegel's book

is realizing itself from the future each

time a new chapter

it gets to a new chapter this is what is

driving the

book to its conclusion okay

all right

okay

so hegel's phenomenology of spirit is

written retro casually it's also this is

also in the logic

this is capital

I mean I'm giving you many examples

volume one so three right

the transformation

prices of production sorry

of

values

prices and vice versa

how individual labor power translates

into social labor

out the price of individual Commodities

translates into

labor value

value

labor value finally right

how

[Music]

um if fuck

differing relative rates of profit

Translate

into aggregate

aggregate profits right okay

all retro calls you

okay my fucking keyboard is broken all

right that's the truth my keyboard is

broken okay

keyboard is broken all right retro

causality

okay

now

finally

the idea of malign sovereignty

hobbsian individual Criminal

modern metaphysics

the line solver

postmodern method physics

there is a parallel

here's the parallel okay

the malign sovereign

does not end

is a new uh

a new

um

category of criminality

how

was there a parallel

or how can he transition from classical

physics

modern physics explained

transition from

obs

to Hegel

or Halls should I be that arrogant

or is that too arrogant

you know

how can that be affected

right well it's simple right

the line sovereignty implies polarity

as the truth

that

individual substances are polarized

uh hobbes's individual substance is just

the

self-interested individual perfect atom

simple substance

align sovereignty

polarizes

the actions thoughts

behaviors ideas

language

Etc of individuals

such that you can no longer explain

their motivations in terms of

self-interest

what's an example of this by the way

example

Russia Russia Russia

Russia gate

Rachel Maddow

Russia right

how what do you mean how do I explain

this

in Russia gate Russia

is responsible for

an entire series and network of actions

behaviors tendencies

[Music]

um

language

ideas consciousness

Etc on part of multiple individuals

it is not the result of some criminality

interest

it is a malign sovereignty

which is

polarizing individuals with fake news

to become criminals

this is a uh

this is a radically

retrocodile logic that

um you know

is consistent with

the quantum term

instead of hobbes's

self-interested individuals now have

polarities which

somehow pre-exist

self-interested motivations now

not only pre-exist

but even polarized self-interested

motivation

Trump is a criminal

is not the full story the full story is

Trump is a criminal

because Russia

he is being

thrived

blackmailed by Russia

now you could I could kind of

I could kind of uh talk about and go on

a tangent of the mccarthyite Red Scare

the Red Scare in general how the Red

Scare kind of precedes russiagate

and so on and so forth but you know that

is just something I want you to think

about on your own I'm not gonna get into

it here I just want you to think about

it on your own

um

modern quantum theory is fundamentally

opposed to deterministic views and

reality

unless they're retro causal unless you

have a retro causual interpretation

so shut the fuck up dumbass

okay

so this is the basic idea

so the definition align sovereignty

is referring to this

socialized criminality

in a sense

entire states are Criminal

the line sovereigns

okay

all right

um

theory of alignment okay

I kind of feel like like I know I'm not

that sophisticated I'm not claiming to

be that sophisticated

but I feel like in terms of like this

level of

in terms of like the substance here I

feel like this is like a college like a

graduate level fucking lecture I'm

giving right

I hope you guys are putting

I hope this is making sense for a lot of

you I hope you're starting to catch on

to what we're talking about here okay

the theory of alignment let's go back go

back to

Universal state

the modern Universal State should be

thought of as a continuum

think of it as the continuum

of

modern Universal formalism

uninterrupted pure Universal form or if

you are a Marxist think of

one

interrupted flow of exchange value right

all the same thing

the modern Universal State should be

thought of as a continuum it's a

Continuum of modern Universal formalism

okay sure

this continuum

has culminated in a

globality

which

or poppers

open Society

the idea of the open Society is

interesting right

the idea of the open Society is

interesting

uh give me a second

oh man

thank you so much PJ appreciate you man

it is college level but it's also

structurally lacanian condensation which

makes it a very different kind of format

yeah I think so PJ I think yeah

yeah

um thank you so much PJ appreciate you

so the idea of the open Society is here

interesting right

because

the basic first of all

there's the notion of

the idea

the idea that because of the experience

experience of totalitarianism

ardent

Hannah Arden

the hobbesian sovereign

can become bad

leading to totalitarianism

like the horrible evils of

communism and fascism

okay

so for popper

or popper

sovereigns must be kept in check

just like sovereigns must keep

individuals in check

criminals in check right

uh and I know this is different this is

different

from social contract

how is it different

because the open Society Factor instead

of individuals

instead of the people keeping the

Sovereign in check

the system must

by sorry

society's institutions have to do it by

keeping Society institutionally open

by being open

societies can be aligned

aligned

with the global unipolar World Order

allowing the free proliferation of

information

Commodities people money trade

culture

ideas

whatever

Paradox of tolerance means that all

those forces conducive

to closing Society cannot be tolerated

and must be exterminated

somehow right

so that's kind of Popper's open Society

right and how it relates to the theory

of alignment now let's talk about the

implications this has for

theory of political gravity

uh okay

instead of the war of all against all

you now also have the chaos

of the line sovereign

or

totalitarianism

commonly understood as Nazism

fascism right

why is everyone called a fascist

just like the natural state

or hops is the war of all against all

for today's globalist liberals following

from Opera

Nazism is the natural state

of

uh of globality

if we are not Vigilant enough

the malign force of Nazism

will swallow

all of us into sorry we'll uh pull us

all into the its vortex

washes

claim of a nozzle

Vortex is an example of this thinking

for example right

for example

foreign

liberals

all unaligned

states are aligned sovereigns and are

therefore yes fascist

they claim Syria North Korea China

Russia

is Hitler right fascism Nazism and

Hitler

Nazi fascist

hitlerism

Hustler

[Laughter]

but they do right

okay

internally

okay so that's clear right now you know

why so why

why

why though right

why

who who why because they do fucking do

this if you don't know that they do this

you are unfamiliar with all anything

from the New York Times right you're a

fucking idiot they do do that okay

yes they do do this okay so why do they

do it

um well the reason I do this

foreign

because those societies because they

have not been

are not kept

artificially open

have fallen into

vortex

of authoritarianism

for the closed Society right

foreign Tex

why is there such a waste

it would be very interesting to hear a

debate between you and Douglas Dietrich

fascism versus communism thank you so

much PJ appreciate you why is there such

a metaphysical Primacy of the closed

Society why does the

open Society have to be kept

artificially open

because of the Paradox of Tolerance

because

without ins enlightened institutions

people are too backward ignorant

lost

impassioned emotional

Etc to be allowed way so much Andrew

great stream very informative and

important thank you so much Andrew

appreciate you right and because without

enlightened institutions people are too

backward ignorant lost and passionate

emotional to be allowed to

Express their own General will by the

way guys Rousseau is based as fuck right

but we're not gonna get into that

because the general will that's Maga

Maga is the general will right

anyway

okay sorry

um

getting I'm getting I'm getting late

here but we're gonna continue this I'm

gonna see this through to its conclusion

no matter what

right

uh okay anyway

so paradoxically

paradoxically the problem with

sovereigns or Gangsta monarchies

is not that they are too

controlled but that they are too wild

think of Kim Jong gangster

is gangsta nukes

think of Ayatollah based

Gangsta nuclear particles

Etc right

that's what it is

you know what I mean

you know what I mean that's the problem

politics naturally beers

pulls in the direction of Nazism

according to globalist liberalism

why

or why Nazism specifically

globalism is based

in the legacy of Nazism the institutions

of NATO EU

[Music]

