A Response to Criticism: Marxism and Conservatism

uh

damn why does this look so goofy

we're good

we're good

all right guys what's up what's up

everybody

um i'm gonna keep this kind of simple at

first because

you know i don't know i don't wanna like

dwell too much on an introduction i

don't wanna actually i'm gonna fuck it

i'm gonna get into an introduction and

we're gonna chill out a little bit all

right

and then i'm gonna explain to you what

we're gonna be doing today and i'm gonna

get into it yada yada but first and

foremost i got sleep i slept

i'm prepared i could do this

uh you know we're gonna have a good

stream today we're gonna have an

informative stream and i know you guys

i'm like a bad teacher because every

stream seems to be like

not a lot of fun not a lot of kick w's

and too much

too much uh

too much of this teaching shit right and

honestly

it makes me a bad businessman because as

a businessman

you know these teaching streams

ban daniel garcia for my chat ban that

fucking guy from my chat gonna fucking

you want to sleep in my classroom then

fucking sleep outside

what the hell did nick's feet do that

didn't need feet do that somehow

i don't know how i i got no idea how

that shit just happened

but

yeah that one shout out neat feet but um

yeah get that guy out of my classroom

you want to sleep and go fucking sleep

outside bitch don't fucking sleep in my

classroom but as a businessman

um as a businessman you know doing the

more entertaining shit and doing the

more funny shit and react shit i guess i

mean that would be the smarter option

right but we're gonna kind of buckle

down and we're gonna have another

big brain stream where you're gonna

learn a lot of shit and you know

depending on how long it takes you're

gonna learn some things

in this stream um

and you know

it's maybe it's not a good business move

maybe it's not that good for the channel

but

you know what's what's so cool is that

at least for like the next week i think

i think that'll be fair

i can be pretty flexible about how i

stream and not worry that much because

uh

that one day you guys donated me a

fucked on fuck ton and i don't really

have to stress about

you know like so that was really nice

right

um

so i'm not too stressed i'm just not

really stressed you know which means we

have a lot of flexibility in terms of

what i can do and experiment with in

yada yada yada and you know if it turns

out not to be popular nobody wants these

types of streams anymore i just won't do

them anymore right

but i think i think it's i'm really

stressed if anything

i want to get you guys to start learning

about this shit because

let me talk about this a little bit

right

so in the beginning

in the beginning of infrared i kind of

had this attitude to the community where

i was like fuck the community

you know what i mean because

you know i had to establish

a separation between us and that

separation is still there by the way but

i was just on this kind of thing where i

was like i didn't trust y'all i don't

trust anybody i don't trust nobody this

is infrared collective me and then the

rest of y'all whatever

but i think

we are entering the stage

in infrared's timeline

which was the same one by the time

stalin made his 1936 soviet constitution

and then what did stalin say he said

life has become more joyous

right

the age of sultan has the cruel i mean

that will never go away

but

the community's starting to step up a

little bit you know i'm starting to look

at y'all on your twitter spaces i'm

starting to see you guys do wordpresses

you guys are doing your own content even

you're doing your own art you're forming

your own reading groups and you're

actually starting to get it

and it's like we're becoming a little

more you know it's like progress you

know i mean like i'm still a tyrant

don't get me wrong i'm still sultan has

the cool

so don't get the idea that i'm gonna be

uh you know

i'm gonna be letting my guard down

but life has become a little more joyous

we're starting to see

the power

spread right people are becoming a

little more empowered people are

becoming more able to understand what

this shit is about and y'all are kind of

starting to get it

right

y'all are starting to get it a little

bit and this is a pretty nice time in in

in the community's history this is a

pretty nice time in general

um

you're starting to be able to argue with

people about it you know

so this is nice

i like this right

but uh with that being said

i still want to keep doing these because

i think

i want you guys to absorb more i want

you guys to understand more i want you

guys to be able to be equipped with

being able to navigate

you know

navigate your way around being able to

respond to the people who bring up

apparent contradictions

in this infrared vision right

how can you say that communism is

conservative when i found out you know

uh at first glance it appears it isn't

how can you say common is conservative

when it's revolutionary huh how do

you

you know these like dumb greek cards

who are going to be the subject of

today's stream by the way

who bring up these apparent uh

contradictions

uh we're not realizing the fact that the

contradiction is imminent

we're not denying

there is obviously a very clear

modernist and revolutionary history of

communism the point is how to make sense

of the way in which they actually unfold

it

in in light of

marx's original discovery right that's

uh that's all i've ever said

but anyway without getting too much into

that

you know

we're going to do more of these

educational streams we're going to do

more of these professor streams but i

want you guys to be able to understand

this shit and to be able to put it in

your own fucking words

so you could take the burden off of me a

little bit and and you know

start doing your own debates and and

whatever and and talking to people

around you and

getting the good word of communism out

to your peers

your friends

and your co-workers

depending on where you work because if

you work at google i don't really care

what your co-workers think

but if you work at a construction site i

think it you know it doesn't hurt

doesn't hurt to sharpen your blade a

little bit and see if you can

get people to come around to start

seeing red in the same way that we are

you know

anyway um so today is going to be a uh

educational stream

would you ever do another intro to class

or intro to dialectics those streams

were goaded

no i don't think i'm going to do them

based on concepts i think that was the

mistake i want to start doing streams

based on

not concepts but you know

things

associations intuitions like you know

the one i did about communist

dictatorship that's something people

care about maybe they're like huh

communist dictatorship that is a thing

right

so i'm not really gonna make them about

the concepts i'm gonna make them more

about the the associations in reality

right so that's that and then um also

this is not that important news but

star field

that i'm gonna just remark a little bit

as a guy who played skyrim and shit

starfield looks like shit okay starfield

looks like fucking garbage looks like a

horrible game looks like the most boring

game i've ever fucking seen in my life

and yeah i was shitting on the toilet

shitting and sitting on the toilet

watching the whole 15-minute trailer

on my phone and it looked like fucking

garbage okay

and i'm not even i'm not i'm not giving

that any more attention after what i saw

that was the most and i'm gonna explain

to you a little bit why it looks like

shit why it looks like garbage um it

looks boring and it looks like it's

devoid of any theme it looks

thematically and aesthetically empty

um it looks like uh it looks like a game

about an urgent care clinic it looks

like an urgent care clinic made into a

game that's the theme it's just as dry

and boring as a fucking hospital that's

what the game reminds me of

even the guns look like surgical tools

where you're like a dentist and you're

like time to brush your teeth and it

looks really fucking cringy okay looks

really bad there's no theme there's no

aesthetic and and

by god that engine looks horrible the

game looks like shit it looks like

it looks like fucking morrowind okay it

looks like fallout 4.

funky as fuck boring as hell god what a

horrible horrible fucking

game what a horrible aesthetic and i'm

sure i'm very sure it's gonna be boring

as fuck and i'm gonna be so glad

to not

play that game um and i'm starting to

get a little happy

in regards to video games i'm like you

know what what if i'm missing out on

gaming isn't there stuff going on in

gaming because i stopped gaming and i'm

like i must be missing out no i ain't

missing out on shit there's nothing

going on in the world of video games i

mean it is dead and done there's just

all fucking

down the garbage right

so

yeah no art direction and the game looks

just boring and then you know there's

some details

that i'm gonna point out

that grind my gears so i could already

tell in that game it's going to sound

nerdy as fuck but i could already tell

in that game

that

you can't you can't actually like fly

around and just like land wherever you

want like when you approach a planet

it's a cut scene and when you take off

it's a cut scene i mean those are

details like i want to be able to do

what i want and fly around on the planet

like no man's sky and there's another

thing that probably noticed as well

is that when you're in space you can't

just get off of your

chair and start chilling and that's

something i want to do i want to be able

to get off my chair and run around my

spaceship in space i want that feeling

that i'm going to explore

and i'm like a nomadic whatever and i

know they're not gonna it'd be so easy

to implement but they're not gonna add

those small little things that will make

or break

the game being playable because they're

fucking scum i hate educational streams

yeah thank you andrew but yeah it's like

i know they're not gonna add that shit

because

they don't they don't even know what

makes a good game they don't even know

what makes something good they're just

like a bunch of fucking soulless robots

who are like

oh i'm gonna make the game a court is

fuck you man you fucking soulless

robotic fucking mechanical

dumbass oh you have to make a game where

you can fly ships and go on planets and

explore uh no that's not no the the

things that matter are the little things

like being able to park my ship in them

in the middle of the space and just get

out and you know walk around and look

out the window and

and that's what makes a game okay that's

what makes a good game

um

so yeah gaming is dead and i'm glad good

riddance right because video games are

fucking satanic and a waste of time

so good riddance good riddance uh other

news i watched

david lynch's dune again

and i liked it a lot

once again

i feel like a spring chicken i got a i

got all the sleep i needed

and some

um

i am seriously going to get a hair

transplant though this summer

i'm not even kidding i'm seriously

happening and the thing is

that means i'm going to be doing irl

streams in turkey

uh of course i'm gonna have my laptop in

my setup and shit but i have to find a

way to um

to like

wear a hat after my transplant because

if i'd stream with like the redness and

all that shit people are gonna like

annoy me about it like

you guys

and it doesn't bother me but the idea

that they think it bothers me bothers me

you know what i'm saying like

people will just

they'll just

it'll be annoying i'm gonna wear a hat

you know i'm gonna wear a hat for a long

time so

but that does mean i'm probably gonna be

bald for like

half a year

so you're still gonna get bald has don't

don't don't make any mistake you're

still getting bald has

but i'm not gonna be permanently bald

has but that's just assuming that i can

get the hair transplant maybe i can't

get it right because you have to be an

eligible candidate to get it

but can you imagine me

with a hair tran i mean that would be

legendary i'd be a fucking

i would

i would be able to

i would i would stream outside naked

wake up naked and just run outside of

stream

because i don't have to prepare for

anything i don't have to worry about my

hair like you know how much work goes

into this a lot a lot i'm just kidding

not that much but i have to shower and

comb it and shit i don't want to have to

do it anymore so

yeah

uh no the there i'm not fully decided on

it though to be fair because i know it

is satanic i know it's satanic

it's it's a really disgusting thing it's

like

yeah i'm just gonna

rip out my follicles and put them it's

such an ugly hideous

thing to do right and i i'm really sure

that i can like

meditate and get my hair back through

the power of meditation somehow

i just don't i just don't have the time

to commit to that but i'm pretty sure

you could do that somehow

pretty sure if you change your mentality

you can grow your parents commits to

wearing a turbine arc

yeah i might just wear a turban

i might just wear a turban

all right now we're going to do our

palette cleanser and i'm going to

introduce you to what today's stream is

about okay

so there's a guy

uh there's a

larper anarchist

uh who calls themselves a third position

fascist but they're actually just a

degenerate anarchist

psychotic

and their name is zoltanius and this is

a guy i debated before

about like a year back

once okay

so this guy's pretty much like a left

calm ultra left anarchist or whatever

and and that was his position actually

his position was that stalin and lenin

and the rest were deviating from the

original marks

and he put all these quotes

uh and not much else he just quoted

things and i had to like carefully

explain to him why he wasn't able to

comprehend those quotes or what they

actually meant

um and i asked him like why why are you

assuming this is what marx and angles

meant

and when they said this right why are

you making the assumption

he wasn't able to respond or give me

anything

and it was a very decisive and clear w

for me in that debate everyone saw it

so the guy

squidward

tentacle come here we have a solution

for your hair fast

uh that sounds scary

i i probably will go to russia though

when i go to turkey

um

he

started seething and coping for like

months afterwards

instead of just debating me again he

just started coping and seething

non-stop about it

and apparently that has culminated in

him

making an 80-minute video which i will

admit has

pretty impressive production value right

the video why i mean

i don't know if that's a compliment

though because it's like pathetic it's

like

no one's gonna watch it you're not gonna

get more than like what 5k views if even

it's like 80 minutes long it's really

convoluted and it's just quotes on

quotes on quotes on quotes

with no demonstration of the ability to

synthesize the information in a novel

way

or in a way that evinces the quality of

human and individuality

like this is like a bot pretty much

um

but to break things down this guy

is

pretty much

i would call him a

epistemic

anarchist now what do i mean by that

he'll read a quote

which appears to contradict the essence

of how it is interpreted

because it'll it'll have some key words

or it'll appear to say something when

it's removed from its context

and

in the same way that an anarchist upon

witnessing some internal contradiction

of the state and the law will

immediately abolish that

sultanus elects to decide that

the slightest hint of any

aspect

of a given

text

that appears to contradict

a straw man version of its one-sided

interpretation

means he can abolish and collapse

the actual meaning of that text

into an equally one-sided view so the

basic thing that zolt is doing

in his video is that

his video is called communism is not

conservative

so instead of actually addressing

anything that i said

and that includes the way he tried to

take like a paragraph or two out of

context from my sub stack which we're

going to get into as well

but instead of actually addressing my

like

pretty specific and unique argument

because i did make a specific and unique

argument right

he creates the straw man where i

actually just tried to say that

marx engels and lenin

are simply conservative

in the intuitive sense like in the same

way that like fucking ben shapiro is a

conservative like they're just

conservatives who directly espouse

family values and directly espouse you

know

a conservative ideology and that is the

that is why i qualify them as

conservative and then

the retard sultanius goes no that's

obviously not true

we know it's not true we're beginning

from the fact that that's not true

if you if you actually watched my video

communism is conservative

that would be abundantly clear to you i

was not trying to say that communism is

conservative in a one-sided sense

communism is conservative in a dialectic

sense and dialectic by the way isn't

just an excuse to foreclose the

responsibility to have a clear sense of

meaning it just

means

that

while

it

appears to be the opposite

it in fact actually is that it's about

the difference between the appearance

and the essence of something so my whole

thesis for communism being conservative

is basically that the revolutionary

nature of communism

eventually inserts itself into the

fabric of historical tradition

as being a part of a definite tradition

in history

it doesn't accomplish

some kind of

complete liquidation of history

like a permanent revolution in the case

of trotsky

it rediscovers particularity rediscovers

tradition

after the storm settles

but the retard zoltanius is trying to

make it seem like i said there is never

a storm

and that

it's just you're beginning with a

conservative ideology no it's not my

point obviously communists are beginning

with a modernist revolutionary ideology

but after that ideology after the

revolutionary aims are exhausted

what happens afterwards

is of decisive significance

now i responded to his friends video his

friend didn't want to debate me and

bitched out of the debate

and in this video there is not one time

where zoltanius actually addresses my

argument assault is not the enemy you

need to unite black flag triangular flag

on post

no he is definitely he's not an enemy

but he's just a retard right

uh an enemy actually has to be a worthy

opponent he's not a worthy opponent

he's just a retard and i'll debate him

any time but he doesn't want to debate

me because he's fucking scared right

anyway so he created a straw man that i

was proceeding from a one-sided

perspective

and then

it's it's this is what he does right he

gets a straw man that i'm saying

communism is just conservative in in the

in in unelaborated sense right

which is obviously not true because it

doesn't account for the the fact that

it's also a revolutionary tradition

right

then he goes

uh

here's evidence that actually there's

elements of the opposite there so that

means it's just the opposite

which again he's just like he has the

the way of thinking in the manner of

thinking of a retard right

he's just a fucking idiot

now you're going to ask me how why am i

going on my way to respond to this and

do this

um

because i don't want to give these

people the idea that they're like oh pod

has too much clout to pay attention to

our true and intellectually complicated

criticisms

so we we hold the high ground

intellectually no i'm not gonna afford

you the uh illusion that you have any

intellectual high ground right i will

respond to each and every criticism

that seems like it's a new criticism

right

your ideology has no consistency clyde

you are a retard you are an anarchist

retard

and your idea of consistency as i'm

going to demonstrate

belongs within the realm

of bourgeois modernistic empiricism

positivism

it has nothing to do i mean even from

the perspective as i'll demonstrate of

guanan's traditionalism your idea of

something being consistent is within the

realm of what dugan and guanan call the

language of modernity it's the law of

identity proper to modernity is

specifically expounded by modernity

obviously originating before modernity

but the way in which modernity

specifically expounds the law of

identity as a equals a

right

you are not a conservative you're not

even a

traditionalist you're not you're none of

the things you call yourself you're just

a fucking anarchist retard

you're an anarchist retard uh who has a

liberal ideology but you've just

flavored it in a certain way you're part

of the whole clown circus of liberalism

that's all you fucking are

i mean elitist in status i'll try again

no you're a consumer right you've chosen

to consum to consume the label of

elitist and statist but those are just

interchangeable with being a furry an

anarchist a left com or any other

fucking internet ideology you're a

consumerist you're none of the things

that you think you are

you're ultimately a liberal consumerist

and just like zolt the retard right

so no you're none of the things that you

claim to

um continuing

continuing

uh

thank you so much jesse

colon underscore tanki colon

so

before i actually get in and begin my

actual criticism because i'm just

wanting to introduce you to what

we're talking about here

and by the way i think the way i should

do that is probably to bring up his

little video

right just to have it ready

uh here it is

okay

and wow i mean there's a lot of work

that went in this video which is

unfortunate because i'm just gonna shit

on it in a pretty short period of time

um

but yeah there's a lot of work put into

it it's pretty much gonna be completely

destroyed and by the time you

finish this stream you're gonna like be

absolutely certain this guy's a retard

doesn't know what he's talking about

um

[Music]