um

even to an extent Bretton Woods

Etc

Universal

the UN

either formed in response

to Nazism after the world

Wars

or

directly inherited the Nazi

like this right

let's talk about Nazism

Nazism in terms of international

relations

was the arbitrary

violation of another country's

sovereignty

and plunging the world into chaos as a

result of Hitler's maniacal crazy

Ambitions yada yada right

okay in terms of international relations

there's that angle but then also

but then also it

it was this Natural Evolution of modern

blue gloss

order that lived

secretly find tempting or at least

fascinating right

it resolved the contradiction between

left and right

from the perspective of

Universal sorry Alpha the bourgeoisie

preserving the dynamic go change

of

of industrial

capitalism with rigid political

order

of dictatorship right

okay that's also why it has this kind of

fascinating significance for from the

perspective of liberalism

false simulation false

false hegelian Universal state

but none the less

some kind of

okay

uh this is also called

this is also called what is that fucking

book that book is called um

reactionary modernism

in that one book whose author I forgot

Okay so

there's that right

all right so

globalist institutions

the founding sin of globe

is Nazism

globalist liberals

throughout the Cold War employed not see

Mercenaries

fight communism

they are also using ads of neo-nazis

today

foreign

right

okay so it's a repressed pounding sin

Nazism the

breast foundings

fuck

bounding sin

used as a wild rabbit dog on a leash by

globalist liberalism

state of emergency

tool of liberals to do the Dirty Work

they

cannot

do in the light of day

liberals secretly think Nazis are right

are just

um

find the consequences

this taste

and icky

what the fuck is this

anyway okay

so that's where we're coming from with

the theory of political gravity okay

that's where we're coming from when it

comes to the theory of political gravity

okay

all right

um fuck

I am like uh so tired man I've like I

didn't know this would take so long

I'm gonna keep going don't worry guys

just give me a second to take a breather

oh man the things I do for you guys you

know and I just basically

you know I just do it for free I'm just

kidding I'm so grateful you guys

I mean I do it without any recognition

really you know nobody's nobody gives me

credit

you guys do but uh

president Sunday is live soy reacting to

my stream all right president Sunday

should get in my VC or should call me on

Discord right now and voice any

objections to anything I've said so far

uh what if what have I said that

discredits me or whatever like you can

go ahead and do that right now let's

just do that now

so president Sunday can just

let's just call them on Discord I'm

pretty sure I have them added

if they don't pick up you're the biggest

pussy of all time

all right well they didn't pick up

uh that looks like uh pussy to me okay

anyway

all right

um

pull up his stream sure I'll just do

that

brief intermission right

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

not sure why

form of its thought or too the extent no

no the

the point is he's dividing ontology

between mind stuff and physical stuff

and my

mind stuff exists because of a reduction

of the physical stuff into basically

nothing so

but how do you take physical things into

consideration outside of that reduction

to the mind what is left of physical

things outside of that reduction you

know what I mean what is let how do you

relate to that what is left of that you

know

that's the fucking point

you you you take away everything until

you reduce down to that which is simply

and obviously given I'm bullshitting

this by the way we're not bullshitting

this I'm I'm gonna do a hack top of this

because I'm not a philosophy major but

that's basically the idea

um what Descartes is going to do is he's

going to reduce

the world into two parts the part that

is the stuff that you experience in the

world and the stuff that is simply and

obviously given the cogito ergo sum

right

um that stuff is immediate and is not

mediated probably using language that's

not appropriate to Descartes but it's

not mediated by your senses and respect

with respect to the world you can

introspect and you can find the things

that simply are obvious that simply are

given that's what he's doing

ah

again reducing being

to the extent to which

reducing certainty of being to the

extent to which

is giving assuming radical doubt right

to the form of its

um intelligibility right let's just say

to which it is thinkable right

thinking is the only proof of being okay

that's kind of modern Revolution exactly

but okay from this you kind of get the

scientific method and you get all these

other things unique too Descartes

doesn't need to prove being because

Descartes existed and Descartes knew he

existed

yeah and the only proof he had that he

fucking existed was that he thinks why

what are you fucking talking about

day Kurt

whatever

western or Anglo-Saxon this is beginning

from this Assumption of bad faith that

is like fundamentally unjustifiable

like why I have to I have to make sure

that I read Haas the most bad faith way

possible to justify the extremely unfair

way that he's maligned on Twitter as an

idiot which is just not provable in any

like anything substantive oh there's a

clip of Haws saying something or there's

a clip of Haws yelling oh that's proves

he's stupid but you actually get me to

debate any of these fucking people they

can't hold their own that's why

president Sunday won't even fucking

debate me right now eternity According

to which

reality

reducible to the way we

the extent to which it can be known

accessed

accessed thought of

Etc right that's kind of what you're

dealing with in the case of Descartes so

that's that opens up everything no no

reality is not reducible to the way it

can be known

oh my God man no

no that's completely wrong

okay

why is it wrong what do you think right

the baconian materialist I don't get

anything okay this is bacon Thomas

Hobbes they're all part of this same

movement she's right they're part of the

same Trend in history

which is dealing with the same kind of

reduction so oh he's in the call okay

hello

hey how you doing yeah it seems like you

have a number of objections to what I've

said so I want you I do and I want to

forewarn you um I was not anticipating

this so I am I don't care you you uh you

massively massively uh intoxicated at

the moment so I will try my best why is

it okay hold on if you're in so why do

why every time I like confront someone

who like makes this accusation I don't

know what I'm talking about or whatever

and I'm like okay put your money

actually actually by the way if I am a

you surprised me a little bit you know

you said some crazy stuff I can't for

the life of your call what it was but

you were

you were making weird leaps that

indicate that you are not actually that

stupid you actually you've read stuff

and that's that's interesting to see

well I I sorry stuff dude but I know you

know you've read stuff but I didn't know

you've read stuff okay so

why can't I ever talk to someone who

will soberly that meaning they don't

have an excuse actually like prove why

the way I'm unfairly maligned on the

Internet is like a guy who knows nothing

at all is somehow justifiable because of

your radically bad faith interpretations

of the things I say on stream like what

is it exactly that well I don't think I

don't think I don't think my

interpretations of what you said on

stream are bad faith but I will give you

this uh well I will offer you this

however

um if you would like to prepare a

discussion on whatever it is we're

talking no why don't you just climb

hours behind you

um I would I would be very happy why

don't you just confront me with what you

think I'm so wrong about

because I'm two hours behind you and I

don't know what you're responding to and

I don't know what I would be drawing

upon specifically okay well to be clear

I'm providing an introduction and I'm

trying to really simplify

uh a lot of the things that are yeah

necessary to understand to read my Maga

communism sub stack because sure that

sub stack is drawing from a lot of ideas

for the for a beginner they're not

really understanding where I'm coming

from so that's really what we're trying

to develop by by the you mean by they

mean you're you're your general audience

my no the J well I actually think that I

have made novel contributions to

political Theory however minor or uh

insignificant I I yeah I want to die on

that Hill I have made novel

contributions to political Theory well I

I I haven't gone through yet so I'm

quite certain I don't know if you have

or you have not

um what have I gotten wrong so far by

the way what have you gotten wrong so

far well once again like I said I'm

approaching this live I'm listening to

it passively

um there are some things that I would

probably be able to on review identify

but as of right this moment

um I do I do not have wait so you can't

hear your voice to bring it up you can't

name a single thing I was wrong about no

this is an off the cuff live

streaming massive dumbass like shouldn't

that be easy to name one thing well I

don't think I don't think you're a

massive dumbass I think you're a sellout

there's a difference

yeah but the same way as chud logic

which is sad because I think you

actually but if I'm not a master dumbass

why is that my reputation like according

to everyone like on Twitter that's not

my that's not my uh that's not my

opinion but you you I think I think

you're cynical I don't think you're a

master but you actively contribute to

the impression people have me that I

have nothing of any significance to say

because either everything I'm saying is

meaningless or it's just uh well off the

top of my off the top of my head I think

that is the case but I think that's a

matter of your choice I don't think

that's because you don't have the

capacity to actually make an actual

positive contribution to the world I

think you I didn't say a positive

contribution I said

I have nothing to say that should

provoke any thoughts from anyone for

example like I don't have any thoughts

have I said so I don't have any ideas to

bring to the table that are ideas that

are worth consideration or at least

thinking about it however Haas even if

you want to do it from a hostile

perspective I mean like even if you want

to do it from the perspective like okay

this guy's bad he's his ideas would lead

to bad or undesirable outcomes from a

moral perspective or they are

ideologically wrong right or

ideologically

scary right but when people just say I

have nothing that I'm just a nozzle I

have no like unique world view and it's

not a world view that's been thought out

before and it's not coming from a place

of having I'm going to be I'm going to

the Mavericks extremely I'm going to be

extremely reductive just just for the

sake of clarity because I'm if I get

lost in the weeds I'm going to lose the

plot very easily right now

um but my general impression of you

is not that you are stupid my general

impression of you is that you found

yourself into a corner where a lot of

people have people like Chad Logic for

ETC and by the way I actually appreciate

it I mean unfortunately it was coming

from you given your recent history but I

appreciated you uh holding him to the

holding his feet to the fire

um for him selling himself as a um what

was it a Mark Fisher socialist and then

changing like that as soon as as soon as

he saw an easy Buck

um

but I I think generally

um

what what you are is someone who

probably had at some point early on

um

some real convictions or at the very

least

um you felt a real sense of blowing with

in a certain political sphere

and uh you realize like so many people

do that if you didn't shill for a a

particular set of positions or if you

didn't exaggerate yourself into a

cartoon character that you would have

um you wouldn't be able to sell yourself

and I think that your attempt to do so

has sort of consumed you I'm not in a

position to substantiate that right now

I haven't spent a considerable amount of

time thinking about you

um but that's generally my impression of

what's happened with respect to you I

don't think you're stupid I'll say that

I sold out and I can get that in a

second but

don't you think it's kind of weird how

just because you disagree with someone

for example on their position on the

Ukraine conflict that suddenly maligns

every other attribute and aspect of

their character like you disagree with

this person on this one issue the

Russell UK Ukraine conflicts once again

once again I'm not I'm not in a position

to hash out the particulars of that I

might have I'd be happy to do uh that no

you don't you don't have to hash out the

boards yeah just saying I'll be with me

for one second but the truth is but you

don't have to but if here here's here's

here's the rub though okay okay so if if

someone determines that you're being

cynical on this one point

okay and that's that's generally the

perception it's not that you're stupid

but that you're cynical if someone has

determined I'm not saying that that's

been adequately Justified or not if

someone has determined that you're

cynical on this one point and it stands

to reason that you would be willing to

be cynical and dishonest on another

point and so your right to charity at

that point drops a little bit and I

think that's right but hold on the

problem is not cynicism according to the

actual reputation that has defined me

you know uh

in the streamer community and on Twitter

wherever you guys want to go the

impression is that like you know I'm

just a complete dumb fuck who doesn't

have any interesting ideas or anything

interesting to say and you know I'm not

well read on anything I'm not educated

I'm just like a dumb guy who yells and

that's it right that's pretty much no I

think I think I think that's a that's a

bit of a character that you play and I

think it takes a certain level of

intelligence to do that deliberately

um yeah however I think there is a

certain I think there is a certain um I

I see I it's not you know know the prom

present Sunday is that I know this more

than anyone because that's just Sunday

by the way you don't need to go with the

whole question my goal isn't actually to

be perceived uh in a good way

necessarily it's just that I want the

things that I say to be

judged based on you know

what is actually being said rather than

like being so radically misinterpreted

so it's like a horrible lens of bad

faith like I could say something

I could say something and then Hakeem

can say the same thing and he'll get

praised as like a genius oh that's so

interesting hockey I want to write like

a 5 000 page you know book on what

that's uh there's an example spring to

mind do you have something in particular

that you're thinking of when you say

that

yeah all the time actually

but like like do you have something like

just just for the sake of clarity do you

have like a particular I'm not if you

don't that's fine that doesn't mean it's

not true I'm just curious

um I just if you take a given Hakim

video which is trying to like run down I

guess capitalist realism by Mark Fisher

or some shit everyone think that's

that's so radical and that's so profound

but if I do a video engaging in an

actual novel

um

reconciliation between Alexander Dugan

and Jesus ideas and a way that I don't

really think anyone's ever thought about

before or at least expressed that

thought like what I that's just nothing

right well I would be I would be

interested to see what video you have in

mind in particular but I will say this

um Alexander Dugan is not renowned as a

critical uh thinker he is a a strong

methodological Nationalist and I have a

a number of problems within those which

I would like to

um collaborate on with with preparation

later on

um it's it's an un it's an unusual

how do I want to put this

Dugan and Zizek are antithetical in the

sense that Zizek is somebody who is

invested

in breaking down the reasons for the

presumptions that

govern how we conceive the world whereas

Dugan is highly reductionistic and

essentialist and tries to characterize

these vastly problematic and complicated

political entities as if they could be

simply summarized by reference to

something like National character or

some such something like that that's

very off the coffin no Dugan has a very

rigorous and extremely rigorous and

consistent philosophy and he doesn't

play in such vague consistency and rigor

are not the same thing sometimes you can

achieve a high level of consistency by

shoing because for example Dugan can

tell you what he means by national

character if you read his book ethnosis

yes but but but but if somebody who

knows better does not find that

justifications sufficient then that's

the word you're judging Dugan from an

ideologically loaded perspective as if

his goal kind of kind of the opposite

actually I'm kind of judging Dugan from

the perspective of somebody who spends a

lot of time

um

concerned with material that is

specifically concerned with criticizing

the production the presumptions with

which uh which Dugan must on board in

order to make the claims that you're

completely wrong though if you're saying

Duke is not a critical philosopher look

look look look look once again why do

you have to keep cutting me off are you

scared oh no no I I'm cutting off for a

particular reason though just bear with

me I'm not I'm not attacking you what I

was where I was going is I am perfectly

happy to have a critical discussion

about Dugan etc etc but I am very

particular about approaching serious

topics like this with preparation under

the clearest circumstances possible I

would be happy to schedule something

within a couple of weeks

if you're not prepared for any scrutiny

um oh because because you asked me and I

was obliging you no but no I didn't this

is not my definitive statement I didn't

I didn't ask you your opinion on Dugan

you said a bunch of baseless things what

did you ask me I can't quite recall

I told you why is it Justified if you

disagree with someone on a specific

political issue why has it been

Justified to completely malign their all

other aspects of their character I mean

isn't that kind of like look it depends

if you're if you're if you're carrying

water for a regime that's killing a lot

of innocent people

um at that point like your your

characters

first of all we can get into that in a

second right I'm happy to get into that

but I'm not by the way I would like to I

would like to approach a serious issue

like that with preparation

um under conditions of of sobriety so

you don't need you don't need

preparation to like condemn someone but

you need preparation to justify have I

condemned you yes

also you've condemned me as a sellout

um I I think you're a seller yes but

once again you've caught me um actively

contributed to uh the maligning of my

reputation right I think you've done so

sufficiently by yourself I don't think

you've needed any help from me believe

it or not Sunday

um

how people have come to judge me is not

based on anything self-evident it's

based on a specific and very meticulous

campaign

in a certain way because I think what

I've seen with all due respect is I've