what about what else did i want to say

before before i begin

okay so he doesn't want to debate me oh

yeah

another thing

if this guy doesn't fucking actually

like decide to respond to this with a

debate

he is admitting to the world that he's

just surrendered to me

because

if he has objections with the way i tear

his video apart

debate me i'm

right here challenging you to a fucking

debate

debate

right simple as that

uh we can literally settle it live just

debate

i don't know why you're scared of

debating me i mean you want to get a

moderator or something

you had one last time you can have one

another time

get a moderator

we'll debate about it

i don't need to

draw from all these quotes i i know

everything that i need to know off the

top of my head mostly

i can break down

whatever quotes you want to cite and

explain to you what they actually mean

and we'll be fine right so the first

thing i'm going to do to begin breaking

down this video and i'm not gonna go

through every minute of this fucking

80-minute video by the way but what i am

gonna do is um i'm gonna begin this

by

giving you a sense of his credibility so

i'm first going to just expose him as

like a retard and a dumbass beyond any

reasonable doubt so that you know from

the perspective of credibility

that

you know this is not someone who's

particularly smart

or

someone who evinces the ability to

articulate any of these quotes that he

compiles right

and that's something that i'm going to

be able to show to you pretty quickly

right

and before i do that i want to like buy

through getting into the video itself i

want to introduce you a little bit

to um

do and i believe let me just get to the

timestamp that i am mentioned in

okay

it's right here it's

give me other ones too if he mentions me

elsewhere

i think i'm only directly

mentioned 54 minutes in and that's where

i'm going to begin and these are the

easiest ones to deal with

because they're like the most stupid

right

but

just from the outside

in case anybody wants to say that my

approach my hermeneutic

is word solid inconsistent frankenstein

whatever

um oh yeah the fuck the last thing i

wanted to say i remember now is that

zolt not only

goes as far as trying to like say that

you know uh oh communism is not

conservative haas is wrong

because if that's if that's all he did i

probably wouldn't be as like mean or

belligerent or disrespectful and

insulting as i am now

because you know criticisms are fine you

can criticize me and try to make the

case that i don't know what i'm talking

about you can try to to you know say

ahaz you got it wrong

and i don't think that crosses the

boundary of disrespect

but what this retard zoltanius did

in his video is that he directly alleges

that actually i don't even believe any

of the things i'm saying i'm being

deliberately dishonest

and lying to the crowd you'll see this

part of the video i'm lying to everyone

to try and um

to try and fucking um

deceive

right wingers into adopting my marxist

red terror some shit like that like i'm

i'm just doing this as an act

to deceive right wingers but in secret

i'm actually a satanic evil

whatever

marxist

and this is where we have a problem

right because

something i'm going to insist upon the

fact that i've never lied i've never

been dishonest about my views i've worn

them all on my sleeve i've told you

i've told you what marxism means to me

in the first place and what it means in

general in the first place

so you're gonna start coming at my

character calling me dishonest i'm gonna

call you a bitch

and he is a bitch he looks like

squidward he talks like squidward he's a

fucking nerd

and in contrast to 99 of american

conservatives

his motivation doesn't come from his

sense of reality or his gut feeling or

his intuition it comes from a inflated

ego of his own

lopsided intellect he has an inflated

sense of his own intellect

which is the source of his position he

claims i'm a danger to the american

right-wing movement

no i'm a danger to your own

ego i'm a danger to your own

inflated sense of intellect right

because i prove and i humble you zolt i

castrate you i'm your fucking daddy and

i humble you i show you precisely why

you'll never be the intellectual that

you think you are or that you aspire and

want to be you're not as knowledgeable

about me you're not as well read as me

you're not as articulate about any of

these things that i am and this is why

he's so wounded right he says i'm a

danger

and i'm bringing reddit

no zolt you're a fucking anarchist

you're no different than leftists at

chaz you're no different than leftists

in general

you don't know how to relate to the

majority of americans you're always

going to be part of some niche extremist

cult

that relates to society in the same way

that anarchists do you're never gonna

actually reach out to people like i do

and like how jackson does

normal people we actually can reach out

to those people

i'm not doing that in this video this

video is going to be for the

intellectually inclined which isn't most

people

but

i'm revealing the intellect that is

behind the ability to actually tap into

and relate to ordinary people right

which you don't have because you're a

fucking pervert and an anarchist

so to begin this though

um

in terms of the differing methodologies

and hermeneutics of understanding

language

so right at the outset this is really

easy this is like the easiest thing ever

right at the outset okay

so zolt's point his main point of

contention is

that i get dugan wrong because

what i say about dugan is is um

not reflecting dugan's views but the way

in which zoltanius elects to

interpret dugan

and moreover the way in which she elects

to interpret the words of marx angles

lenin yada yada yada comes from an

epistemological framework

and comes from an attitude toward

language that is rooted

in what gwen on calls

in dugan's own words

the language of modernity

and in logical positivism and positivism

in particular so this is something i'm

just gonna directly show to you right

i'm just gonna show this to you directly

so this is dugan

here's dugan it's in his work

traditionalism as a language okay this

is just some introductory shit before i

break down the video so this is

traditionalism as a language

and in this work basically dugan breaks

down

um

he breaks down what what is the language

of modernity from gwyneon's perspective

and with guanon

modernity refers to a specific reduction

of

being and then also language

to a specific empty

and formalistic understanding of time

the form of time so it's a formalism

right

and then to get the quote in particular

yeah here it is

so

modernity for the modern language sees

the unidirectional main reality as the

fundamental mode of existence the axiom

this postulate in modern language is not

question

time flows in one direction and that all

that exists exists within time

everything lies outside time if you can

think of it is some abstraction an

artificial construction not having its

own genesis

okay

by the way we're going to continue to

return to this text throughout

but

what does that what does this view about

time have to do with

zoltanius's understanding of language

that is at the outset radically

irreconcilable and incompatible with

dugan's view

right

it has to do with the fact

that time

in terms of the reduction of language to

a unidirectional sense of time that is

devoid of teleology devoid of meaning

and devoid of purpose inherently

time is nothing more than a crystallized

a quantification if you will

of history within modernity

it's what goenon calls the reign of

quantity

here time has no teleology it flows

unidirectionally without goals and tasks

this purely quantitative time of

positivists and liberals is maximally

close to the pride

eradicmatic of understanding of the

basic version of this position within

the language of modernity the positivist

approach typical of classical science

deploys and explicitly reveals the most

important role of modern language the

identity of being in time it is a kind

of exemplary discourse a language

tautology a equals a

that informs us about the structure of

the language in which it is unuttered

the direction of modern philosophy

isolates the parameters of the meta

language of modernity distinguishing its

crystal clear paradigm from the

unimportant and distracting details a

striking example here is karl popper so

let me translate to you and explain to

you what dugan means there right what

dugan is trying to say

is that and he's interpreting here going

on but he's agreeing with guanon what

dugan is trying to say is that

in modernity we have an understanding of

language in which the meaning

let's say of a given word

or of a given sentence or of a given

expression of thought

is fixed and it's not only fixed but it

is fixed according to a flat

undifferentiated

and ultimately meaningless

um

meaningless space

so for example and this is why we arrive

at things like positivism because from

the positivistic perspective

in order to interpret let's say a given

passage by marx

we have to begin with the assumption

that

what marx means can is only contained

in the form of the text itself the empty

and abstract form of the text itself

we're not able to place it within a

wider or even contemporary context

we're not able to discern any meaning

that is outside of time

we're not able to discern any universal

or essential meaning

we are stuck within the bounds of

modernistic time and can only basically

draw conclusions about what mark says or

about what dugan says for that matter

within this strict arithmetic of

precedent dugan said this building off

of him saying this he said this and we

can know nothing about

let's call it the metaphysical

essence of what he's trying to say

we can only in this psychotically way

foreclose

access to what gwynon will call eternity

we foreclose access to the eternity

that the meaning actually subsists in

right

and we basically

try our to do our best to guess what

people mean

based on a one-sided interpretation of

what they had said

so it's this upholding of the law of

identity a equals a

uh in which words have a fixed meaning

and they can only relate to each other

arithmetically

in regards to those fixed meanings

there's not one central and eternal

reference point of all language that is

outside of time

time itself is the arithmetic

of quantity

so this is we are within gwenon's reign

of quantity

all of this shit that i'm telling you

sounds like schizo shit that makes no

sense which is fine but your retard

leader i'm addressing the uh turd

position is zoltanius he is drawing from

these really

complicated thinkers that are hard to

understand

and trying to dupe you into thinking

that his positions have their basis in

those in the authority of those thinkers

i mean even you can't understand those

thinkers what what makes you think that

retards sultanius can't he can't

you don't have to care about someone

like gwynon or even dugan for that

matter but if you're going to invoke the

authority of these people you have to be

smart enough and intelligent enough and

also mature enough to understand the

fact

that

on face value these are people who say

immensely contradictory

and apparently nonsensical things that's

why anglos will just look at something

dugan says and be like oh that's

meaningless right

because they have an understanding of

language

that

gives primacy to meaning over the form

that it takes

meaning has some kind of precedence the

meaning of a given author's work is not

self-contained within any narrow

formalization of what they were trying

to say the meaning is primary the

meaning subsists somewhere outside of

time itself by the way this is just

going on we're on so far right

we haven't gotten into heidegger yet

um

now

zolt does do something that a lot of

anglo copium retards do within the

anglosphere which is basically they'll

look at an extremely complex

uh and and yes apparently nonsensical

thinker like dugan who's extremely

poetical and extremely

um

extremely uh let's just call it

generous

in in in the manner of

lending himself to interpretation

and they'll try and like discern some

kind of positivistic structure within

those thinkers and be like oh this is

what dugan means dogmatically and i'm

gonna do i'm gonna like

interpret everything dugan writes

according to this

fixed angloid structure of meaning right

but dugan doesn't have that fixed

structure

um gwynon doesn't have that fixed

structure heidegger himself doesn't have

that fixed structure you have to impose

that on them because by themselves

you're not able to comprehend them

you're not able to lend yourself to the

openness of meaning that is contained

within their works and their texts

because you have terminal angloid brain

and again nobody is forcing these

thinkers on you we're just saying stop

pretending to be an intellectual who's

evoking their authority because you're

in way over your head and you're clearly

not equipped

with being able to understand anything

they say

that's what we're saying you don't have

to you go ha look about the nonsense

okay it's nonsense for you sure then

stay away from them stop invoking their

authority and pretending like you

understand these people because you

don't you don't understand anything

about them

um

let's get into some specifics right

oh sorry then finally i mean this is

where things take the case okay this is

where sorry

it takes the cake

fuck did i did i lose it

did i lose

where is it

here it is

i don't know why it's all over here

okay here it is all right perfect

here it is

now it gets worse when we look at

heidegger himself who in dugan's own

words

is probably the most formative and

fundamental thinker

and and most formative influence on

dugan's own thinking what does heidegger

have to say about language and meaning

and how do we interpret meaning from

language

so

in this part of being in time

being there and discourse language i'm

just going to read to you what heidegger

says

the fundamental

existentialia

which constitutes the being of their the

discloseness of being in the world are

states of mind and understanding in

understanding there lurks the

possibility of interpretation that is of

appropriating what is understood

insofar as a state of mind is

equi-primordial with the act of

understanding it maintains itself in a

certain understanding

thus their corresponds to it a certain

capacity for getting interpreted we have

seen

that assertion is derived from

interpretation

and is an extreme case of it in

clarifying the third signification of

assertion as communication

we were led to the concepts of saying

and speaking to which we had

purposefully given no attention up to

this point

the fact that language now becomes our

theme for the first time will indicate

that this phenomena has its roots in the

existential constitution of da science

disclosedness

the existential

ontological foundation of language is

discourse or talk

the

phenomena is one of which we have been

making constant use already in our

foregoing interpretation of state of

mind understanding interpretation and

assertion but we have as it were kept it

suppressed in our thematic analysis

discourse is existentially

equi-primordial

with state of mind and understanding

the intelligibility of something has

always been articulated even before

there is any appropriate interpretation

interpretation of it

this course is the articulation of

intelligibility

so for heidegger

he's basically laying it out pretty

clear

there is

maybe meaning would be too loaded but

there's here a clear primacy of

intelligibility before it is given

articulation

by discourse so in other words when marx

says something

the intelligibility of what he's saying

is there before it gets articulated

within a certain discourse

but salt doesn't believe that result

the intelligibility is

the articulation and the discourse

there's no deeper meaning so to speak

everything is just

on the surface and moreover removed

even more previously from the historical

context and from the context of what he

was actually trying to say

no there's no aspect of marxism that's

empiricist none

there's no aspect of marxism that's

empiricist whatsoever

therefore it underlies both

interpretation and assertion

that which can be articulated in

interpretation and thus even more

primordially in discourse is what we

have called meaning

so something that can be articulated in

interpretation

and in discourse

is what heidegger calls meaning

so there is a precedence of

intelligibility before articulation

which means

you cannot ascribe a given

historical thinker

a fixed

uh form of articulation because the

intelligibility

that their specific articulation

is responding to is precedent

this gives way to an openness of

interpretation that zoltanius

claims is nonsensical and impossible and

inconsistent and meaningle and whatever

right but this is the formative thinker

of dugan's own thought

how can you say

how can you have to on the one hand try

and uphold

some knowledge of what dugan means to

say if you don't understand

the formative basis of dugan's thought

itself

and any listen anybody in chat all you

have to do is debate me you fucking

pussy you can't i will fucking crush you

on any of this so children sit down and

let your daddy let your teacher actually

teach you and break down

all of these concepts and ideas and

thinkers that retard zoltanius

uh

was abusing and misusing in his stupid

fucking video

that which gets articulated as such in

discursive articulation we call the

totality of significations

this can be dissolved or broken up into

signification now this is the most

important part this is the most

important part this whole rest of this

paragraph

so bear with me here guys i'm gonna

explain why

significations as what has been

articulated from that which can be

articulated

always

carry meaning

if discourse as the articulation of

intelligibility of there is a primordial

existential of discloseness

and if discloseness is primarily

constituted by being in the world

then discourse 2

must have essentially a kind of being

which is specifically worldly

the intelligibility of being in the

world

and intelligibility which goes with a

state of mind expresses itself as

discourse here's the part

the totality of significations of

intelligibility is put into words but

here listen

to significations words accrue you hear

this you fucking retard sultanius

but word things do not get supplied with

significations

do you know what that means

it means

words are merely a result

an effect

of the totality of the significations of

intelligibility of intelligibility

the meaning of a word is not the word

thing itself

moreover

for heidegger

he rejects the aristotle aristotelian

view according to which a given word

or let's say a given identity is between

a word and a thing in reality heidegger

rejects that view heidegger also

rejects the view that metaphor is merely

derivative of this such type of word for

heidegger for example a metaphor which

is relating one signification to another

is itself an identity you know what that

means

it means to put it in heidegger's own

words language is the house of being

language is not simply how we

communicate

beings particular beings language is

itself the house of being the relation

between words themselves constitute the

identity not some fixed external

referent

that words merely reflect

so meaning is itself a result

of the difference posed by language to

the world

so right off the bat before we even

watch the video zoltanius is a fucking

illiterate dumb fuck he is literally

illiterate he didn't even know

that from a high nagarian perspective

the way in which he is proceeding

the method by which the logic underlying

and the reasoning underlying his

criticism of what i've said

is based in an angloid positivistic

ultra-modernistic understanding of

language

that heidegger

and the traditionalist thinkers like

gwynon fundamentally deviate from

and logically it follows

that dugan himself

wholly rejects the positivistic angloid

understanding of the relationship

between words and meaning

so yes

if you want to have an understanding of

language that is consistent with dugan

or heidegger or gwynon or any of these

other continental kinds of thinkers you

are going to have to deal with the

reality of contradictions in

interpretation and in articulation you

are going to have to accept that there

are contradictions

that there are imminent contradictions

you can give

forms of expression that on their face

value are completely contradictory

but which reflect

the same object

an object is not to be taken in any

one-sided sense if we take an object in

a one-sided sense we are within

the tyranny of quantity the reign of

quantity as when on puts it we are

within

modernistic time only when we establish

ourselves as outside

of modernist time and into the realm of

eternity

are we able

to actually arrive at something like the

truth of meaning

for going on himself

for gwyneon himself

again i know the majority of zolt's

followers are

teenage

or either in their 20s kind of like you

know

basically anarchists and and uh deviants

and perverts or whatever femme boys and

furries whatever the fuck

and they're basically not interested in

any of this stuff this is all too

complicated for their angloids minds to

comprehend and it's all just nonsense to

them that's fine

stop invoking the authority of these

thinkers then just stop

go back to fucking citing ben shapiro or

whatever the fuck else stop don't talk

about dugan and heidegger and all these

people you don't fucking understand

you can't have your cake and eat it too

you can't on the one side have this

vulgar angloid understanding of meaning

and then on the other hand

purport

to understand thinkers that are

radically outside

of the confines of what you consider

meaningfulness

cannot have your cake and eat it too

okay so that's the introduction to why

zolt is a fucking idiot

um

with before we watch the video right so

now we're gonna actually watch

the relevant part and and this is 54

give me time stamps before this that are

relevant to me

as well because i didn't watch

all of this

he is materialistic and maoist

material standard do that of the

hierarchy of the invisible worlds has

engendered that most typical offspring

of the modern spirit the theory of

evolution with its corollary the

illusion of human progress but to get

the full traditionalist context on

nations i think alexander dugan can help

us a figure whom haaz poorly understands

and

so because he says haas

it kind of sounds like he was responding

to something i said

54-51 this would obviously show direct

contradiction to the insanity promoted

by the atheistic and materialistic

analysis of the communist aspirations of

an internationalized borderless world

marks and lenin here when he states

according to national

and nothing party of the net caught only

as apprehension

yeah i don't think i'm mentalism

throughout eastern europe

[Music]

right here

rendered that most typical offspring of

the modern spirit i mean look how much

editing they put in this video it's so

sad because it's like all this form and

editing for such lousy content that i'm

just gonna like delegitimize and

discredit

very sick very soon guys

it's over for zolt right very soon it's

it's over

uh everything else is gonna be like

extra but like after this specific part

you're gonna realize this guy's a fraud

and a retard

theory of evolution with its corollary

the illusion of human progress

but to get the full traditionalist

context on nations i think alexander

dugan can help us a figure whom haaz

poorly understands

and of course he has even claimed in his

writings that dugan's fourth political

theory is materialistic and maoist

as when haze rhetorically asks quote

what if this fourth political theory is

none other than marxism leninism itself

end quote insanity from the substance

writing that dugan's fourth political

theory is secretly marxist leninist

since quote not only the adoption of a

fourth but a fifth sixth seventh etc

political theory are already integral to

the constantly self-revolutionizing

self-reforming and self-reconstructing

nature of chinese communism or maoism

okay so right at the outset you're gonna

ask the question

does zoltanius engage with the reason

why i say this and then offer an

argument or does he just say that dugan

himself

has said things that appear to

contradict this on face value

you'll never guess which one he did

quote

while it is no secret i have written

that i believe that dugan's fourth

political theory is basically a form of

russian third positionism

you think it's a form of russian third

positionism you fucking retard

i it's like i have my button on the

nuclear button right now i'm saving it

for when he actually like tries to quote

dugan to support such a stupid fucking

statement

because your methodology isn't offering

a unique interpretation you're

just wait just watch

or at least more than he lets on this is

reasonable given that dugan himself has

written an eurasian i'm showing you this

book on this street

that this neo-eurasianism is quote akin

to traditionalism or the third position

end quote he didn't read the book he

didn't read the fucking book watch

literally let me show you this

let me show you this

okay so let me explain to you

what dugan was saying in context

neo-eurasianism as well as early

erasionism was conceived by us from the

outset as a russian form of third way

ideology so far so good right belonging

to the same philosophical family as the

german conservative revolution so

before we get into it

this is how dugan says they began and

what he means by third way is just

conservative german conservative

revolution which means he's not talking

about franco freida and the third way

thinkers he's talking about the vague

german conservative revolution which i

also draw from

which set itself up

as trying to find an alternative between

capitalism and what they thought was

communism now i've already prefaced and

shown in the past how the german

conservative revolution thinkers only

engaged with marxism and communism

from lucox

but lucox is not a correct

representative of marxism leninism

because lucox is a neocontian who

rejects angles

so there has never been a true encounter

between german conservative revolution

and marxism leninism keep that in mind

i've said that before and made that

argument

we therefore accepted it as a

particularly russian paradigm of a broad

anti-modern philosophical and political

tendency ache into traditionalism or

third position oh so i guess zolt was

right right

well

inconveniently he's using this in the

past tense

why is he using this in the past fucking

tense

why was he using this in the past tense

he also gives context it was part of a

large i've wrote about this in my sub

stack by the way i literally wrote about

this i literally wrote about

the context behind this right in the

1990s but what did he write right after

the last important ideological shift in

the philosophy of neo-eurasianism

occurred in 2007 and 2008 this was like

a year before he wrote the fourth

political theory

when the basic principles of the poor

fourth political theory were laid down

that was the moment of the resolute and

irreversible step from eurasianism as a

russian version of third position to the

fourth position

dugan says

that in 2007 and 2008 they made the step

out of third positionism he said

originally it was conceived in that way

later on they discovered this was not

what they were

this was a continuation of eurasianist

ideas

still consisting of anti-liberalism

anti-modernism and anterocentrism

the structuralist approach the

multi-polarity but instead of it being a

creative synthesis of anti-liberal right

with the left

it began to move in a direction thinking

beyond all varieties of political

modernity this included

transcending the third position

or rather the mixture of the far left

and far right that it represented

beyond liberalism communism and fascism

so the fourth political theory has begun

little by little to take shape by

overcoming the logic and principles of

the third way

instead inviting those who could so this

is

i mean this is pretty

clear that dugan directly disagrees

with zoltanius

that

eurasianism represents a russian version

of the third way

because while he says this is how it was

initially conceived

this is not what it is

as of the latest shift in 2007 to 2008.