seen a short angry man yelling at people

in public in defense of a regime that

has bombed schools okay sure let's yeah

let's begin with that like the whole

sure the whole uh short angry man

yelling at people in public so

first of all

I don't even I don't even know where

this impression came from that like

who really I mean I've always joked

about my relatively short height I've

always made I don't think I don't think

your shortness matters I think when

you're defending yeah no no once again

that has resulted in parents losing

their children you don't

you don't do that has resulted in

parents losing their children your

shortness is funny and should be made

fun of okay but why do you make it seem

like but that only works it only works

to make fun of a guy who's five eight if

he's bothered by it but I'm not bothered

by it like whenever we were talking

about it

if you talk about me being bald for

example I would move on for a minute but

Sunday I find it funny myself hey we can

get into other things too but it's the

first thing you mentioned right if I ask

you Sunday what is the negative thing

about me you just gave it to me so it's

like you could have said anything else

but as long as you latch onto it as like

a significant as long as that if you if

you were asking me if you were asking me

for the negative thing about you okay I

would go I would go I would go way back

to when you tried to distinguish

Yourself by shouting into your

microphone until it peaked to the point

where you couldn't even be audible you

know what I think we I think you did so

as a novelty and I think that was smart

but the problem is yeah you were a bit

of a one-trick pony and that's all you

had Sunday let's actually do that I if I

prefer to focus on the yelling then okay

Everyone likes to focus on my yelling

but nobody wants to evaluate the causes

when have I ever yelled really and maybe

there's a I mean I've been streaming

every day for like two years so I'm sure

you can find one or two exceptions

you're asking the wrong guy I haven't

paid that much okay okay

all the famous cases of me yelling

were Justified

for example perspective philosophy sure

I'll grant that one okay that's all I

don't think I yelled that hard with

respect philosophy I don't remember but

I I remember you you literally were

inaudible at one point because your

microphone peaked okay

um regardless it was funny actually

almost in almost every case famous case

of me yelling like social none left or

wash it is always preceded by an extreme

level of disrespect coming from them

if you I have never actually

disrespected let alone like screamed at

someone or I don't really scream yelled

at someone loudly

if it wasn't

um preceded by a level of disrespect

toward my Humanity if I'm trying to have

a human conversation with you in good

faith and you immediately start making

assumptions about my level of

intelligence just because of the way I

talk or the way I look and you're

starting to dismiss me and disrespect me

and call me names and start cutting me

off

why should I tolerate that why shouldn't

I just fucking you know of course I'm

gonna get angry of course it will anger

me why wouldn't it right I'm not a fake

person I'm actually I I have I have I

have no answer for you and I wouldn't

tolerate that myself however once again

you find yourself in a situation where

you were approaching strangers on the

basis of

off the top of my head minimal evidence

um in defense of a regime that has

caused a lot of innocent people okay

family members okay let's let's assume

I'm so radically immoral because of

Russia which something you don't want to

talk about so let's not talk about right

the fact of the matter Sunday is that

um

you saw the bodies of children and you

put you rated that beneath

okay you but you don't want to talk

about it

if you want to talk about it talk about

it if you don't don't okay I'll talk

about it with two weeks notice um okay

we'll we'll leave that we'll leave that

aside for no fair enough that you're not

prepared to defend right if you don't

want pushback anyway

I'm just for the sake of argument going

to assume like let's just for the sake

of arguing well I I am a little bit

curious how how many bodies would be too

much before you would turn on Putin

so do you want to go down this road of

Russia I just want to I just want to I

just wanted a miracle answer I I reject

the claim that um Russia Bears the

responsibility

Russia trespass on the borders of

Ukraine Ukraine did not trespass on the

borders of Russia

the fact of the matter is that Russia

had a that is the fact of the matter no

the fact of the matter is that right

that is the fact of the matter Russia

was not in Russia when those deaths

accrued again again I'm going to repeat

this Russia has a legitimate interest in

defending its own National Security it

has a legitimate interest it does not

have a legitimate claim these are

distinct

Russia doesn't need a legitimate claim

to Ukraine it doesn't need a legitimate

claim in your judgment to uh destroy the

lives of thousands and thousands of

legitimate claim to Germany they didn't

need one they were just defending

themselves against an aggressive power

weren't they yes but the difference is

that Germany was rolling tanks over the

borders of other countries Ukraine was

not that's what Russia was doing well if

you focus only on Ukraine and Russia

even then it's not true right but if you

don't have the broader perspective of

NATO you can't I I suppose the Germans

did have recourse to the international

cabal of jury

um I'm not sure why you're bringing that

up as if it's relevant why are you

bringing that up like what it's an

analogy house no give me a few weeks we

can talk about it hold on Sunday it's

not an analogy because if you don't take

it it's directly in another Sunday NATO

is an organization which was created to

fight and invade Russia and actually

genocide the Russian people in operation

Unthinkable if you've never heard of

that okay this is the founding causes

belly of NATO as an organization I don't

I don't I don't need to be a NATO simp

to condemn a Sunday criminal gang leader

for Rolling tanks into civilian centers

cut me off if you want no I don't

so are is your position an irrational

one

yeah

so again you're just I have I have I

have an irrational

uh I have an irrational

rage that I cannot quell for when

somebody carries water for people they

do not understand because even as an

easy Buck how can you work killing

children okay I have no I I just I just

explode Sunday

if you're going to create a barrier to

rational discourse doesn't that kind of

invalidate your claims to being like a

progressive enlightened thinker you're

thinking I am I am uh I am you were

thinking of the wrong kind of

progressive my friend

okay well what was what's the problem

with me yelling out I mean you're not

even willing to have a rational

disagreement over something you can't I

actually am I am entirely and in fact

what I've said repeatedly what I have

said what I've said Sunday let me impose

upon you what I've said quite repeatedly

is that I would be happy to have Sunday

an extended discussion with preparation

Sunday at some point in the future of at

your convenience yes

um

how can you know that your position is

even correct if you foreclosed yourself

to hearing the other side

I have I I do not I have foreclosed

myself to hearing the other side on

whether or not

um the pride of Russia is worth again

the grinding of thousands of children

into hamburger no one said anything

about the pride of Russia and I'm pretty

sure Sunday that you've expressed

absolutely zero indignation over the

children in the donbass who've been

getting slaughtered since 2014. you

never gave a fuck it's a damn shame that

Russia fermented a Civil War and used

the Don bass as a human shield they

didn't they did it because the people in

the dawn bats didn't want to submit to

the fucking Hunter then why is it a

civil war clearly there was not

unanimity about because civil war

between the people in the donbass who

speak Russian and the ukrainians in the

West for the most part that's well

clearly not because the ukrainians are

also in the Don best that's why it's a

civil war Ukrainian military has moved

into the dawn bass yes they have it's

literally a civil war because the

Russian speakers are fighting the

ukrainians it's literally a civil war

because Russia invaded Crimea and then

Ukraine it's that's it no Ukraine

suspended any claims to territorial

sovereignty when it had an illegitimate

coup in the eyes of the people in the

dawn bass and in the people of Crimea

and the people of Crimea are the ones

who chose to join Russia

well that's a little bit strange because

why did Russia need tanks then

maybe to defend from the rabbit to to to

defend from the retaliation to their

crossing the borders with tanks yeah I

expect they did so why did you ask if

they had tanks then

of course it was to protect against the

Ukrainian military but no no no I I

asked I asked why they had tanks because

the tanks went into the Ukrainian action

when they crossed the board training

government will not respect the will of

the people of Crimea obviously they

didn't and they actually you think you

think if the Russians were respecting

the will of the people of Crimea they

wouldn't have had to invade that would

have been something actually yes because

considered the vote to be illegal they

wouldn't have held that let's vote you

think if Russia didn't have tanks that

vote would have been allowed to happen

it wouldn't have the Ukrainian

government would have never allowed it I

have no idea let's move back to talking

about like why people are are not being

nice well this is a perfect example dude

you're just not open to the possibility

you might be wrong about me and that's

the problem I'm I'm perfectly open to it

in fact I've said I will I will allow

let's let's set something up two weeks

from now okay so let's spend let's spend

a solid two weeks okay pinning down like

a solid pieces let's do it okay sure

let's do that and then for right right

now from say so right now let's just

assume you're right that I I'm so

immoral for supporting Russia but that

doesn't give you a right to lie about I

don't I don't care I don't care you

don't have the right I don't care about

someone

hang on hang on what lies have I told

about you what are you referring to

you've obviously contributed to the

impression that I have I have nothing

politically well let's let's produce an

example let's see

um you know just you've I've seen you

Dogpile on Twitter and get on board

talking all that shit basically focusing

I mean you may the thing is Sunday even

you have to admit that I have not earned

my reputation either

crucify me for my position on Russia and

stick with that I don't have I don't

have to admit anything you do um I think

I think I think you're I think your

position on Russia and your situation be

severe position on Russia I there is no

needfulness whatsoever for you to take

your position on Russia you were doing

so because it benefits your channel I

think that convinced condemns you

sufficiently enough by itself when we

look at the other things like for

example how you've decided to uh try and

align yourself as softly as possible

with the radical right and Target

already embattled groups once again for

the sake of aggrandizing yourself I mean

like we can just go down the list as as

long as we want we can but you're not

willing to because you said you need two

weeks not without preparation I do

indeed that's my policy with everybody

we could be we could be talking about uh

I don't know we we could be talking

about road worker we could be talking

about

um what's that word agglomeration or

whatever okay

well okay all of my sins it's just how I

do Sunday conveniently you can't really

justify all of these accusations against

me you just kind of ah but I can with

two weeks

okay you can do it in two weeks but I

can do it in two weeks but you see the

the yarrow the yarrow will crush the

Khan beneath his heel okay sure but you

see fit to draw these conclusions and

make these statements before the two

weeks have passed I do so I guess you're

just in debt then to see if what you're

saying can actually be paid off in

anything

I suppose so yeah we will have to see

yeah but again

um I gave you infrared infrared's chat

you should uh okay well you should you

should you should you should get to work

and help them out so Sunday I gave you a

chance to uh point out a single thing I

said was wrong your title is obviously

very satirical

um

but I don't know no my my title was

completely serious okay I think you're

the genius voice of a generation cause

okay why does it why do I have to have a

specific reputation why can't you just

like specifically deal with the content

of what I say why does it have to be I'm

either a genius or I'm either a dumbass

why can't you just actually respond to

what I actually just say I think I think

you're a above average intelligence

billing out and making themselves stupid

as a marketing play

I don't think I'm making myself stupid I

think for you I don't think you believe

a single word you say I think you are

saying exactly what you need to to

navigate the conversation at hand you

know why that's so dangerous to claim

because when you've suspended the

ability to ground any position or any

form of thinking or any belief in some

kind of like

something that could be subjected to any

kind of rational scrutiny like when I

have a position that is extremely

consistent that

obeys some kind of intelligible method

that can be communicated is grounded in

a rationally consistent world view of

some kind it's not actually a mystery of

any kind I'm not it's not some like

secret I can communicate my position

very clearly right and I couldn't

understand a word you just said can you

restate that

yeah it's very funny but I can I can

foreign

so you don't need to say I'm motivated

by anything else when at least what I'm

putting out there

obeys some kind of internal logic when

you tell someone that I'm going to

dismiss everything you say as the result

of some kind of disingenuous or

inauthentic insincere level of belief

you're basically foreclosing the ability

for human beings that disagree with each

other to communicate

you're making it impossible for

communication to be to happen because

you're basically telling the other

person it doesn't matter what you say

this is I've actually insisted multiple

times in this conversation that we

should have a moderated conversation

specifically

unable to engage with the ideas

yeah I had a donation you said you're

willing to have a debate in two weeks

that's fine but you chose to do this

stream today covering my stuff and I've

given you the opportunity to actually

confront me with what you find

objectionable or wrong

oh when I confront people I confront

people with preparation on my own time

me answering your call is occurring why

didn't you need preparation to respond

to my stream then

uh why didn't I need preparation because

it hadn't happened yet I'm watching it

in in semi-real time I'm an hour behind

you but I'm watching it as it goes how

were you gonna prepare during the stream

itself did you prepare beforehand

was I going to prepare for what

precisely I'm literally just watching

you write this thing out watching and

responding to my stream

but it's it's it's it's it's live now I

I was the streams online now if the

stream's not done sure I've been told

you've been watching it for like I don't

know a decent amount of time my stream's

been active for about two hours I've

paused a few times

um but your stream has been going let me

look here actually a little bit so four

hours yeah so I'm about two hours behind

you so uh yeah I haven't I haven't seen

your whole stream yet so there's nothing

to prepare for it let's just say you've

at least Cutting Edge an hour of my

content right

okay well I've been told that you have a

number of objections to some of the

things I've said and I just am curious

about what that is

I can't recall so yeah so you've watched

an hour so far and you have no

objections

I I had objections as you went through

it I could not encyclopedically recall

them off the top of my head I can go

back and we can talk about this in two

weeks from now

I just that's fascinating you're drunk

and there's no

okay I mean

by the way I've noticed it's a it's a

real um pattern where

um

uh particularly leftist opponents will

get in VC and say I always want to

preface this by saying I'm drunk

uh can you explain why everybody has to

be drunk

well when you're sitting on your ass for

eight hours a day reading books and

streaming and you have like a natural

anxiety about being in front of an

audience of a few hunting people you

know you drink sometimes

it really is that simple

right I honestly drinking drinking makes

you feel about Sunday I'm not actually

looking for you or any other leftist to

agree with me because I've vehemently

disagree with these people what I'm

actually looking for is for you to

correctly disagree with me which means

disagree with me based on what I say

well disagreeing with you based on what

you say will require me to take time

actually going through reviewing what

you say and ascertaining what you say

first that that would be so you're not

that would be the good faith approach

are you even prepared I'm actually

willing to give you the benefit of it

out and take it completely seriously and

spend time actually combing through okay

are you what you said and judging

so given I have such a whore I'm such a

bad person with a horrible reputation

this is my point okay

you can have your own gripe with me

about the Russell Ukraine conflict we're

not going to get into it you can have

that gripe

that doesn't justify the way in which

um I am lied about really consistently

like as far as if you were if you were a

liar about them that is unjustified

definitionally it is a lie

if

if right now you can establish that

you've been lied about I would be seems

like these kids pretty often honey I

know you caught me cheating on you and

I'd be happy to discuss these

allegations

they get to be excused because you just

you've decided there's a red line I've

crossed a red line into being sorry a

Super Chat was funny

I've crossed the red line into being a

bad person and now pretty much like all

bets are off right

you're aligning yourself with a country

that is in a war of aggression against

another country that is not in a word of

aggression with it you know what yeah

here's the thing Sunday

um Carl Schmidt was a Nazi okay yeah so

were all the other German conservative

Revolution thinkers but somehow that

didn't preclude

left-wing Continental thinkers from

seriously interrogating their work and

taking it seriously

yeah but the reason why they were Nazis

is because they were deeply cynical men

who wanted to keep their positions in

Germany

um Carl Smith had total contemption it

doesn't matter there was something

it does matter the point is the bare

fact of them being uh

baddies from the perspective of of like

the the the liberal hegemony that

followed

um the defeat of the Nazis

um does not by itself valorize every

single thinker who happens to have some

toxic or cynical position at any given

point you are not Carl Schmidt my friend

no I'm not saying I am but it's in

contrast to Carl Schmidt the fact that I

support Russia somehow makes it

impossible to in good faith Sunday I

think you have a problem no it doesn't

however

you can say that you were supporting

Russia in bad faith

um then it absolutely does justify them

dismissing you elsewhere life is too

short there are other people to read and

pay attention to no it simply doesn't

that's just not true

simply doesn't what I wasn't really

because because what if my views on

Russia are part of a holistic no no no

no uh going back a little bit it doesn't

what what are you talking about it

doesn't justify the other views people

decide to have

with respect to what with respect it

doesn't it doesn't need to like they're

just dismissing you they don't care

about you there are other people to

respond to you've been himself for

example yeah that's the thing you can't

really dismiss I don't think it's

grounds for dismissal that someone has a

contrary view than you do about the

Russia Ukraine conflict because you may

not want to hear this Sunday well it's

not the it's not the contrary

pretty confident in saying most of the

world vaguely shares my impression and

view of that conflict I believe your

confidence I I do not I do not think

that's true

you don't think it's true that most of

the world agrees with me

if you go I don't I don't think it's

true that most the world agrees with you

it also would not matter work around on

the streets of Mumbai or any major city

in China if you go to Cairo if you go to

uh Beirut if you go to you know if you

go to uh some random place in Brazil you

go anywhere in the world Sunday of these

non-european places and you which is the

majority of the World by the way you go

to

um you know

you go to Addis Ababa or something and

you ask a random person on the street

hey what do you think I've never heard

of that place before in Ethiopia okay

you ask a random person what they think

about the Ukraine situation and you know

what they're gonna say they're gonna say

it's about time someone taught the West

hmm yeah interesting that is you know

you know you know where I you know where

I didn't get my degree in political

science from some random person in

Ethiopia but you have to acknowledge

it's a very common sentiment at least

sure and and on the U.N we know this

correctly most of the world

tends to not vote alongside

the International Community quote

unquote which is just the Western World

on these more newer resolutions to

condemn Russia and oppose Russia most of

the world continues to open up relations

with Russia most of the world it has no

problem whatsoever

and continuing to do business with

Russia

where they can circumvent U.S sanctions

so this is a sentiment that is I mean

the security Council includes Russia and

China

well I'm talking about the other member

states of the United Nations where

they're allowed to vote in uh yeah

so

it's pretty clear that my view is not

I'm not just some horrible anti-social

aberration that might be the case for

lib liberal leftists no I think I think

there's a lot of money in in

conservative and right-wing politics and

social media and I think you are doing

the exact same stick that Chad logic is

doing Sunday found a lot of success

Destiny's done the same thing sure sure

yeah do you think I've made more or less

money than I would have if I continue to

just be a

non-controversial leftist if I was just

a leftist who is like aggressive and

yelled a lot I'm pretty sure I would be

at 500 000 subscribers right now why

don't you try

but objectively the rate of my growth

when I was less controversial was higher

than it is now my dude vosh is in the

500 000 subscribers right now and that's

exactly what he was doing clearly that

wouldn't no it's not no it's not because

I don't want to be superficial but I

think there's more of an appeal when it

comes to someone like me

then vosh when it's fulfilling it's kind

of like you know red lib you don't know

what a red lip is like you know Marxist

learning this yes but still politically

correct still saying things that are

socially acceptable yeah yeah yeah not

not really you're not really willing to

go beyond sock Dem in terms of their

radicalness once they reach a certain in

terms of their cultural views but still

you know defending China still doing all

that stuff but not like

not in a way that is

a considered coded I think Bosch defense

China I think wash is pretty uh pretty

critical of China I know I'm not talking

about Walsh

I've never been vosh I've always been

for people who don't like vosh but

there's a huge huge contingent there's a

huge audience there's a huge Niche out

there of people who want to be more

tankies quote unquote right but are just

still committed to the kind of like

social liberalism and

turning my back on that probably did

harm my growth if anything

and I'm sitting in a place believe it or

not Sunday where

I'm not this turn it's at least right

now has not paid off if I'm drifting off

of the right has not paid off

the fact that I am reaching primarily

right I don't know dude you're you're

you're you're very yelly when it comes

to people like socialism done left and

perspective philosophy but your tone

gets soft like uh like a mother singing

a lullaby to a babe in a crib when

you're talking to someone like Keith

Woods that has not been lost on me I

think I think I think you know I would

say I think you know where the I think

you know where the police resistance

lies no what did Keith Woods say to

disrespect me why shouldn't I just have

a conversation with someone as a fellow

human being well if someone who regards

non-whites as a barbarous including me

including including the people to which

I had belonged but I can have the good

faith of allowing him to have that as a

kind of uh belief

that I have to regret that's the price

you said on your dignity my friend no

it's not no it's not there's a

difference between having a wrong

impersonal view that is prejudiced let's

say Lebanese people there's a difference

when you have a vague so-called

impersonal impression oh Lebanese people

are inferior to me that doesn't

intimidate me that view doesn't

intimidate me but when you start to

treat me as inferior because of that uh

so so-called impersonal view that you

have of course I can retaliate but Keith

Woods didn't do that right so I don't

really care what

all range of possible you're fine with

them you're fine with him disparaging

the manifold of people no I'm not and he

didn't provided he's polite to you in

particular he didn't disparage uh that

doesn't stick in your that doesn't stick

if you recall where the debate debate

got the most heated by the way it's when

they tried to kind of discourage somalis

right saying they didn't want them as

their neighbors

and I found it necessary to point out

what pers and I was I wouldn't have to

resort to emotions either by the way

Sunday because unlike many of you I

don't think these right-wing people or

audiences are inherently evil I think

it's the deficiencies of the left

that has

LED them to that path which you

elaborate draw the line of causality I'm

curious yeah I think leftism is just a

bunch of bullshit and people can see

it's and it's inauthentic and the reason

it's inauthentic is because leftism

categorically are we talking about the

online left are we talking about vosher

what are we talking about American

American leftism in terms of the options

on the table as far as What ideologies

people will draw from for understanding

the world right and it seems like

leftists are more concerned with

fulfilling some kind of abstract moral

criteria of I want things to be more

fair I want things to be more right

rather than actually trying to reflect

how the world actually is in the actual

state of the world and when it comes to

that right Wingers slow down a little

slow down a sec what do you mean by that

it seems like leftists are willing to

oftentimes sacrifice facts in the name

of

um what is ideologically or morally

convenient

you have a do you have a particular case

in mind

uh what about differences between men

and women how many leftists will

concede to the obvious factual

disparities these statistical

disparities for example

between men so what you mean by men and

women doesn't it

I I don't know what it could possibly

mean no you're you're unfamiliar with

the concept of gender is being distinct

from sex

is for me entertaining that right now

what do you what do you mean

you brought it up this is your example

right so when I mean men and women I

mean the vague coincidence for whatever

reason between people's gender identity

and their sex

what gives rise to that coincidence are

you asking for my view or what your

leftist view or what I'm asking for your

view

I think gender identity is just pretty

broadly the cultural expression of sex

but it's clearly not true because the

reason why we have to distinguish gender

from sex is because these do not

correlate in those cases no they

supposedly don't correlate in a very

small minority of cases

well in in practice I don't think the

examples that the examples that emerge

in in time so far that we have seen I

don't think of overwhelmingly being

consistent I don't think what Society

pressures them to correspond to I don't

think exceptions disprove generalities I

don't think it's wrong exceptions do

disprove universalities though but no

one is making claim I don't I'm on a

dietitian I don't believe in absolute

universalities

why are we even why are we even talking

about sex and gender then this is

Trivial does talking about uh sex or

gender have to imply absolute

universalities even in nature there are

no if you if you if you make a statement

to the effect

um that someone is a Degen or someone is

deluded or what have you whatever you

word you like on the grounds that they

behave in a manner that is not

consistent with the qualities that you

associate with their genital set then

that is going to rest on the basis of a

universal claim that that genital set

determines what their appropriate

behavior is no even that statement rests

on a lot of assumptions that for example

the reasons

yeah well the reason for example I mean

I didn't even say that and you can't

even say that on YouTube so I'm not even

sure why you're bringing it up

it's not something that I could even say

even if I wanted I mean I'm still here I

don't know about you but you can't

Advance something you can

um affirm in the positive on YouTube

Stephen Crowder strongly disagrees he's

fully demonetized is he actually I'm not

sure that's true hang on let's see

I'm not denying it I'm just curious is

Stephen Crowder demonetized

his channel was remonetized after

YouTube said Crowder adjust his behavior

and content and it was demonetized again

in March 2021 with upload suspended for

a week after violating YouTube's

presidential election Integrity policy

unrelated that's unfortunate well I

guess we'll just never know

okay

well in any case

um

I I think

here's the thing Sunday I think um well

you're probably unwilling to understand

is that

and I I I please implore anyone right

this is why I'm suspicious of I'm

listening content creator who hasn't

been somehow extremely canceled in some

kind of way

you could be innocent just just assume

this just assume this you could be

innocent you can be honest you can be

righteous right

okay

at least by some kind of internal

internally consistent Criterion you

could just be an honest righteous

innocent person

and if you go against the status quo

while you're on the internet

for some mysterious reason people find

ways to malign your character to such a

degree that what they show you of

yourself on the internet becomes

fundamentally unrecognizable

they make you out to be something that

is so radically at odds with what you

have actually done even on the internet

itself it's fucking scary

and that's what people like you are not

willing to accept memory if memory if

memory does serve just as as an example

you think so there is uh are you are you

familiar with a book called we have

never been modern Yeah by Bruno LaTour

yeah so you had you had someone in your

chat earlier

um say something the effect of like

Bruno tour is Right we've never been

monitored and you flattered insulted him

in in in your chat for that and in a way

that is very easily parodied

because he because he disrespectfully

said bye bye like in a really dismissive

way before he said anything

he wasn't like oh Haas I disagree with

you on this speaking he wasn't that's

not what happened dude stop being stop

saying dumb shit anyway

um I don't even know how you recall that

but anyway me either to be totally

honest with you yeah well you managed to

recall that but none of your actual

objections anyway

um

what I'm trying to say is that

a lot of people like you I would say

have the bias of the crowd must be right

if if Twitter hates this person oh no no

we're at number 101 right I think it's

true though if Twitter hates this person

if the crowd hates this person there

must be some kind of legitimate reason

for that have you have you seen them

have you seen the numbers of like

subscribers for right figures on Twitter

it's it's overwhelmingly in their

favorites yeah Alex I can actually speak

to that right wing

um very rarely there are a few

exceptions like Fuentes is an exception

but rarely rare very rarely

do right wing

personalities acquire a the quality of

parasociality

very rarely right B so it's usually just

passive support

um I mean like Jordan Peterson very

rarely Bureau very powerful there are a

few exceptions again the extreme right

is the exception like Bap Twitter right

Bronze Age pervert that whole crowd

um that's a name I haven't heard in a

while yeah

where the right wing is not based in any

kind of universally accessible discourse

so there are no universally shared

conventions as far as right-wing

politics here about people's reputations

that's why it's really hard

for cancel culture to work over there

because no one is that invested in this

kind of shared Universal discourse about

someone's reputation or how someone

should be regarded morally in the first

place that's no because they're all

selling the same snake oil so they're

standards for entry or like dinosaur

bones you can interpret it that way if

you want that's a fact but you you pay

attention I think they say they're

insane okay again

but what was the original point

I'm stumped As You Are

yeah because I don't really think you're

following with this right

the the original point is that

you could be

you could be like a uh you know

a passerby who's viewing this person

who's getting so maligned and hated

and you could be the type of person who

goes you know what

there must be a legitimate reason for

that the crowd can't be wrong I trust

the crowd I trust the open Society

there's no way that this person is so

hated and so maligned

and and

um it's not unfair

and that is a fundamental left-wing bias

um

and that's one that you think that you

are above

yes I do actually good I'm glad you say

that so when are we arranging the debate

between you and Demon mama

you me and you

you went demon mom in particular I don't

have I don't have the kind of Alliant

reputation I'm I'm sort of I mean I I

would not be opposed to why are you

bringing that up

it's gonna be funny

I think again again

it's a vague illusion

to some kind of like hierarchy of

reputations that exists on the left and

I'm not sure

has why should that happen I think I

think generally we're Beyond reputation

at this point because like what you

could point to

because that almost every single person

who criticizes you just so you criticize

them as an equally you know tainted

reputation

um almost everybody in this sphere has a

connection not nobody I don't think so I

think I am probably

regarded I think I'm probably one of the

most unfairly maligned personalities on

the internet everybody thinks that about

themselves but I I think in my case it's

pretty if you actually look into it it's

pretty indisputable once again you're

defending a regime that has killed

children

okay that's not a lot of people have

done so you know what's interesting

Sunday that's your reason and yet

the animosity toward me is not

different in content and it's for

multiple reasons that's your reason

there's other reasons too uh some

there's there's there could be a person

who disagrees with me over the Sinnoh

Albanian split

and they will treat me the same way you

do

so in content

whoever threw shit on me and you know

it's strange Sunday because this only

really began

when it started to become clear that I

was starting to impact the cpusa

internally and there started to be a big

internal debate within the cpusa around

the fall of 2021 and all of a sudden

it's so very strange all of a sudden all

these astroturfed tweets maligning me

and and

shitting on me basically I don't know

the first thing about that all I know is

you go no let me explain we're having

blue hair and boobs Sunday Sunday I'm

like an incel misogynist guy right

are you that's unfortunate no but that's

probably what you think of me most

people think of me that way right I

don't think about you at all if I'm

totally honest yeah but that's your

vague impression right oh

no no I think I think you're I think

you're a failed law student who plays a

character on the internet for donations

that's brilliant that's a beautiful

example oh my God I'm so glad you said

that dude

I even forgot about that one

so let's talk about that

now just because you disagree with me on

Russia and Ukraine is it really fair to

say I'm a failed law student

things are completely separate things

but why am I understand I understood I

understood you to drop out now me

personally if I was a successful law

student I wouldn't be hitting up YouTube

before I had my degree but that's just

me I actually didn't drop out though

that's the thing oh really so you

graduated congratulations no again

has it ever occurred to you that you

could take a leave of absence

so long leave absence my friend

and do you know so you're not familiar

with it again you're maligning me I mean

if I was less controversial I don't

think you would call me a failed law

student if I supported Ukraine you'd

probably not call me that right you'd

probably yeah if if once again if you

were not cheerleading a regime that

killed a bunch of them yeah then I

wouldn't be a field law student anymore

I probably would give you the benefit of

the doubt but unfortunately that's not

the world we live in lecture you know

what's crazy Sunday is like

it's almost like retro casually

facts about me start to change based on

what you're looking at is arching

political positions that I take like if

I support Russia it's like Schrodinger's

law student if I support Russia I'm a

failed law student if I don't support

Russia now you can just admit that I

actually

completed my first year of law school at

the same time that I started streaming

and law school was getting in the way of

my streaming uh hours and I was growing

so rapidly that I decided to take a

one-year leave of absence in law school

to see if I could continue being

successful streaming thing you would

know that while I was in law school I

was suffering from an extreme level of