so it's not dugan's view now you could

say

because

zolta is not trying to say that dugan

directly believes this consciously but

that

logically speaking or in a critical

sense it is well that would be fine

if it wasn't for the fact

that

he his entire premise for his argument

is that

the meaning of what a thinker's ideas

are

are only at the surface level of what

they consciously are within the realm of

their own limited understanding so

basically he couldn't get away with

arguing that

because then his criticism of my

interpretation of dugan would break down

how could you say that i'm wrong about

dugan because dugan

has a limited understanding in my view

of marxism

when according to your own logic he

would also have to have a limited

understanding of the third position

if you think dugan is a third

positionist

then dugan must have some kind of

limited understanding of the third way

and third position because he directly

says

that he has transcended the third

position and he's rejected the third

position

now

i do say that dugan has a limited

understanding of marxism i specifically

have pointed out many times that dugan's

acquaintance with marxism goes no

further than the soviet marxism leninism

of which he was actually

um

exposed to in addition to western

marxism and i'll get into that later in

the stream as well

but

that is i have i'm not saying that dugan

knows all of this and you have plans to

interview dugan within the near future

yeah i do have plans for that

i have not said that dugan agrees with

me

overtly i said

if you were to introduce a broader and

more correct understanding of marxism

this would be dugan's position

for example this is what dugan's

position means this is the essence of

his position it's already contained my

thesis in maoism and mao zedong thought

that's my thesis

you can't just say because dugan

uh

doesn't

call himself a maoist

that i'm wrong because that presumes

dugan

has been exposed to this specific type

of interpretation and this specific type

of reading

it assumes he's even looked at it this

way or even considered it

and that quote from the european threat

this look this this alone

this level of distortion of what dugan

said when like he wasn't talking about

in the contempt oh yeah this one from

the european third way to the fourth

political theory is only one step

that's also something he took out of

context which we're going to address

in its full context

here

here

because it's misleading

now

we've already proven

we have already proven

that by the third way

dugan does not mean what zoltanius means

all dugan means is the german

conservative revolution

he's prefaced that

in neither the work neo-eurasianism

right

that i just showed you so that's what he

means by third position

from the european third position to

fourth political theory is only one step

because third position and fourth

position share the conservative

revolution of the ymr era and buenos

traditionalism as traditional starting

points so he prefaces what he means by

that he's not saying and moreover

he's not saying a retard like zoltanius

is just one step away from his own

thinking

he is

clarifying that the reason he's saying

this is because they share the

conservative revolution and gwynon's

traditionalism so that's why he's saying

this but then he goes on to say that the

step is not easy to take

the fourth political theory is

anti-modern

but the nation that is so dear to the

representatives of the third position

like sultanius is essentially a modern

notion just are the concepts of the

state and of race

ladies and gentlemen

dugan is anti-nationalism

he doesn't believe in nations he doesn't

believe in state modern notion of the

state and he doesn't believe in race

and this retard third positionist is

trying to claim dugan but dugan

is anti-nationalism he actually he said

in recent telegram posts that he rejects

nationalism and that he's against

nationalism

he also doesn't believe in the concept

of race he also doesn't believe in

concepts of state

the fourth political theory is against

any kinds of universalism

and refuses eurocentrism of any kind

liberal as well as nationalists again if

zoltanius wants to say that this is out

of context you're free to try and argue

that but thus far you have not proven

your ability to understand the deeper

meaning of things beyond the surface

well zolt you fucking retard here's your

surface for you dugan regents rejects

nationalism and he rejects race

that's not what he means what he means

but isn't that what you've done to marx

and angles and lenin you've just taken

them out of context without any further

elaboration

isn't that what you've done to my

interpretations of dugan and of marxism

in general so you can't have it both

ways you can't claim some kind of deeper

hermeneutic of what dugan means

while also rejecting any deeper

hermeneutic for what i mean or what marx

means or what marxists mean in history

you can't have it both ways

so accept everything on the fucking

surface or don't

okay

i mean this is from the same paragraph

this dishonest lying fucking weasel

zultanius quoted from the same paragraph

this is why it's all can you please tell

me it's and this future common sense

would it be easy to get a third

positionist

to be to become a fourth positionist if

they have to leave behind all

nationalism

all notions of race

and the concepts of state

you really think a third positionist

would be on board with that when i was

debating keith woods

and that other guy

i never even rejected nations or race

all i did was say like hey you know

races don't have to be isolated from

each other there can be

some kind of civilization between them

and i was oh my god i wasn't saying that

irish people in somalis could mix that's

the worst thing i could possibly say

according to that community well this is

what dugan says dugan rejects nations in

general and rejects race

i mean dugan's even said shit like an

african can become russian

just has to learn the russian language

adopt the russian culture and then the

russian no problem he doesn't believe in

race

stop trying to claim this guy as he's

your guy he's not your guy he's not your

guy okay he's not your guy

um

yeah i mean that's just shit on the if

you want to say there's a deeper textual

exegesis exegesis whatever you fucking

say that there's a deeper hermeneutic

you need to draw from this

you can't you can't say that because

your whole

reasoning and rationale behind the the

idea that i'm dishonest

has been from an extremely one-sided

interpretation

of marx angles lenin yada yada yada and

of of what i've said as well to show how

it's contradictory and consistent well

if you're saying that dugan believes in

nations that contradicts what dugan just

said right here contradicts

what he just said right now he says the

ethnic traditions of urine peoples are

sacred

yet ethnic identity is something

different from national state and

political body

european history was always based on the

plurality of cultures and unity of its

spiritual authorities

that was destroyed by modernity

and the liquidation of your the

liquidation of european spiritual unity

was part of european nationalism

so

they support a new european empire as

traditional empire spiritual foundation

and dialectical coexistence of ethnic

groups

instead of nation states

and this is the dividing line the

refusal of any kind of nationalism

chauvinism eurocentrism universalism

racism or xenophobic attitude now

judging from my debate with keith woods

and his friend do you really think that

they're going to get on board with that

you really think zolt can get on board

with something like this no he can't

zolt is coping like a fucking

lying bitch

trying to say that dugan's actually just

a third positionist well dugan well if

you're gonna say listen

i say dugan

is a materialist and then you say well

dugan rejects materialism and then i

literally address well yeah but this is

what he means by materialism right and i

make a very thorough argument and i

justified with historical context you

know what does materialism mean in the

soviet history what did materialism mean

uh for most western thinking and

is there a divergence between what marks

meant and what they meant we're gonna

get into all that

right i get into all of that shit

all of that

shit and i'm able to explain that

but when i ask you the question how can

you call dugan a nationalist when he

like says i'm against nationalism

what would do what would zolt say what

would he say how could you call dugan a

third positionist

when he rejects the idea that

eurasianism is a special kind of third

position

or third way and that it's a form of

it's something they've transcended into

the fourth form that it's not it's not

within third position anymore

as it was originally conceived

what what would you say is do would you

have an argument could you say

by default you would not be capable of

saying anything the reason you couldn't

say anything is because you've already

foreclosed and cut off the possibility

of any hermeneutic

things are just

what they are at face value

and there's no deeper meaning to any of

them the meaning

cannot contradict what it appears

as at face value

um

meaning is not suspended in a living way

meaning is dead and fixed and it's under

the reign of quantity asperger went on

that's your view right so you you really

can't

say anything you're just fucking wrong

you little bitch you just got destroyed

dude i like okay now i'm making a cutoff

point so i don't know how long that just

took i think it was like what 10 to 20

minutes i just exposed this whole video

as fraudulent i mean just from that

alone

just from the use of these two quotes

alone to justify the idea that dugan's a

special russian third positionist

um

the credibility of this person

uh is gone completely gone

okay

so yeah let's continue way to the fourth

now everything else is just going to be

fun and extra critical theory is only

one step end quote

this would also explain his connections

to nazi maoist franco freida and former

often ss member jean-francois dilliard

what connections are those exactly uh

the fact that

european or russian intellectuals

engage with each other i mean

you do you not know what what what

leftist intellectuals you don't know who

they engage with do you know who

heidegger is

you fucking dumbass you know about carl

schmidt

and

the way in which all of these thinkers

regardless of their politics are pretty

much

having connections with one another

i mean i i could show you

what dugan says about nazism

because you just said well this would

explain dugan's connection to this nazi

right

but what does dugan actually say about

nazism

what does he say about him

so i'm probably gonna have to just open

up the fourth political theory which i

do have open

i think i have open yeah here it is

okay i have open one passage i need to

use

okay

so this is just from the fourth

political theory in which she talks in

german national socialism the historical

subject of the aryan race according to

the racist carries out eternal struggle

against the subhuman races the appalling

consequences of this ideology are too

well known to dwell upon however it was

the original definition of a historical

subject that was at the heart of the

nazis criminal practices

keep in mind he doesn't talk about

communism in the way he does talk about

nazism he condemns the nazis as racists

and criminals and engaging in appalling

whatever he doesn't

if you when you look at his critique of

marxism

they are comparatively far more tame

which i'm gonna show you

and which is also consistent with

everything i've said already right

but um yeah

so

like okay i'll show you right here right

above right

uh he says the historical subject of the

second political theory is class the

class struggle society has been

exploited exploited uh history is class

struggle politics is expression the

proletariat is a dialectic struggle

subject this is luke cox luke coxy and

marxism which is called to set itself

free from the domination of the budweis

into both society and new foundations a

single individual

is conceived here as part of a

class-based whole and acquired social

use of only a process of raising class

consciousness

now pretty like it's it's a pretty um

neutral description actually and then

here he calls them criminals with

appalling consequences

yadda yadda i mean yeah yeah keep trying

to fucking worm your and then look

i can just show you what he said more

recently about nazism

but just look it up yourself dugan

condemns nazism he condemns racism he's

wholly against nazism he's against

hitler he's against the nazis

all of that is very unambiguous in

dugan's work give me a sec

salt characterizes marx's materialism as

physicalism

840.