clinical insomnia I was extremely

miserable doing laundry it wasn't mine I

have no stranger for that I understand

wasn't my passion wasn't my vocation I

hated it I hated the American legal

system I hated having to take positions

I didn't believe and just look look dude

just just own it not everybody can hack

law school it's not a slight against

your character

I completed my first year of Law School

with no problem um while I was streaming

full I was streaming full time you said

you were dealing with you said you were

dealing with like uh crippling insomnia

like that doesn't sound like no problem

to me yeah once again I'm not that's

that's not something you're blame worthy

for Sunday that doesn't make you weak

that wasn't because that wasn't because

law school was too difficult for me it

was because I wasn't doing what I

believed I should be doing

you say so but you don't have your law

degree so I guess we won't know

so if I go and conveniently if I stop

streaming and stop being uh active that

much on the internet and go get my law

degree Schrodinger's law student then

you'll say something else to malign me

right no you'll have uh I'll say the

exact same thing as I've said tonight

but in addition you'll have a law degree

so I I I'm a so I'm not a failed law

student anymore I'm a what I'm a failed

streamer then you know what I mean like

I mean you might you might be yeah again

again no matter what that's what I'm

talking about it's a race make a normal

without cracking a few eggs leftists

and Destiny's included in this I include

him in the left because they behave the

same way your reputation is literally

based on

nothing factual it's based on whether

you're the in-group or the out group

right and if you're out British or my

reputation is based on making a bunch of

autistic video essays about Carl Schmidt

in Dead Space but okay again but

fundamental facts about your character

become maligned whether or not they're

true or not having nothing to do with

their factual validity solely because

people assume positions you disagree

with I think that's unjust I think

that's fundamentally unjust

and that's why we aren't we aren't

talking about positions like oh I agree

with Richard wardu's critique of

Descartes distinction between the the uh

mind and no we're talking about the

positions that actually matter in

objective reality and the information so

the ones the ones in which on the basis

of minimal information you've decided to

truly decide that we know for a certain

fact has decided for selfish reasons to

bomb uh schools you know

what I do I've seen the bodies sure but

you know this with certain facts and yet

it's not allowed to be subjected to any

scrutiny so it's kind of a paradox I

don't think you're subjecting them to

scrutiny I think you're taking a

position of scrutiny looking because

that's a niche that you can fill and I

don't I don't think you're subjecting

your presumptions about the conflict of

scrutiny because you literally claim

that you need two weeks to do that

well no that's that's actually precisely

acknowledging that scrutiny takes time

scrutiny is expensive it's why you don't

do it but and yet this is the problem

Sunday you are engaging in you're

drawing out normative consequences of

something you have not justified

I don't believe I am called upon to

justify a critique of somebody for

killing children but you don't know if

you don't know how can you actually

start taking actions against someone

this is exactly by the way this is

exactly hang on what don't I know if you

don't know everything about the Russia

Ukraine conflict how can you take action

against someone in relation to it

oh Haas is evil because of something I

don't know

how can you actually do harm to another

human being if you're not fully certain

of your position that this indicts them

as a bad person

no Haas is evil because he's

cheerleading regime that we do know is

killing children again that's that's if

you want that's what we're going to call

the synthetic statement here right the

synthetic statement is not apriori it's

not you're not talking about space and

time

you're talking about a synthetic

statement that requires some way uh it

has to be subject to scrutiny by default

right in order that's not what that's

not what that means but we can yeah it

kind of is what it means it's really not

so yeah synthetic statements are

statements that result from some kind of

non-given

whatever right pretty much is what it is

hello

yeah I'm still there yeah am I wrong

with mild aneurysm you you are a little

bit but it's not important

why am I wrong

synthetic statements are not true by

virtue of some kind of like axiomatic

internal reason like

you know

Bachelors are unmarried

it's not a synthetic statement

because it's true by virtue of the

definition of what a bachelor is okay

something that's contingent that could

be subjected to some kind of

other possibility is what's synthetic so

for example if you say that Bachelor is

wear pink shoes it's not inherent to the

definition of a bachelor it's a result

of a contingent observation in reality

so yes

of course that requires scrutiny

is that wrong or what

you lost me rewind a little bit what

were we what were we moving into this

for

we're moving into this because

you are your statement that I'm gonna

bracket it that you're evil because

you're cheerleading Russia doing X

horrible evil things for X horrible

reasons that's exactly what you can't be

certain of if you can't subject it to

certainty

it's not inherent in the definition of

Russia for example that you can draw out

all these conclusions about what Russia

is doing you need to actually subject

that to some kind of scrutiny before

you're going to draw out morally

relevant consequences in terms of how

you treat other human beings

once again you're operating under the

same information that everybody else is

you saw a country aggressing on another

one bombing hospitals and civilian

centers causing Mass death etc etc

needlessly so don't you think you jumped

on or jumped on propaganda

maybe maybe this is maybe you're just

drunk and you somehow can't fathom but

you're not drunk because when you're

sober you have the same uh you have the

same prejudice

but don't you think don't you think it's

possible for something to be factually

the same scenario but it can be spinned

in completely opposite ways what makes

your way of spinning what makes your

narrative Superior to Russia's narrative

I'm not cheerleading killing children

Russia as saying you're doing that

because you are allowing the Ukrainian

military to continue doing Russia's

Russia's Russia's tanks are in Ukrainian

territory

to protect children from Ukraine their

Russia's tanks are in Ukraine to protect

children from what they will do to them

if Ukraine doesn't let the tanks roll in

huh no to protect them from the regular

shelling of

the lot people in the dawn bass why are

shells being exchanged at all

because the people in the dawn bass

don't because Russia invaded

and gave artificial support to a

seditious that's not true because that

seditious group is based in the general

will that is true of the people the

general the the general will that needs

the material support of a foreign

Invader yeah that's that's yeah

some general will so did the did the

Continental Army need the material

support of the French I think history

books will tell you they did

doesn't matter

just because a

people disposed of a general will are

receiving material support doesn't mean

that that is reducible to that well no

what it means is that the general will

that you're referring to is not the

general will of a dawn best the general

goal of the Russian no it's not sure

broadly speaking don't want to live

under what they what of what generality

is the will has if it requires a massive

foreign Force to assert itself

do you think a general will necessarily

has to have the million you answer the

question

I'm going to ask you the question do you

think a general but I asked you a

question can you answer it you can say

you can that's fine if you can't your

question is can there be a general will

if it requires no my question was of

what generality is the will if it

requires a massive foreign Force to

assert itself

it doesn't

of What Not

it doesn't need Russia to assert its

will it needs Russia to protect that

then Russia invaded needlessly did it

not that's the immediate upshot of that

statement you're drunk dude you're drunk

think about what you're saying logically

and don't interrupt me they don't need

Russia to assert their will they need

Russia for their will to be defended

they've asserted their will very clearly

in their refusal and the establishment

of the Donetsk and lugang's people's

republics that was the assertion of

their General will as far as the ability

to protect those were those established

as a result of Russia's incursion into

Ukrainian territory no

really no really so those just happen

spontaneously in Russia just

coincidence just a coinkydink they

happen to be rolling tanks into Ukraine

during that time

what what do you mean of course it was

related to the broader sentiment of

wanting to join Russia yes

where are we where are we having this

conversation modern day debate

two weeks

okay well I guess you can decide when

you want to have it

there are balls in your court my friend

okay I can have it in one week well you

need two minimum

I like two two's nice how about one and

a half

okay well

we can have it uh the 20th if you need

to

let's see what is that 20th

Ah that's a Monday

Mondays okay how about Sunday the 19th

wow now we'll do the 20th

um we'll uh we'll talk with James and uh

what's uh what's the topic dealer's

Choice it's all of the topics that you

are not presently equipped to debate

about uh how about we pick how about we

pick three and let's let's try to find a

happy medium okay Maga communism

what do you mean like the existence of

Maga communism

the the the theory behind it

as uh as

Given In The Stream that you're

currently

or my sub stack

or your sub stack can you give me a link

to that

uh you could just look up the rise of

mango communism on Google will be the

first result well you haven't you have

me on uh you have me on discords why

don't you just send me that and that

will that will equip me to address that

it's called the rise of Maga communism

I'm sure your mods can link it to you

foreign

communism okay so that's that's one uh

we got two three more

the Russia Ukraine conflict

Russia Ukraine

particular thing about that uh you think

you've been

unjustly maligned on the basis of your

position basically that do you want to

make that yeah the subject

all right reputation slurred

and finally

um

it should be uh

trying to trying to remember it

it should be uh

how about Dugan

um

yes but there was also something else

the Russia Ukraine conflict and um

okay yeah we could just do what you said

and then do good

how about we just do the first two okay

we'll do uh we'll we'll Loop them both

under you have been unjustly maligned on

the basis of

your political philosophy such as it is

being uncharitably interpreted

and on the basis of a knee-jerk reaction

to your defense of a child murdering

Mass raping regime Fair

yeah it's definitely something I'm going

to have on Rumble holy fuck okay yeah

uh you you're not it's not gonna be

called that because the burden of proof

is on you too

um

demonstrate the validity of your

accusations against Russia in the first

place oh yeah I was gonna say I remember

what I was gonna say it's gonna be

part of the second topic

whether or not I'm a disingenuous actor

or a bad faith actor whether or not my

views on Russia are not based on a

pretty consistent holistic worldview or

a if you want to call it a principle

that I have never deviated from since

launching the infrared show with whose

tagline was always Marxism leninism in

the age of multi-polarity and the

post-covered world where I have

consistently defended Russia and Putin

it was my causes belly in my first

debate with vosh you can recall how I

bring up Russia and I bring up Putin

I can't actually I don't believe I'm

walking it was literally there in my

first debate with wash I'm not a grifter

I'm not jumping on any convenient thing

the very first stream I believe when I

had two viewers dude

it's my first videos my I have done

interviews with uh Ilya Medvedev who was

in the donbass I've done videos with um

Katya kosbeck to talk about Russia and

my appreciation for Dugan in Russian

civilization and Putin some of my first

videos on my channel are defense of

Putin against liberal criticisms my

first

saying that I'm a grifter and I've kind

of sold out it's just so inconsistent

with the facts but I'm sure you need two

weeks to prepare for that

well I mean personally

if I was if you had refused and I was

forced to commit now I'd be perfectly

happy with calling you a grifter from

time immemorial

but uh okay what made me a grifter

though

on the basis of insufficient evidence on

the basis of insufficient motive you

took on the cause of a foreign Invader

of a foreign country that was killing

people

you can talk about Russia's election was

itself an Empire by the way a capitalist

Empire okay sure sure

but you have to admit you can claim that

all you want I can you can yeah but you

would be it'd be baseless to claim it by

the way but you can you can claim that

but the facts stand that I do have cause

it is consistent with the world view

I've espoused since my very first stream

on YouTube

I once again I I do not spend my every

waking moment chronically I know dude's

good what was what was okay then what's

the description on my YouTube channel

I don't know it's been there forever

Marxism leninism in the age of

multi-polarity in the postcode world you

say so what do you think that means

I'm quite sure I don't care

we are meeting on the 20th

okay

I'll see you then you said you can

justify that I'm a grifter you can't

dude you can't

I've never changed I've never changed

you're not required to change some

people are uh

some people are corrupt when they get

started I don't know then you then you

should have uh crucified me on the cross

of corruption

instead of switching up and deciding all

bets are off because uh I took a

position in contemporary World politics

that you weren't comfortable with maybe

you're right

yeah but again it's Schrodinger's

reputation at first I was a good guy and

now I'm the worst guy in the world

do you think he talks to people IRL like

this I can hear both the cholesterol and

glasses in his voice

I don't know but um I mean you can

probably hear the classic my voice I was

chewing on them earlier if you

if you are I I don't think you can say

you're minimally committed to Justice

your mentally committed to any righteous

position any position of virtue

basically

when you die on this fucking Hill that

yeah

I'm just gonna attack you Haas because

it's convenient to and everyone else is

doing it so I'm safe and doing it which

which heals this precisely

when I

um started covering the Ukraine war

a destiny

probably not even personally probably

some State Department or CIA should he

threw his whole fucking community at me

immediately to stop me right because I

was growing pretty fast on Twitch

and it was like operation destroy Haas

infrared like for what I didn't do any

nothing personally against Destiny he

was someone clearly told him I agree

I've been too hard on him

sorry maybe I've been too hard on them

yeah I think you should probably uh

reconcile because

that's but but you were his ass kisser

back then and you started attacking me I

I was Destiny's asking sir back then

really yeah and you started attacking me

you joined in on me you joined in with

Destiny and Dylan Burns

because you were basically socially

aligned were you promise I'm pretty sure

your treatment for your alcoholism and

come to the debate 100 you would you

attacked Destiny and Dylan Burns

afterwards right later I'm pretty sure I

attacked Dylan Burns way in advance

and I attack Destiny later on I I have

no I have no no I remember what happened

you I I have no friends

back when I was back when I was on the

right I used to despise Destiny so he

was a weird Weasley guy with the voice

like stretch from him

I do I usually do have this experience

where you know I will deal with um

Destiny's orbiters whose are his ass

kissers basically and they'll come at me

and then later on they'll have a feud

with Destiny and break with Destiny ohaz

I was always against Destiny and then

you think I forgive them I don't right

so

you just told me for example I

appreciate the way you confronted chub

logic because you have beautiful child

logic now where were you it's a shame

it's a shame it came from you but I did

but where but where were you before when

you alongside shot logic we're all

joining the chorus of whatever to malign

me and attack me well anyway

that's an excellent question I'm quite

sure I can't remember what were we

saying

you're just with all of my enemies

well I mean you have a lot of enemies my

friend you're right I do and you'd think

a grifter would be smarter than that if

they were a grifter then Jordan Peterson

has a lot of enemies Stephen Crowder has

a lot of enemies Destinies no no

I in contrast to Jordan Peterson and

Stephen Crowder have far more haters

than I do supporters and I know my

supporters are the most devoted

in the world right well that's just luck

of the draw that's not that's not I have

the most extremely devoted supporters

because they see the truth and it makes

them extremely devoted to me but the

truth is yes I have far far more haters

than I do supporters far more

and if I was a fucking grifter I would

be more like these milk toast Hakeem

second thought people that would never

ever say something that would get

Twitter to be mad at me or pissed off at

me you see you think you think second

thought is

absolutely yeah second thought made

videos condemning North Korea as its

dictatorship and now he's since the wind

is going in the direction of ml as the

new trend and he also joined the

Communist Party mysteriously

you haven't observed that

no but I haven't really been paying

attention either so would you agree

Democratic socialism was a trend

Democratic socialism which was a trend

uh when are we talking

like uh 2016 to 20 to up to covid

basically oh you're asking the wrong

person that was the right wing then what

I was on the right then I was actually

friends with Keith Woods until fairly

recently DSA was like a thing right

pretty trendy

Hassan piker

it's a ring a bell I never I never got

the appeal of Assad okay well it was a

trend

and a lot of that is starting to change

into ml

I was there first

but it's happening

uh I'll avash is getting hated on all

the time on Twitter and the reason I

think uh you think our team isn't uh ml

Hakeem identifies that way yeah

but you don't think he really is no I

don't

why is that

I think Hakeem is what I would probably

call a base thank you so much

radical Social Democrat but I think

Hakeem is

utilizing the rhetoric of Marxism

leninism

to justify what I would call your milk

toast

wef I will say globalist liberal

politics

but just given the sanction of you know

the uh state of emergency political

dictatorship he's projecting that kind

of politics onto

you know Communist States throughout

history

but it's based on what I consider a

pretty dangerous

almost fascist like

a way of trying to sanction the

increasingly undemocratic dictatorial

powers of liberal countries like for

example Canada

where the Trudeau government started to

freeze the bank accounts of people

involved in the freedom Convoy movement

and so on and so forth and they're kind

of just saying oh yeah that's just like

stalinism so it is it is it is really

spectacular that you're

your uh your your freedom alarm goes off

when a bunch of people are flooding a

pandemic response uh ordinance but not

when tanks are rolling over a border

bombing hospitals barbing bombing

schools causing the the mass Exodus of

civilians yeah I do think it's you I

think War based on a geopolitical

confrontation is not the same as a

government that is uh proclaims to be a

liberal democracy no you think you think

as you think as soon as the government

wants wants territory and land for the

aggrandizement of a Dying old lunatics I

would not describe I would not describe

that as having anything to do with the

circumstances of the Russia Ukraine war

again you're not prepared to actually

have your position scrutinized so just

don't even bring it up

well we will in two weeks I'm a little

bit curious though uh

what do you suppose the reason for the

Russian Ukraine war is that

if I have this one sentence NATO

expansion

you think that you crane wanting to join

NATO and being obliged is a

justification for Russia invading

Ukraine

no if I taste two sentences it's NATO

expansion plus the Civil War in the

donbass

but the Civil War and the dawn bass was

triggered by Russia's incursion to you

not true not true

very true it was triggered by the

unthinkable was the was the maidon

revolution constitutional according to

the Constitution of Ukraine

it's it's a revolution has okay sure the

revolution overthrew a leader poroshenko

are you familiar with him

Slayer

he was voted into power do you agree

was he voted into power under a corrupt

system was moreover does the fact that

he was voted into Power

um undermine the legitimacy of a

government that follows one's legitimacy

of that one is overthrown by force okay

well don't assume the point I'm trying

to make

where did poroshenko receive the highest

amounts of approval and support

as reflected in the Ukrainian elections

I am entirely certain I don't know and

I'm entirely certain I am entirely

certain that I do know that poroshenko

received the overwhelming

majority of his support

from the russian-speaking donbass

because he was friendlier toward Russia

than the alternative so one half of

Ukraine wants to overthrow him and the

other half sees Paul is that is that one

half of Ukraine

no it's not exactly one-half but it's

one part what is what is the point of

you saying this

saying one part of Ukraine

supports poroshenko and one part of

Ukraine

uh wants nothing sorry one part of

Ukraine wants to overthrow him and one

part wants nothing to do with the

so-called Revolution

the unity of the territory of Ukraine by

the way

because it was formerly part of the USSR

in which multiple ethnic groups and

language groups coexisted

the social contract that is the

foundation Ukrainian state was the fact

that the Ukrainian state was willing to

be Democratic that people's vote the

social contract is the foundation of the

Ukrainian State you mean the Ukrainian

State arose out of a state of nature

you don't have to um get into any stupid

technicality I if you want me to I mean

you brought up the you brought up the

social contract that's your adjustment

I'll break down I'll break down what I

mean by that the acceptance of being

part of a independent Ukrainian State on

part of the other non

Ukrainian speaking groups and ethnic

groups was that it would be a democracy

that their vote would matter they would

have a voice and stake in the system and

that their interests could be reflected

in that state that's the social contract

I'm referring to when that sort of

contract

yeah that is a social contract that's

not a social contract a social contract

in which a people decide that a

government has to reflect and represent

its interests no the social the social

contract no they're just a victory

scheme is a justificatory scheme

for a state that refers the legitimacy

of the state to the internal impulses of

its constituent members that's exactly

what I just said that is not yes it is

it's the justification of the Ukrainian

state and its territorial sovereignty

refers to the impulses of its members

in relation to whether or not their

interests are being reflected

or they have a stake in that state so

yeah it is okay anyway it's what I just

said

that's why no no it's no it's not

because what you're talking about is an

assessment after the fact as to whether

or not they're interested in being

reflected no no no

when I say their interests when I say

their interests are reflected I mean

there is some formal way in which to

establish

people's will being reflected by the

state

that doesn't mean their will is always

going to be everyone well yeah but

that's because there's that's why

there's a notion of tacit consent

because if you do not actively Rebel and

choose death over Conformity to the

ordinances of the common of the

Commonwealth again again

um then you have essentially a center to

legitimacy of the state that's that's

the that's the social culture it's a

social it's a social contract because if

you have the right to vote and you

you're you're the right for your vote to

matter and to count right

that means yes the state

can the state can reflect your interests

so it really sure if the state can

reflect your interests if you can vote

but the definition of a social contract

is not that you have the right to vote

the social contract is you play ball

with the community and then benefit from

doing so that's that's that's what that

means okay it's not at the level people

the people in the dawn Bass played ball

like the the notion of a social contract

this is a pedantic kind of like

pointless thing to say because you

brought up social contract might do it

it is a social contract it's objectively

a social contract it's objectively not

you're talking about something else

dude

dude the people of you eastern Ukraine

are playing ball with the community of

Ukraine because they benefit by having

their interests represented somehow by

the Ukrainian sovereign state they can

vote right well that's not normal but

but the the social contract is not

explained this is the bad faith I'm

talking about no no no you're just

you're just no you're just actually

you're just uninformed about what social

contract certainly is Sunday no no let's

break this down I'm glad you're prepared

for this when did I say that voting was

the only form of a social contract that

that's the only interest

relevantage I didn't I didn't so when

you said oh

I didn't suggest that you were saying

that I didn't say a social contract in

general is when people are allowed to

vote I'm saying that could be an example

of a factor necessary for a social

contract but it's actually not a factor

necessary for a social contract once

again the notion of the social contract

is introduced no no it actually it

actually it actually can't be because

the notion of a social contract is

operating at a level specifically this

is why it's introduced by Thomas Hobbs

to defend a monarchical system voting is

not a condition of the social contract I

don't think Locke has a notion of a

social contract too

what does have a notion of Association

so and Rousseau does as well

yes but it does not rely on voters no

hang on no no you're mistaken

um Locke Andrew so do not rely upon

there being a vote for there to be a

social contract the social contract is

the Justified

plurality of a social contract

doesn't exclude the possibility of the

ability to vote and participating no but

it's it's function in a theory is as a

justification for the legitimacy of the

voting process itself you're just yes

and the voting process cannot be

legitimate for example if a certain and

this is not always the case but it's the

case in Ukraine if a certain portion of

the population either can't vote or

their vote doesn't count

why does their vote not count what are

you talking about because there was a

fucking coup they elected a guy and that

guy was overthrown illegally according

to the Constitution which was the basis

of the social contract that allowed

these people to be loyal to the

Ukrainian state if if you see did he did

he not enact violence on the Deimos

prior to the revolution

that's highly contested

well that's an important contest though

if indeed he was if indeed if indeed if

indeed the executive power as a general

no if indeed the the executive power in

Ukraine if indeed the executive power in

Ukraine was inflicting lethal violence

on the people to remain in his station

against the Constitution then that is

this is the problem with being arrogant

Sunday because you're not actually

educated the lecture claiming you are

because I'm not claiming anything in

order for you to establish violence I

claim I claim absolutely nothing I am

saying if Sonny let me finish why are

you so scared to hear me finish I fear

nothing notice how notice how I never

interrupt you because I actually want to

hear the dumb shit you're going to say

so I can respond you do the contrary you

don't want to hear what I have to say

because you can't respond no I just also

want to hear myself I'm just yeah Sunday

in order for you to establish the people

as a general subjectivity you have to

establish that that violence epitomized

a general violence on the people in

general so so for example can you can

you can you slow down just hang on hang

on yeah yeah so for example right try

restating try restating that don't use

an example just for example I'll restate

it with an example when a state locks up

criminals or takes action against a

violent mob on the street that doesn't

necessarily mean they're engaging in

Lethal violence on the people quote

unquote hang on hang on hang on you have

to be really careful here though and

this is why I want you to resay the

thing before you start bringing up the

example because it is not sufficient to

Simply say that the part of the Deimos

that the executive power is persecuting

against the Constitution is Criminal

therefore it's okay

to to to to then use that as a blanket

justification for now a foreign a

separate political entity and occurring

dude dude watch the Russian State

absolutely Sunday Russia Russia by

itself is an Empire that's not a single

natural community that emerged out of

nature okay I'm gonna be calm I'm gonna

try to be calm but I want to explain to

you why that frustrates me so we are

just talking about the circumstances of

the legitimacy of the quote-unquote

Revolution here for the people in the

dawn bass now you're talking about the

Russian Smo

why are you have to jump around let's

focus on the people on the dawn back

it's a big it's a big world and

unfortunately the Don bass itself is not

something that's simply insists upon

itself as as a a Sunday the thing is the

people generating the element in this

discussion the social contract that kept

the people in the dawn bass a social

contract did not keep anybody in the

dawn bass anything stop using the word

social contract this doesn't mean what

you think it means the people of the

donbass's social contract with the

Ukrainian state was suspended when

their elected representative was

overthrown in an unconstitutional

formally invalid way

okay was he overthrown after he was

attacking his own people with lethal

Force even if he did attack rioters on

the street with legal Force which is

contested why are they they're they're

rioters as soon as it's convenient for

you but you're perfectly happy to to fly

your flag in favor of Putin rolling

tanks over Sunday packed with people he

had to pull off the street because his

own Sunday even even if

he did do that he doesn't say in the

Ukrainian Constitution that quelling a

riot is grounds for the dismissal of the

president

so what

well it's well the Constitution is the

only if he's if he's if he's

characterizing attacking against members

of the Deimos for exercising their

constitutional right to protest but the

Ukrainian Constitution is the only

binding document that's protecting the

rights pause pause

I thought I thought you were like a

Marxist or a leninist or something like

you're you're just you're just a radical

statist like you're a conservative it's

funny you know what's funny is that uh

Adam something brought up the same

pathetic argument in our debate I don't

know who that is yet he brought up the

same argument he said well aren't you a

revolutionary you simply believes in the

overthrow of the state well if I'm just

giving a description as far as why a

people don't want to be a part of a

state anymore because it again the state

is avowing itself as a liberal democracy

I am not actually a liberal uh statist

but when your state calls me you kind of

you kind of are though because Russia

still assumes the liberal form of the

state in Russia Russia is invading

Sunday shut the fuck up don't interrupt

me and I'll explain why okay no you cut

out for a second what were you saying

don't interrupt me and I'll fucking

explain why so was I interrupting yeah

you were okay no no I I'm sorry I'm

you're cutting out a little bit what

were you saying again repeat that

damn you're so scared of an actual like

dispute over this it's crazy

again I'm not a liberal status what's

going on with the audio here hang on

this is weird can he not hear me

is he lying guys go on his stream is he

actually lying the fuck

again I'm just gonna say it anyway fuck

is going on he's trolling okay

hello hello yeah he's trolling all right

that's fine I'm gonna explain it anyway

I'm not a radical liberal statist

precisely because if the form of

sovereignty was a liberal democracy why

can't I hear anything yeah if Ukraine

was a liberal democracy and then it

foregoes its promise all bets are off

the people in the dawn bass don't have

to care about Ukraine's democracy they

can indeed join Russia oh God damn it

there we go you can they can form their

own hang on hang on rewind a little bit

sorry I I I lost you at yeah okay I know

where you lost me I remember so it was

it was it was like two minutes ago

liberal stateism I'm not a liberal

status because all I'm trying to say is

that on its own terms when the liberal

state

suspends the terms of its own

sovereignty all bets are off

that's all I'm saying when the liberal

State suspends the terms of its own

sovereignty

Yeah by what mechanism does it do so

through a violent unconstitutional coup

hang on hang on slow down cowboy so the

liberal state

the state

uh upends its own sovereignty

by means of a general Uprising which is

itself

definitionally by being a revolution

itself constitutive of a state

yes the form of the prior State

sovereignty which was a liberal

constitutional democracy

indeed was overthrown

and there's a new form of sovereignty

that's based in a dictatorship or it's

at least based in a coup or a founding

coup which was unconstitutional but so

was the previous one no like once the

where does the Constitution come from

what previous one

exactly where does the Constitution come

from

when Ukraine ceded from the USSR we're

not defending the rights of the

sasanians to Ukraine like what's the was

it the sasanians hang on

something against

when Ukraine left the USSR

instead of eastern Ukraine joining

Russia

instead of Western Ukraine Gideons

that's who it was sorry continue

okay when Ukraine left the USSR it

created a constitution That was supposed

to respect and recognize the rights of

all the people living under it in a

liberal democracy where they would have

the right and the ability to give

expression to their interests through

the political process just fast forward

to the part where this justifies Russia

in particular rolling through with tanks

and bombing hospitals I think it's such

like a pornographic mentality we are

going through an intricate detail the

events and you can't let go of oh Russo

invaded Ukraine we know but how did they

get there you don't want to actually

we're playing guitars with tanks no no

they didn't get there with tanks they

get they got there with a decades-long

process by NATO

to expand Eastward and use Ukraine

countries like Ukraine well that doesn't

really make sense because NATO is going

Eastward Russia was going Westward so

how does that work how does how does

Russia did not go Westward until after

NATO had so severely expanded Eastward

that Russia has no choice but to put it

okay but NATO's NATO's NATO is a Treaty

Organization like it's in the name so

NATO didn't roll in with tanks Ukraine

wanted to join NATO now explain to me

how Russia's neighbor joining NATO

justifies Russia it doesn't that's why

Russia didn't attack Lithuania Estonia

or the Baltic countries when they joined

NATO but it did attack Crimea

again we're still talking about Ukraine

and they did attack Ukraine it did not

attack Crimea by the way

there was no attack there was no attack

really no there wasn't it just Crimea

just had like a general plebiscite and

they just decided hey we're Russia now

actually really yeah really much really

more or less like yeah more and then and

then those soldiers Rolling In Those

were cgi'd in right that was like a big

media campaign that was all uh that was

all a that was all fake soldiers rolling

in to defend the uh what soldiers

rolling in to defend the Integrity of an

electoral process is not

uh that's interesting see it's it's not

it's not common in Canada here to see uh

United States tanks rolling in to defend

the Integrity of of an election when we

have it especially in advance of any

kind of uh but right and any any kind of

any kind of Direction

themselves because Canada is not part of

some hyperborean super state that is

refusing to acknowledge Canada's

existence

and it's not what and the US doesn't

have a vested interest well Britain's

not doing that either and we are a part

of the Commonwealth so okay again

oh okay what does that have to do with

anything that's that's the that's the

million dollar question Haas no what is

being part of the Commonwealth have to

do with anything your analogy was stupid

I I agree what does being a part of a

commonwealth have to do with anything

what does being a part of a Treaty

Organization have to do with anything

being part of a um

quote unquote uh military here here's

the question for you yeah there's a

question for you so what let's let's say

let's say to destroy Russia let's say

let's say let's say uh NATO uh gave

Ukraine like a whole bunch of tanks and

into your support as as just a gift when

when when uh Ukraine was was buying to

join NATO right what part of that

justifies uh Russia enrolling in and

bombing civilian centers here's the do

you have like a pornographic brain can

you just not think about things

um that don't fulfill some kind of like

immediate sat like cerebral satisfaction

or something like

follow what you're saying are you trying

to imply that is the only Factor here

are you trying to say it's oh how is

Russia Justified because of this it's