uh this guy cannot get any more like

he's just it's guys like making shit up

pulling it out of his ass as he goes

because

i can literally show you quotes on

quotes to use his method

just like i'm doing now to expose that

he's a fucking liar doesn't know what

he's talking about give me a sec i'll be

right back

now again what he's going to do probably

is he he's going to try to like dig up

some dugan quotes out of context to try

and say no dugan actually supports

nationalism

also you're going to have to make sure

those are up to date if you do that

but even if you do that you have to

account for why he's saying what he's

saying

you have to account for the

contradictions you can't just

see this retard can only come to like

a one-sided conclusion he can't actually

account for these apparent

contradictions

and what these writers are saying into

some kind of like synthesized conclusion

he has to like

make it a battle like no he's more

fascist no he's more this he's more that

what if dugan's just his own thing huh

retard

you ever consider that

moreover by the way

i know that i've said that the true

fourth political theory is marxism

leninism but the the point of that

argument was not to say that i think

dugan secretly a marxist leninist

but more to say that marxism leninism is

bigger than what dugan understands

uh he has not fully explored the breadth

of diversity of thinking that marxism

leninism is capable of specifically in

its synthesized form

uh and marxism leninism

answers the question of a fourth

political theory the need for a fourth

political theory outside of

the ideology of modernity i argue that

marxism leninism is the fourth political

theory not because i think dugan thinks

this

uh but because i think that

it is the answer to the his question

it's the answer to what he is trying to

look for because remember the fourth

political theory is a project

it's a project to create a new theory

all i'm saying is you don't need to

create it it's already there

all of dugan's critiques of the first

three theories

can be contained within

marxism leninism

basis for his geopolitics is twofold in

heidegger's dozen and carl schmitz

concept of large spaces so he's doing

the leftist thing right now where he's

to be like heidegger's politics were

this and carl schmidt's politics were

that that proves dugan's own political

orientation which doesn't explain how

dugan also draws from left-wing thinkers

like gromski

and

and others

it's just stupid right

ignoring the question of heidegger's

affinity with german third positionism

schmidt's idea of large space

what is heidegger's affinity for german

third positionism heidegger didn't give

a fuck about the third positionism

heidegger

joined the nazi party because he thought

the nazis represented the event he was

looking for he he wasn't engaging with

the later third positionist which was

actually with his given

sorry more specifically he wasn't

engaging with like the italian fascists

and like oh yeah the geo only gentilian

he wasn't he didn't give a fuck about

any of that right

and yeah we know these both of these

people were nazis

if you want to claim that the dugan

drawing from carl schmidt

gives him some affinity a third position

aka nazism because you're saying they're

interchangeable apparently

um

i'll just show you wikipedia articles

old because that's apparently what you

do

left wing smithians

is there a wikipedia article on them no

but there's like a fee.org

that has the headline

first google result carl schmidt the

philosopher of conflict who inspired

both the left and the right

so it seems like

everyone is saying carl schmidt both

influenced the left and the right

which is true

because there are literally left-wing

schmidtians it's literally a term

uh and they're definitely not nazis

yeah i know we all know that's true for

heidegger as well

i just assume that everyone knows that

already right

but

in case people didn't know that for

schmidt

he's not some uniquely fascist or nazi

thinker there you go he's not

just like the german conservative

revolutionaries

see dugan interprets

he also makes the mistake of

interpreting

the german conservative revolution as

the third way

well he doesn't actually even make this

mistake see

what dugan means by the third way is the

german conservative revolution

what zolt means by third position

is syndicalism and things like that

right

uh he means more like

and the italian fascists

you know

he means uh

you know yaki and strasser

and

who are those french guys i'm trying to

look it up

i guess the synarcus

maybe

but in france and in italy and

elsewhere

that's what zoltanius means

doesn't mean that dugan just means the

conservative revolutionaries he doesn't

mean these kind of like you know

national syndicalists and all these

types of fucking eccentric

european ideologies he does not mean

that

he makes it clear what he means

and sims and by the way i have drawn

equally from the german conservative

revolution i have even gone so far as to

say

that the german conservative revolution

was

the western intellectual form of marxism

leninism

what stalin was doing in the soviet

union german conservative revolution was

doing for western thought

i have said that

unfortunately

the two were never able to recognize one

and another

but

the tragedy is that german conservative

revolutionaries came first

then the nazis came

and they thought the nazis were the

world spirit the zeitgeist of their

position but the real zeitgeist of the

german conservative revolution was the

stalin revolution

and it's a historical tragedy that maybe

it was necessary though that they

weren't

able to understand this

the true zeitgeist of german

conservative revolution was stalinism

they were not able to recognize that

uh

because of the paradoxical and

elliptical nature of russian archaeo

modernity in general which i'm also

going to get to

as well

hitler's preeminent intellectual

biographer writes stems from hitler

himself quote

hitler's idea of a german monroe

doctrine which he had first mentioned

more than a decade earlier in 1923 was

picked up by the lawyer carl schmidt who

elaborated it into an entire theory of

large spaces end quote

yeah you know this is not really

remarkable um

there's

like for example there

so many great intellectual ideas have

their origin

in stupid things like someone like a

philosopher is in the forest and he sees

a turtle

fucking a squirrel or something and he's

like huh and then he's some brilliant

conclusion follows that's the equivalent

we're dealing with here the inspiration

for a novel philosophical concept or a

novel concept of the intellect

is usually not that important it can be

as mundane and

um stupid as as you wish or as you

imagine it to be

uh what matters is the actual concept

which clearly goes far beyond

the mind of adolf hitler okay

schmidt's understanding of large space

clearly is not restricted by hitler's

stupidity

so one of two main prongs of dugan's

geopolitical philosophy comes from the

mind of adolf hitler no no it doesn't

that's where you got it fucking wrong no

it doesn't the inspiration for schmidt's

idea came from that that doesn't mean it

it that the thing itself came from

hitler's mind

no that i you literally just

contradicted what i said uh and you're

wrong and i explained why

with the other prong having a

complicated at best relationship with

the third reich

in 2015 a maoist

blogger interviewed dugan and it was

even syndicated on one of his websites

and when he was asked about mao and

maoism he said quote

mao was right in affirming that

socialism should not exclusively be

proletarian but also peasant and based

on the ethnic traditions it is closer to

the truth than universalist industrial

internationalist versions represented by

trotskyism

but i think that sacred part in maoism

was missed or underdeveloped

i think that's

a really um open-minded

view dugan's giving here he's saying

you know either it was missed or maybe

it was underdeveloped right

he's not

he's not uh

this this adds credence to my theory

this adds credence to my theory that

dugan

a kind of

ambiguous interest and affinity for

maoism he doesn't go deep into it

i that's my job right but

dugan's open-minded about these fucking

things he's not set in his conclusions

um

in in the strict sense of foreclosing

the possibility of learning something

new dugan's mind doesn't work like that

he's not an anglo-dogmatist like years

old

dugan just

says what he means

within the framework of his

understanding

dugan says what he means within his

understanding

his understanding he never claims is

final

he never claims his understanding is

final

ever he says

well he he proves through the course of

his own development that i used to think

this but then upon further investigation

i am increasingly uh

disposed to this view right so he's not

set and dogmatically attached

to some

ego of his own intellect like you are

which you call third position let me

explain to you

zoltanius's turret position

and why no one should care about

reaching out to retards like zultanius

this is a guy

who's made an ego of his own intellect

in the form of turd position

so if turd position is stupid and wrong

he's also a retard too so he has to

always apologize for and defend turd

position or else

the um

the uh

what do you call it

the uh fortitude of his ego

will be compromised his ego will shatter

and collapse

so he's attached to this stupid fucking

internet ideology forever because if

he's wrong about it

his whole online identity will be for

naught all that dumb shit he's ever done

will be for naught

right so he is has an attachment to it

its links with confucianism and taoism

were weak maoism is too modern

its overt links were weak right and this

is not really true

it's very clear how maui's dialectic

is linked to taoism

not overtly it didn't develop this

overtly and

consciously which is what i think

dugan's talking about

and for me for china it would be the

best solution to preserve the socialism

and political domination of national

communist parties as today but develop

more sacred tradition

such as confucianism and taoism

that's literally what

xi jinping is saying xi jinping is

saying let's explore china's

sacred and spiritual traditions what's

what's your point

where is the part where this is in

contradiction to marxism leninism

uh unless you want to say

that china is not a marxist leninist

state even though it says that it is

see this is the problem with this retard

sultanus

i'm not allowed to interpret

thinkers

uh in the way that i do but he can go

ahead and say china's not marxist

leninist even though they say they are

all i've done is say

marx

if he were presented

with this

question

and if he were to be consistent with his

use marx would be some kind of

traditionalist conservative

all i've see but he's never been

presented with the question and he

didn't say anything about it right

but

the chinese communist party literally

does say that they're marxist leninist

people like dugan literally do say that

they reject third position

but it's okay for zolt to characterize

them however he wants to according to

his mind's content

uh without any regard

for what they've actually said all i've

done is say

let's not assume what marx and angles

would have thought we don't know what

they would have thought

let me interpret what they would have

thought based on

the essentiality of their method

and their insight

but

zolt go he directly contradicts them he

directly contradicts these people

that's the problem he just directly

contradicts them

it is rather significant that the ideas

of heidegger are attentively explored

now by hundreds of chinese scientists i

think fourth political theory could fit

to contemporary china best of all sounds

pretty innocuous and

benign to me doesn't sound like this is

anything in favor of zoltanius's line of

argumentation in quote

in the same interview dugan is also

you're not gonna you're not gonna

provide an interpretation because that's

an extremely benign thing he just said i

thought you were going to be like so

what this means is that dugan i mean

you're what you're just going to leave

at the quote

the quote doesn't contradict anything

i've said nothing it contradicts nothing

that i've said

i will show you the sub stack again to

show you what a retard sultanus is

because it's going to be funny just wait

i'm so excited this is such a fun stream

this is so

fun to make it clear that quote

it's not communist nor marxist because i

refuse the materialism of any kind and

deny the progress

it is so much more correct to describe

my views as fourth political theory and

traditionalism okay

okay

what does dugan mean by marxism

and materialism and communism

i've argued that what he meant is two

things one soviet marxism leninism and

western marxism

my argument is that he has not engaged

properly

with chinese marxism

that's that's what my argument was right

and it's right here it's in materialism

and mao zedong thought

right here

actually let me save this part for later

and then just get into the part where i

talk about russia

so dugan and his relevance right

uh so i talk about what does dugan mean

by marxism

gorilla sun great streamos dugan was

able to recognize the material injected

reality russian civilization beyond

ideology soviet union was a strictly

ideological project thank you tristan

appreciate that

that took marxist lenin's ideology to

the soul foundation yet even after

having officially abandoned marxist

lenin's ideology with dissolution

the deeper reality of russian

civilization continued to persist

proving soviet realities were not

entirely conditioned by one ideology

right

uh so

here this is the part you know

uh the dialect materialism democratism

has never been successfully expounded in

the terms of modern philosophy

which is what dugan engages with it has

remained in science whose problems has

always been practical and political

rather than contemplative and

speculative

so

what does dugan mean by marx

uh

what does he mean

he means by marks

this

he means by marx this

so-called reactionary and conservative

critiques of materialism have in mind

that reduction of all being to substance

the reduction of every essence to

sensuous and already measurable

realities

marx in his critique of german idealism

never returned to this one-sided and

vulgar so

this is what dugan means by materialism

according to haas

does zolt engage with my argument or

does he just say that

oh here's the passage of dugan rejecting

materialism okay

are you engaging with

my argument that what they mean by

materialism isn't the same thing as what

marx means

because them two things so does it make

it so

you have to show this is what marx means

by materialism

now let's see

what dugan says right

about materialism

um

let's see what dugan says about

materialism

so dugan takes materialism broadly

from the perspective of

this okay

materialism

implies and this is also his

interpretation of when and we're going

to get to this materialism implies that

strictly fixable and empirically

reliable material facts folding within

their own inherent logic lay in the

basis of the processes unfolding in the

field of international relations

whatever

okay

so this is one definition of materialism

that dugan gives to us

so if in my sub stack if in my fucking

sub stack

i am

very directly arguing this is not what

materialism means for marx

then pointing out dugan's rejection of

materialism

is not an argument

that is not actually an argument you're

not addressing

what i fucking said

and i say this right we're going to get

back to this

the problem is twofold

right

by materialism

dugan does not

look sultania's you fucking retard it's

literally that simple

this was my argument this is my argument

this was my argument

this was my argument this was my fucking

argument you fucking retard

i lost it on

here

retard this was my argument you see it

whether he believes it or not

whether he believes it or not dugan does

not

whether he believes it or not mean the

materialism of marx and why am i

authorized to say that because my

argument

whether you agree with my argument or

not

is not important because it's you have

to begin with what i'm actually trying

to say

that dugan does not have a comprehensive

or broad enough understanding

of what marx means by materialism

now you can say you disagree with that

and that's fine

but don't fucking sit here and and just

cite dugan saying he rejects materialism

and rejects marxism

when my argument is literally whether he

believes it or not

he doesn't mean the materialism of marx

whether he believes it or not because

the materialism that dugan talks about

is not the materialism of marx

that is a really simple fucking argument

that's an extremely simple fucking

argument

yeah he's a fucking fraud and a liar

he's a fraud and a fucking liar okay

end quote

further betrays a proper understanding

of dugan when he projects a vulgar

materialistic metaphysics into dugan

haas states quote as a discipline of

heidegger dugan was able to recognize

the material and objective reality of

russian civilization and geopolitics

beyond ideology and quote as well as

quote

dugan's writings confined themselves to

their real material premises i.e in the

form of geopolitics the unconscious

realities of russian civilization etc

okay

so i expect that zoltanius with a clear

understanding of what i mean by

materialism

uh is gonna just like

make an argument

or is he just gonna point out the fact

that dugan means something differently

by materialism than what i mean because

if i mean what an idiot if he did that

what a dumb fuck would do that right i

mean like can you imagine what a retard

someone would have to be if they just

say oh well dugan means something

differently by materialism haas

something you yourself clearly

already betrayed an understanding of

because

imagine a retard who thinks that's an

argument that's not an argument i

already know that retard that's not my

argument

my argument is that what dugan says by

what he means by materialism is

different from what i mean by

materialism what does haas mean by

materialism right

let's go back to it

by materialism

uh haas means

um

what has means by materialism

is let's get to it

material better translate to essential

and for the first time in history of

thought marx conceives of an essence

that is itself essential rather than

formal that is to say the real essence

of form the materiality of the ideal

that's what i say that's what i say i

mean by materialism so

that effectively means is that

material is referring to those

to some kind of reality that goes beyond

the modern idea specifically the idea of

french idealism

that's very that's my argument right

uh and i have

quotes to back that up if you need them

um

here we are

here we are i'm gonna just show you marx

bear with me guys

from the economic and philosophical

manuscripts

okay

so here's marx's problem markster's

problem is the tyranny of the concept

this first emerges most clearly in the

phenomenology the perspective vegan

philosophy

so when all these things wealth state

power understood by hegel as entities

estranged from the human being this only

happens in the form of their thoughts

they are thought entities and therefore

merely an estrangement of pure abstract

philosophical thinking now pure abstract

philosophical thinking

is something that belongs to the realm

of rationalistic modernity the modernity

beginning with descartes which abstracts

thinking and thought the pure form of

thought over and against reality

um

dugan

for his part

clearly is beyond this he has to be

because this is where heidegger's whole

project begins high degress project

begins with the rejection of the

specific

forgetting of being

entailed

by modernistic idealism

this it represents a foreclosure of

being

and a reduction of being to a specific

form of thought

obviously dugan is beginning from the

premise of rejecting that

that's a given

that's just fundamentally a given

um

i could give more by marx but i have

stuff from dugan a lot of stuff from

dugan actually

uh let me show you

where is that fucking thing from in

search of a dark logos here it is

search of a dark logos

okay so i'll just give you millerman's

introduction

as this book has not been translated

actually

but the whole i mean the word itself

entails a kind of nietzschean

materialism

uh here it is right this is millerman's

interpretation or sorry millerman's

description

the author tries to degauge the

cognitive structures that predetermine

the theological philosophical and

psychological patterns of the deep

levels of human consciousness okay

so

already we are beyond the idealism that

marx was engaging with

remarks

idealism was very specifically referring

to the way in which ideas

uh are taking a primary role

in

sorry

marx is sorry by idealism marx is

rejecting

what hegel will call the idea which is

the unity of a concept and its

referential object

so an idea for marx is the unity of a

concept and its object

dugan is obviously going far beyond the

bounds

of conceptual thinking

and he is directly talking about

cognitive structures that predetermine

the theological philosophical and

psychological patterns of the deep

levels of human consciousness

dugan in other words

is basically here talking about

this underlying structure

this underlying logos which which will

he'll call it

that is beyond the realm

of transcendence

these are transcendental

ideas if they are ideas at all

which already places them beyond the

idealism marx was critiquing

in other words let me just break it down

to you this way from marx's perspective

dugan is a materialist

if you want to say that dugan is some

kind of idealist

i'm open to that argument

but that is not an idealism marx engaged

with

it would be considered materialistic by

marx because it affords primacy

to some content

more fundamental than the form

of thought

more fundamental than the form of

thought as it specifically takes the

form of western philosophy

i mean that is very simple that is like

really simple stuff

that is very simple

end quote and finally quote dugan

following heidegger recognizes the

fundamental and latent ambiguity of

material being and

following niche the author calls it the

philosophy of dionysus the other logos

this time the dark one it is called dark

because in comparison with common

for western civilization rational and

solar type of apollyon logos

this one can be perceived as something

chaotic ambiguous and not sufficiently

transparent

i wonder why i call

i say dugan recognizes

the inherent ambiguity

lightened in material being it's almost

like i mean something by that

even if dugan doesn't mean the same

thing when he uses the same words

but a retard midwit could never

understand that a retard midwit will

never go past the surface and actually

try and understand any of these things

haas refuses to acknowledge the obvious

dugan is not a mature

okay zoltanius

listen here kid

kid

buckle there is nothing obvious about

any of these thinkers

i know you're you're looking for an

obvious conclusion because you're like

an adolescent anarchist retard

who just wants to like jump to some

one-sided impassioned conclusion as an

excuse to larp

uh there's no nothing obvious about any

of this if you're gonna invoke the

authority of these thinkers you have to

commit yourself to the very painful and

difficult and rather

unobvious

work of trying to like come to a unique

and novel understanding otherwise shut

your fucking mouth stop trying to invoke

their authority

to impress your retard how to listen

followers

i am very curious to see what obvious

conclusion you draw

here

materialist this is honestly ridiculous

and i have to explain why is it

ridiculous explain this here is that go