not just because of this that or that

you have to take into account the entire

array of factors

that led Russia to the decision that it

took

just taking one thing in isolation will

not allow you to see the big picture

it's not just that I mean so far what

we've got from you is uh there was a

revolution against the government that

because it happens to be supportive

because the people of the Don bass are

an indispensable piece of this puzzle

which you're ignoring you're ignoring

them indispensable piece of what puzzle

what of the puzzle for why there's a

conflict between Russia and Ukraine

because when Ukraine really much of a

puzzle Russia yes there is because when

Ukraine ceded from the USSR it did so

under the pretension that the rights of

those people was going to be recognized

those people did not want to be cut off

from Russia they don't want to be cut

off from people they're indistinguished

them out

dude but that's not what how they view

it though you can claim this stuff about

1930s all you want but the fact that I'm

sure you can find some okay

Sunday stop pivoting the factory it's

simpler than this the fact is at the

time of the Soviet Union's dissolution

Ukraine and Russia were part of the same

state the people in the donbass and the

Russian people were not especially

different from each other they were

Paris we're not separate we're not that

different hold on Americans that doesn't

give America or Britain hold on license

to invade our territory what dude shut

up for a fucking second just shut the

fuck up and let me talk you just

interject sounding stupid because you

don't even know what point I'm trying to

make in 1991 at the time of the Soviet

Union's dissolution you should drink

some water the people in the Don grass

okay and people in Russia were not

separated from each other I'm not saying

they were fucking similar I'm saying

they literally were part of the same

polity the part of same civilization

they quality of civilization aren't the

same thing a civilization isn't apology

a civilization is a club that's why I

didn't say whether they were the same

what is dude you said you said polity

polity assumes polity assumes a bounded

political community

I said they were part of the same policy

and civilization what is wrong with that

Sunday a civilization is not a polity

apology is a general term for trying to

talk about a political Community when

we're talking about a long expansive

time for the Constitution

of political forms has changed radically

between them I actually think that's uh

Sunday Sunday

would you would you regard yourself as a

budget

as a what pardon midwit you're just

arrogant you're not as a Midway yeah

you're not depends on the day you're

just arrogant

when did I make the equivalence between

polity and civilization didn't I when

you said it was apology and a

civilization and you refer to the same

thing so okay you know what this is

interesting so if I say Sunday is a man

I don't know if you are but let's just

say you are I don't know how you

identify Sunday is amen thank you Sunday

is a man

who um you know wears an orange shirt

does that mean there's an equivalence

between men who wear orange and people

who wear orange shirts

the analogy would be

um

Sunday is a uh mammal and

no it wouldn't be uh and an ecosystem

right no it wouldn't which would it

would be that if I say a policy and a

civil well no no because because this is

actually really important because when

we're talking about a civilization

it's in it's in the word civilization is

not just a noun it's also a process

right you can have a process of

civilization I don't know if this is

just because you're drunk but this is a

baffling level I'm sobering up a little

bit for you to fucking interrupt me to

say something so wrong if I said it's

actually that's actually not wrong

that's that's cool civilization

civilization initially in the terms of

usage referred to okay this person

education this person is mentally ill

I'm gonna fucking point on Microsoft

Paint right now to allow people to

visualize how fucking stupid this is you

should scream louder you're gonna make

it more apparent which of us is mentally

ill all I'm

everyone will see Haas says I believe

you polity and civilization

uh-huh

Sunday claims Haas says policy equals

civilization no no you say quality and

Civilization by reference to the same

thing that means that you're referring

to the same thing as both polity and

civilization but that's not correct no

I'm not I'm referring to the fact that

they were you referred to you referred

to Russia as apology shut up for two

seconds shut up but is that is that

incorrect though

yes or no hang on shut the fuck up for

two seconds why are you scared to hear

me

why are you scared to hear me

I was referring to the Soviet Union as a

polity which it is a shame and a

civilization ability and a civilization

not even necessarily this even if I did

yes but I was specifically referring to

the fact that they were so Soviet Union

is a polity and a civilization

sure why not that's what we're running

with well I can tell you exactly why not

because apology and civilization are not

the same thing I did they don't Soviet

Union is not a civilization it is only a

polity an apology is a very precisely a

policy cannot also be a civilization

I do not think apology can also be a

civilization though why not

but the same reason that a cancer can't

also be an organism we're talking about

a cluster of cultural similarities okay

let me let me put it different

communities together that can

nonetheless have their own histories

have their own lineages go to war with

one another these are not the same kinds

of things

actually yes gunpowder Empires Encompass

that uh definition of policies which are

both civilizations but regardless

what do you mean by that explain the

post-mongle gunpowder Empires were

extremely diverse in terms of the

various peoples they encompassed they

were civilizations that were on

encompassed more or less by One

Sovereign yes they were well that's

multiple civilizations that's not a

civilization at a polity

yeah it's one civilization

that would be one polity that happens to

have hegemonic rule over multiple

civilizations if we if we accept those

terms no it's not it would not be that

would not be a civilization civilization

is based on a relationship between State

and civil society and Civil Society no

no it's it's really not though yes like

the notion of no because the notion of a

civilization is projected

far beyond State boundaries if you read

any of the any of the the people who

actually deploy civilization in their

theories going back to like Spangler

Italian B etc etc back at the earliest

usage of the term it doesn't refer to

Sunday Sunday it refers to common

features between states that makes them

particularly amenable to each other if

you want to render this conversation

intelligible to viewers by cutting me

off after it's two things kind of sounds

like you're scared to hear me make any

argument at all right do I sound scared

to you

every time I talk you can't help but

open your fucking mouth and sound like

well that's why I wanted us to talk in

front of a moderator unfortunately since

we're talking unmoderated this is the

game since I let you talk and I actually

want to hear what you have to say so I

can destroy you you should be confident

enough to hear me talk so you can

dismantle what I'm saying okay because I

let you talk because I want to know

exactly what I'm going to dismantle

anyways I don't feel I don't feel

perfect

I'm saying I I don't want to get into a

prolonged you're wrong about what

civilizations are by the way they do

imply both the relationship between

states I have your I have your chat on I

know you're just reading your chat you

don't know what you're talking about

now you're just intentionally trying to

fucking piss me off that's fine I know

yeah you're just trying to troll at this

point see you're resorting to trolling

which means I'm not trolling I'm

watching your stream and your chat as we

speak and I know that when you interject

suddenly with the correction you have no

idea what you're talking about somebody

has inserted something and you're

grasping for that where like a rock in a

storm looking through my chat right now

where is the insertion I'm looking at my

chat now as farther it's farther back

can you please name the user I got it

from

uh

uh

uh and what did I get exactly

oh my God so you're not trolling right

now when you're accusing me of getting

this from my chat

oh you're 100 getting this from your

chat so

and you're not can you commit uh based

on your honor that you're not trolling

when you claim that

say again

will you commit your integrity to the

claim that my argument is from my chat

right now I think it's from your chatter

from your Discord

okay so anyway let's focus on the actual

substance of contention you're wrong

about what civilizations are they're not

yes you are you're wrong I'm not I'm not

well you you're not willing to hear why

you're wrong Sunday so I guess you in

your own little why don't you why don't

you why don't you indulge me very

quickly and tell me what source you're

actually getting your understanding of

civilization from I don't need a

specific Source I can try and give my go

at describing what civilization is and I

don't need a draw from a source I can

just try and give a proper

definition if you will of a civilization

and my own terms right but anyway hang

on I don't care about your own terms

what Haas makes up off the cuff is not

it's not interesting do you okay do you

think civilization is like an empirical

object that only um that has to be like

very no way I think I think civilization

is a fraught term however in its

historical usage it does not refer

specifically actually no it specifically

does not refer to a particular state it

is deployed specifically to talk about

continuities between different states

Hellenic civilization does not refer to

any particular state it refers to Athens

it refers to Rome refers to a hosts that

went to war with each other and

identified radically differently a

different again a give again you know

the reason you're wrong about that is

because Hellenic civilization could not

be given its full story without

Alexander's conquests which you

temporarily conquered colonic

civilization precedes Alexander's

Conquest I know I know but but the idea

would be basically that that is still

and anticipating a more Universal state

right but anyway listen yeah well what

are you talking about Universal State

civilization does not entail a universal

state

as civilization can indeed anticipate a

universal policy and Company seeing the

civilization if what you mean is a

civilization can exist before the

existence of a state with universal

aspiration sure but that there's nothing

whatsoever on the definition of

civilization as opposed to State yeah it

does because you're giving an incomplete

picture of Hellenic civilization for

example when you're not taking into

account how it's giving rise to this

impetus for a shared unified policy but

anyway here's the problem president but

it does it it it doesn't though first

first of all that's what happened

because Alexander the Great was a

Macedonian secondly

um Hellenism the historical period of

Hellenism followed his conquests as we

know it hellenics no no that was that

was the end that was the end of the

Hellenic style uh politics being like a

meaningful category you're not familiar

historiography the Hellenic period ends

with Mark Anthony at the Battle of

actium or actum I forgot to pronounce it

yeah Hellenism the era okay you're

talking about you're talking about like

a an arbitrary system a periodization

you're not talking about a civilization

the periodization is what's actually you

just said cite your sources well that's

the most conventional way of citing no

no periodization and civilizational

descriptions are not the same thing

periodization has to do with like Sunday

Sunday Sunday civilizations are a

spatial characterization okay sure a

spatial characterization in any case in

any case you're giving an incomplete

picture of a given civilization if

you're not including the way in which

That civilization gives right saying

that Alexander was a Macedonian well so

that's the end of Hellenic civilization

under what Criterion

what

who would say who would agree with you

that Hellenic civilization is coming to

its end following Alexander's Conquest I

didn't State Hellenic civilization came

to its end under Alexander's Conquest

the the the the politea the the the

polis became an irrelevant so was was

subordinated form after after the

conquest of Alexander because now you

had Empires hegemonically asserting

their rights over individual communities

but but the civilizations you don't

think that Empire was the culmination of

Greek history

no he's a Macedonian well that's not how

Alexander himself articulates it

Alexander it's himself is articulate yes

he's the he's the son of Philip he's a

Macedonian like Aristotle okay he's a

he's a foreigner but he's a foreigner

who's a part of Greek civilization

no he's a he's part of a different

different place

different okay like everything according

to president Sunday

Alexander was not part of Greek

civilization and he had nothing to do

with Greeks okay that's fine that's a

new contribution to history from

president Sunday and he conquered them

okay so Alexander

came from completely outside of the

Greek sphere the civilization the sphere

of Greek civilization no he was he was

he was in the territory of Greece but he

wasn't the same he wasn't from the same

type of place as Athens or Sparta or

whatever that's why you don't that's why

you don't

talk about them when you're talking for

example about the Peloponnesian War or

or the war with the the Persians or

whatever

was it not Alexander who completed that

war with the Persians that's a different

war with the Persians no there was

multiple Wars with the Persians and yeah

but that's that's a different different

war with them okay yeah you're right I

got a donation saying you're changing

the subject and you are so can you

actually give me 20 seconds of

non-interruption stop letting this guy

change the

subjects impulsively keep responding 20

seconds no okay sure so you're wrong

about the nature of what civilization is

you're completely wrong about that but

even if you were right the point stands

that me saying policy and civilization

in no way implies that they're the same

thing you could very well have a shared

civilizational sphere that has also

happened to be encompassed by the same

policy policy in terms of territory

saying that they're encompassed by the

same policy and civilization in no way

implies any kind of equivalence there

could be a vague Russian civilization

that's shared between Ukraine and Russia

used say that being under the same

policy precludes the possibility of a

shared civilization that's an arbitrary

claim it's a complete being part of the

same civilization doesn't give rights to

one particular polity within that

Civilization to assert itself

who said reichs where did that come from

did you pull it out of your hat Sunday

who the fuck said writes who said that

you were you were talking about the

universal studies

let's go back to the beginning when

you're talking about when you're talking

about when you're talking about when

you're talking about when you're talking

about a state using militaristic Force

no we're not talking about that yet

forcibly alter the composition

pornography one of the ways in which you

can describe that as that state

asserting its rights over the other

state Europe that's what that means

you're a porn addict okay you need to

hold your horses we're not here in 2022

yet we're here in 1991. and as of 1991

the people of eastern Ukraine and Russia

are not considered a different people

right they are Russians living in

Ukraine because there's a open border

they're part of the same

Soviet polity and they're also part of

the same civilization I'm going to

qualify that in a way that I hope isn't

controversial these are people who are

marrying each other these are people who

are seamlessly interacting with each

other they're ex they're not considered

different right they're not um separated

from each other on any level of culture

of any level of language they are not a

different people okay

okay so that's what I said and you went

on this whole tangent about politics and

civilizations are the same it's

irrelevant okay well it's not you you

deployed those terms specifically to

justify once again the incursion of

Russia no we're not there yet but we're

not there yet no we're there when we

have to talk about how the ability for

these people in eastern Ukraine to be

part of a separate Ukrainian State

requires according to them according to

the Ukrainian Constitution their ability

to both participate in the political

system and for their participation to be

recognized formally where's this hang on

where is this in the Ukrainian

Constitution that entitles everyone a

right to vote

show me

in the Ukrainian Constitution

after 1991 you're you're questioning

whether this constitution entails the

Democratic rights of the Ukrainian

people no no I'm I'm questioning whether

or not by reference to the Constitution

itself you can actually pinpoint an

argument for why the Don bass uh is is

because they voted more actually more

accurately for why uh Russia is

Justified

fermenting a civil war because they

voted for poroshenko and he was

overthrown in a way that didn't reflect

their political will

once again was firing on his people and

was in office so me in the Ukrainian

Constitution where that matters Sunday

show me

the Ukrainian Constitution is not just a

piece of paper it is also a reference to

the Constitution of the community itself

and when we say constitutional we are

not simply piece of paper

licenses

we are talking about the composition of

the community in a real talking about

the difference of communities exactly

you know talking about the difference of

community

Western Ukraine we are talking about the

fact that when there are fundamental

differences between the various and

against him of course when there are

fundamental differences

when there are very when there are

essential fundamental differences

when there are fundamental differences

between the various peoples comprising

the Ukraine the only mechanism that Gary

guarantees some kind of shared political

Community is a formal Constitution

there's no vague general feeling of

agreement among the community of people

in the eastern Ukraine

it is not based upon people having some

shared feeling there is people it's not

a shared feeling it's a shared formal

document that asserts the rights of

everyone in Ukraine so if people in

Western Ukraine have a vague if the

person if the person who is elected to

office then abuses deficiencies within

the writ of the law to tyrannically

assert himself over the people's will

it's completely appropriate there has to

be if to engage in the Revolutionary

action against rich people which people

not the people in eastern Ukraine so how

do you establish probably probably at

least some of the people completely some

of the people how do you regard any

revolutionary actions hey

[Music]

how do you establish how do you

establish the generality and the unity

of the people of Ukraine then

how do you establish the generality and

the unity of the people of Ukraine then

yes it's not it's not it's not by

characterizing any part that dissents

against the tyranny of somebody wants to

stay in office Sunday Sunday

speaking ukrainians have a different

interest than Western speaking

ukrainians the only Western isn't a

language doesn't matter

it doesn't matter what the fuck does

that mean Western versus

russian-speaking ukrainians Western

ukrainians who are indeed different from

russian-speaking ukrainians in the East

okay

they have different interests in this

case one wants to be closer to Russia

one wants to be closer to Europe the

only reason why these so what the only

reason why these russian-speaking

ukrainians are not taking up arms and

seceding is because they're following

the law and the same law which is

established in the Ukrainian

Constitution you claiming that

poroshenko beating protesters justifies

his overthrow is irrelevant to the point

because it's not justified to the people

who it does because you're making

specific reasons to a democratic

principle to justify once again

those people who are ass hurt about the

poroshenko can live in their own State

they can't impose their will on the

people of eastern Ukraine who disagree

with their sentiment

yeah they can just like Russia Canada no

they can't well that's the thing Sunday

they fucking failed they failed in doing

that so just just to be clear even even

running even running with with with your

yeah

I'm unjust for supporting Russia even

running you're on Drugs That's not

healthy are you even running even

running with even running with your

logic

um that would entail that Russia invades

and then stops at the Don bass did it

Russia never claimed to have any

Ambitions quote unquote for Ukraine

excuse simpleton do you do you do you do

you believe whatever somebody did Why'd

You Come here I was gonna say a vital

maybe there's a vital piece of my

argument you just stopped everyone from

hearing right now maybe maybe you maybe

the thing I was about to say maybe maybe

you have some secret answer to to no

maybe I didn't finish what I was gonna

say which is was Russia operating

outside of the Dawn bass was Defensive

because Ukraine's military is getting

replenished and coming from outside of

the Dawn bass so yes if you think you

think American do you think American

colonialism in the the Middle East is

defensive

I'm going to simplify this for you

Russell wants to defend the dawn bass

and that's its main goal

um Ukraine it's defending a territory

that only exists as a result The

Churchill did Churchill just want to

conquer Germany

sorry dude D-Day was unjustified because

the Western allies have no right to

conquer and colonize Germany it's not

like they actually just wanted to remove

the German aggressors that were coming

from Germany and attacking them no what

this means what if they did though what

if they did though dude do you think

America had territorials no no yeah I'm

just we just answer that question what

if they did what if who did

what if the Americans really were just

these these selfless Martyrs who just

wanted to stop the Holocaust what if

they did

what

the Americans didn't have territorial

claims to Germany is my point I know

so what if what are you proposing what

counter factual are you proposing well

first of all Germany invaded neighboring

communities America was coming in

defense of itself okay so so America can

attack Germany and German soil without

having territorial claims to Germany

right

if America if Germany is attacking its

allies and going Beyond its borders to

okay well Western Ukraine is going

Beyond its borders according to Russia

and attacking the donbass so there you

go okay so so so if if the Nazis just

decided to claim that Belgium by rights

belonged to Germany that would be

sufficient for you to support the German

invasion of Belgium do the people of

Belgium who are German now apparently

and speak German and are Germans and

identify as Germans agree with this

sentiment well once they excise all the

gays and the Jews I imagine there would

be quite a uh consensus on that so

you're now denying the right to the

self-determination of the Belgian Nation

claiming they have no such aspiration

that's interesting but you're very

stupid okay are we talking I'm very

stupid are the people are the people of

Belgium who are on their own accord

mainly seceding from some higher power

constantly getting shelled and attacked

all the time by

Germany they were not by Germany by

France let's say let's say Belgium is

actually a german-speaking people and

they wanted to leave France and join

Germany and France is constantly

attacking them and Germany is trying to

negotiate a peace in the form of the

Minsk agreements which France keeps

fucking violating and there's no end to

the conflict and a hostile Coalition of

people like it was it was is using it as

a pretext that's first of all that's

first of all that's first of all that's

first of all incorrect as far as I am

aware the Minsk agreements were simply

never honored and the conflict that was

initiated by Russia simply continued

slightly while they were being okay we

weren't the Minsk agreements honored

because Russia kept Russia

acquiring Ukraine into Ukrainian and

ukrainians kept firing it right but

here's the crucial Point why did the

Ukraine let's evaluate the facts Sunday

why did the Ukrainian government

ministers the prom I forgot the exact

one in as early as January of 2022 claim

that they never wanted to sign minks in

the first place and they were forced to

at gun gunpoint because probably they

didn't want to sign an agreement where

they were still firing on an invading

Force within their territory blame

Russia I am blaming Russia they were

invading Ukraine why the fuck why the

fuck would Ukraine sign an agreement to

stop firing back on an invading point

just said Minsk was never honored

because of Russia and that's not true

Minsk was never no no no no no was

predicated on a Russian invasion

so then just say you don't believe in

the validity of Minsk then don't say

Minsk the peace process of mince which

is I never I never said I believed him

yes

you said it wasn't honored by Russia

that's a lie that doesn't mean I believe

in its validity it's kind of the

opposite it was honored by Russia it was

honored by Russia it was no it wasn't no

it wasn't all the questions all the

sources show that both were firing upon

themselves and moreover it wouldn't

matter because once again once again

once again even if Russia once again

once again once again once again once

again

even if Russia did honor it they would

be honoring it while violating Ukrainian

Sovereign territory here's why it does

matter

Sunday it does matter because it was not

only and this is not only what I'm going

to say Ukraine was party to that but it

doesn't matter because Ukraine has no no

no

so let me finish it first no no but but

you weren't you weren't making sense you

were referencing a thing that you well I

am making points I'll explain it after I

get my second point so explain it

explain it first invention this is the

point I care about and then I'll explain

what I just said okay but I don't care

about your point so tell me the tell me

that thing I said I'm happy for you

not only was Ukraine a signatory Not

only was Ukraine a signatory to mince to

a party to the agreement with an

invading power yes you're constituting

the Crimea as an invasion shut the fuck

up second of all yes I'm constituting

the rolling Inn of tanks into Crimea

which was not in Russia hold on hold on

the problem is that Ukraine expressly

expressly it claimed it had no intention

of honoring Minx why would Russia

dishonor the Minsk agreements why is why

is Ukraine why is Ukraine obligated to

honor Minsk Ukraine is being invaded

Alliance that's fine don't say Russia

was the one dishonoring the agreement

because they weren't I said they both

were I said it never didn't do that no

no I said I said Minsk was never honored

by other no I said Minsk was never

honored by itself okay if Russia's the

only one who wants Minsk what reason

does Russia fucking have to violate the

Minsky agreements tell me that because

because if Ukraine honors Russia

violates Minsk then it's Invasion into

Ukraine is further abetted because

Ukraine has led its guard down what hold

on Russia what is complicated about this

Russia let's let's

play this out let's play this out for a

second so if you're invading if you're

invading a country that is fighting back

against you pretty effectively would you

not want them to stop for a brief period

to stop firing back and to give you a

minute to read what effect fighting was

Ukraine doing against Russia from the

period of 2014 to early 2022 just before

the actual Smo the particulars evade me

but they must have been doing something

right because they've been managed to

fight off a much larger Force for a very

long time there was a lot of heavy

Bloodshed going on and it was just chaos

there was Ukraine still stands

this is this this Invasion has I can't

see them how stupid what you just said

this Invasion has been going on this

Invasion has been going on since 2014.

okay 2022 there's an Smo February 2022.

Minsk you're just not educated

apparently the Minsk agreements are

preceding the Smo I hope you know that

the Smo didn't come from a month ago

sorry the Minsk agreements didn't come

from a month ago the Minsk agreements

stemmed from the Ukrainian Civil War and

it was mediated by Russia because Russia

wanted peace between the donbass regions

and Ukraine they wanted a tentative

agreement in which Ukraine would stop

fighting with people in donbass and they

would just leave each other alone

according to the Minsk agreement no

because because the people who were

fighting in donbass were also Russian

soldiers

even if there was a Russian Special

Operation special uh Special Forces

there the allegations that makes that

the front that makes up the front in an

invasion that's not a civil war anymore

nope that's a civil war being used as a

human meat not true to defend an

invasion you may not be that well read

up on the Donetsk people's republics and

lugongs People's Republic I'm not and

yet I seem to be doing fine it's a

little bit disturbing I know people

who've lived there many people okay well

then may God have mercy on your soul

I'll talk to you in on the 20th yeah

stop bitching out dude no let's finish

this those he ran away like a

on YouTube not a rumble I can't believe

this pussy I can't believe this fucking

pussy he fucking ran away okay

the people in the Donetsk and lugonics

people's republics don't need Russian

soldiers to come as the motivation for

them to fight those are people Rank and

file people from the dawn bass fighting

on the front lines if they're getting

some hidden assistance by the Russian

Special Forces I've heard that

allegation it's never really been

substantiated from what I've seen but

maybe it maybe it's there's some truth

to it I don't know

in the main the fighting is being done

by people from the dawn bass easily

fucking bitch ran away what a fucking

pussy

what a complete fucking pussy

can't fucking believe this shit

I can't believe this shit

oh man and we probably can't even finish

this so you guys want to do part two

tomorrow all right let's just kind of

finish this right where we were

okay well this is I'm kind of right I'm

gonna wrap this up probably right all

right basically

the universal state

tldr

modern politics has this paradoxical

contradiction between movement and Order

okay

more or less

Hegel fuck me

piece of shit

Hegel elects to resolve this

contradiction the turmoil of the French

Revolution in the Universal state of

constitutional monarchy

how does he resolve it

he resolves it

um

in the form of the unity between the

particular

substantive

reality

and the universal State such that

it's you universality is no longer

abstractly set against its real

determinants content

but

um

itself becomes the determinant

representation

that is why Hegel is pro monarchy

the Monarch cannot be justified

by any legal form the Monarch stands as

the point of exception

of the universal state

which represents

its harmonious reconciliation with the

prior and particular reality

equal Civil Society

Etc okay

okay

um

so for Hegel

Hegel Universal State Unity of the

particular

and the universal

the universal

as the resolution

of modernity's contradiction

Marx rejects hegel's solution

remarks

the universal state

of the modern

is set against the

real particular reality of the

proletariat

a class of laborers

thanks

labor is the particular ethereal reality

which can only be United with the

universal

of human Community via communism

okay that's Marx by the way

um

but still there's a conceptual use of

this idea of a universal State it's just

Marx is more specific

so Hegel

Hegel base monarchy we'd love a part two

if you have more to say okay thank you

so much ABC minded monarchy

Hegel Universal class class of civil

servants

Marx Universal class proletariat that's

an example for example okay

thank you so much ABC minded

um

I have to explain kojev now okay code

Jeff

hegelian Universal State ends

after sorry

begins with the resolution of the

slave dialectic

my hands are so fucking tired holy shit

I'm trying to like speed run this

a Master Slave dialectic fuck

begins with a

something

similar as Hobbes swore of all against

all

basically

two guys fight each other one guy is

stronger the other guy weaker

a stronger guy beats the weaker guy

now the weaker guy can either fight to

the death or submit to slavery

it's about proving your life whoever

and prove they have balls and don't fear

death wins okay

proving your life is to earn recognition

if you can prove you have something to

die for and prove to the other

be recognized

by the other

as a fully constituted human subject

someone who is worth something

something worth dying for right

okay

all right

so that's kojev's kind of kojob's idea

kojev's idea of the universe state

uh

it's the post World War II International

order

just found it on

Universal human rights

or the universal

Universal recognition freedom

and the unity

particular the

base

you're the goat for dealing with a

jigsaw like that they appreciate you

taking on these cowards and educating us

okay

so that's kind of like kojev

and uh

that's their resolution

now more or less

my critique of code Jeff and Hegel

Universal state is not one state

Universal state is in reality the

civilization States

it is a determinate universality

based on

specific civilization

civilization States not

abstract liberal Universal state

are the resolution of

modern political protagonism okay

the partisan

fuck this is again this is too much

right basic idea

oh my God it's like too much to dive

into I can't even speed run this thank

you so much Mecca appreciate you

um

partisan

outside the political Spectrum

left wing because revolutionary change

coded right wing because

forcing modern order

be

adjust to the real telluric

material order

of raw life

changing the Overton window

okay

Artisan is outside

which while unaligned with

unipolar

is in fact

aligned with

a determinate civilizational polarity

which

which retro casually

creates itself via the partisan

irregular

Warrior

the political partisan

resists

the smooth continuum

modern politics

representing and

import being the difference itself

rather than the ways

helps with it

partisan

greater

urgence of the Artisan Empire

we determine it

caloric land Empires

of lost Mongol modernity

ultimate Reliance sovereignty

as a polarity

or determinate mobile

Artisan ship

partiality

polarity

okay

the partisan entails a

Direct

uh

it is

dissipating

uh

the other America

whose history is parallel with the

official one

Maga is the other

America

under the nose of

polarity

oh man

okay and then I'm just gonna do the

final conclusion

this is like too much right

final conclusion

a new Nazism will emerge similar

what we see in Ukraine

the political Spectrum itself is shaped

like a swastika

ultimately whether via DeSantis

Meghan Markle or something else

baptism which is the hegemonic ideology

of

modern politics itself

being the theory

political change I didn't even get into

this part

comes hegemonic

after World War One

tandem with Rockefeller

progress

ivism

all monopolies

rain comes to establish politics

subject to permanent change

and updating the modern Universal State

change becomes superfluous

rather than revolutionary

real revolutionaries come from

the Deep

of the countryside

right

the AKA partisan politics okay

but

left wing just refers to

Detective

um orientation of political

change baptism is the ideology

of change

which does not correspond to real change

but in fact preserves

because the changes that occur

the Rockefeller

progressivism artists

okay

okay uh we have to finish this another

time all right this is too much I can't

fucking finish this all right guys fuck

what a fucked up fucked up thing

this stream was so fucked up man oh my

God

all right guys I'll see you tomorrow

what is fucking six hour stream holy

shit see you guys tomorrow bye