ahead explain alexander dugan stating it

i hope you actually explain what he

means versus what i mean

because if you're just gonna quote dugan

saying that he's against materialism

you're not actually making an argument

retard you're not actually explaining

anything

so let's see what he actually does

explicitly in an interview with one of

his english translators

quote in order to get to such an

understanding of the mystical dimension

of the thought we need to sacrifice

materialism we should recognize this

kind of alternative sovereignty of the

thought of the spirit of the subject and

that is very important but for me not

being a materialist that is quite easy

okay

but what does dugan mean by that

what does he mean by materialism

maybe maybe zoltanius is going to like

make an argument about what he means by

materialism

compared to what i mean

i would read my sub stack i make a very

cause if taran makes the same retarded

argument as him i like make it very

clear that i ground dugan's rejection of

materialism

in western philosophy's

notion of materialism as spinoza's

substantialism

i claim marks and angles provide a

unique understanding of what materialism

is that is not spinozist and not

substantialist

um

and i make that argument pretty clear

right i mean like i have yet to see a

response to what i've actually said

yeah dugan

very clearly

so okay

hazeltanius you fucking retard squidward

tend to cope

he's talking about the mystical

dimension of thought

what does the what's the mystical

dimension of thought if not something

that is going beyond the threshold

of the acceptable form of thought within

western philosophy that marx is

rejecting the primacy of

let me let's look at that context of

that interview too

so the the interview is uh

probably not written in text form so we

don't know the context of this

either

but yeah this is just

not an argument this we know dugan

rejects

a materialism that is within the limited

understanding of what he considers

materialism the question is

is dugan talking about the materialism

that marx is

now that's something i'm going to

demonstrate

uh

he's not

i already have done that but i'll do it

again

in a

like pretty clearer way

end quote

dugan isn't about recognizing the

material and objective reality of why

not

why not zolt because

he means something differently by the

word material than marx did

russian civilization as a follower of

heidegger and to an extent jose he has

which is clear from a cursory reading of

the fourth political theory a very

phenomenological approach is compared to

a materialist approach

he doesn't even know what the words he's

using means

are you stupid dude

do you think phenomenology and

materialism

[Music]

are part of the same classification like

it's either or no phenomenology can

either be idealist or materialist

it's not one or the other retard by the

way the fact that you mentioned herself

is especially

fucking stupid because herself rejects

both

materialism and idealism

he doesn't even reject them he considers

them outside of he brackets them he

brackets metaphysics

just

dude you're so fucking illiterate

he brackets metaphysics

there's no there's no look dude

the i

the idea that

the idea that materialism can't be

phenomenological

means there can there can't be people

like georgia but i

which is literally base materialism is

literally a phenomenologically rendered

materialism

i don't think you know what the words

you're using actually mean

i think uh you're just

assuming

that your audience is going to be too

stupid and illiterate to actually like

spend time uh investigating any of this

for themselves

i think that's what we're on

unfortunately there's people like me who

will actually expose you as a retard

dugan very explicitly rejects any form

of materialism whether it be vulgar or

dialectical for a more immaterial

phenomenological mystical and idealist

approach to philosophy

where is your argument you're just

making statements

which are based on what

let me break this down for your like

small mind to be able to comprehend is

there a sense in which it may be

justified to call dugan's ideas

materialist or his view materialist yes

is that sense shared by dugan himself no

who cares if that's not what i mean

because you're doing this to say that

i'm wrong right

so you should be addressing what i mean

by materialism

the question of whether i'm justified to

use the word materialism

isn't relevant i can use any word i want

but i do justify why i use the word

materialism

do you have an argument against that

are you just gonna keep

quoting what we all know which is that

dugan rejects

materialism

within the limited frame and sense in

which that word has meaning for him

do you have an actual fucking argument

as he writes and puts guys

before we did um

[Music]

before we we commented on the video of

tfw no dialectics

i want everybody to go on this video

sorry i would not ask anybody to do that

uh mod check any arguments

that's like the next one we're doing mod

check any arguments there's no arguments

here

there's no arguments that's the next one

we're doing

versus putin quote the fourth political

theory can be attributed to the fields

of phenomenology structuralism

existentialism ethno-sociology and

cultural anthropology

end quote

so whether or not there is an actual

material basis of the russian folk or

narod is irrelevant for as is laid out

in the ethno-sociological theory

but i don't talk about

a discrete basis

i have said he has a chaotic and

ambiguous one-sided materialism

for him material reality is the

ambiguity

so i'm not talking about a definite

basis what are you fucking talking about

like i'm not saying dugan vulgarly

elevates some

form as primary by the way that wouldn't

be materialism anyway that would be

idealism

dugan's a real materialist spinoza i

think is an idealist dugan's actually a

real uh one-sided undialectical

materialist

dugan is a real materialist why because

for him

he gives real form to true

materiality in the one-sided sense

through his mystical poetic

uh

etc etc

descriptions

which can be found most explicitly in

his book ethnos and society it is not

about shared genes that define a people

but a recognition of common origin what

what does that have to do with

materialism retard

religion along with shared language and

tradition sultanius sultanius dude

you're just not a smart person

if i say one-sided materialism you don't

get to

rip out that sentence and run wild with

it

you have to actually engage with what i

what i actually argue and what i mean

okay

if what i mean by that

is primacy of the essence over the form

you saying that dugan is not giving

primacy to genes

which are a discrete form of measurement

of reality

not only doesn't argue against me it

argues in my favor

what you're doing right now is arguing

in my favor

dugan does not give primacy to any

metaphysical form

any discrete metaphysical form as such

every single one of the forms of

description dugan uses from logos etc to

give expression to what is

russian

ethnos and russian civilization

and uh

russian polarity

these are things which he's doing to try

and approximate some fundamental reality

which cannot be given any formal

expression directly

it can only be given expression

indirectly through

necessarily inadequate and inexhaustive

poetic

ambiguous language

which nonetheless approximates something

real

you would know this if you've read any

dugen

because it's something dugan directly

says

uh i'll give you some other quotes by

michael millerman

uh regarding the elliptical structure of

copy this

we'll have to do the academic eu

sem on this fucking

academia eu

this was uh in his

book about heidegger and um

another beginning

such a piece of shit i can't even search

this fucking page

so

give me a second so i can download this

pdf

and it's a fucking google document i

mean it's a fucking word document

okay i'm gonna just have to search

through this fucking shit

give me a second

so i can't control f the keyword because

uh

academia.edu is a fucking cunt website

made by a cunt

uh who i want to die i want i hope and i

wish misfortune

and suffering

okay you know what

so i'm just gonna do this i'm just gonna

show you the fucking google doc okay

these you're just gonna have to trust

this is from millerman just

find it in his his fucking work right

dugan pictures archaeo modernity as a

hermeneutic ellipse whose two foci are

the western one and the russian one

um

then here's the part that i wanted to

the question he poses is whether

something to be called russian

philosophy which can also be

labeled as a specific discrete form of

russian materiality

is possible as the hermeneutic circle

whose center point would be hypothetical

russian focus or arc

so produgen

the material basis of the russian

civilization

relates to him as this purely

hypothetical and inherently ambiguous

open to interpretation and meaning

foci or arc i don't know how to

pronounce it arc

it's not

it's not

some kind of uh

gene or some kind of specific discrete

unit of materiality

that's why i call it one-sided

materialism you fucking retard

now just look at how i um

justify that argument too

just look at how i argue that

so what do i mean by material premises

soviet period is defined by decay

so it was just to become saying that its

leaders were not equipped to

adjust themselves to or to make sense of

they had inherited a geopolitical

monstrosity or two we can complace them

to be worthy of

soviet marxism to be reconciled with its

premises would amount to nothing short

of destruction and rebirth of the world

anew now keep that in mind because i'm

going to point out

another thing that supports this thesis

actually i'll just do that right now

okay

we're going to go back to that

piece

from dugan

uh

where he says

here it is

here it is

here it is okay

now

from the standpoint of the paradigm of

modernity

marxism is a kind of philosophical

heresy although it remains within the

language of modernity this is also like

saying soviet marxism leninism remains

within the confines

of western modernity which was my

argument actually

this is an attempt to external exile

without going beyond

it's a contradictory statement which

leads to the complete

seeks to interpret universal modernity

but if the liberal philosophy says this

contemporary universe was a total yes

marxism attempts to formulate a

universal and total no

which means marxism represents a

one-sided negation

which was directly my fucking argument

right

the dilemma in the form of the dilemma

of soviet marxism leninism

marxism lenin's materialist on the other

hand materialism cannot be reconciled

with the way in which soviet marxism

leninism attempted to consolidate and

fully ground its own premises

up to the form of statehood itself

and the

ilienkov expands the dilemma in the form

of the distinction between the thinking

spirit universal self-consciousness

and the material reality

now what does that have to do with this

you can read my argument just substitute

the following

when i say soviet marxism leninism

uh is the thinking spirit that's also

the same thing as saying soviet marxism

leninism

is bounded within the confines of the

language of modernity

yet it's trying to go beyond it

right and in this attempt to go beyond

this

it can only ever

approach it

through the form of this universal

negation a total no

but not going beyond the approved modern

language

marx stands on the border of the

language of modernity now for dugan

guinon is on the other side

for me

marxism leninism in the soviet form

stands on the border and mao zedong

thought is on the other side

again let me show this to you

um

the border

being the premises it stands the

thinking spirit stands on the border of

crossing would amount to the destruction

and rebirth of the world anew that's the

total no that dugan was referring to in

his description of marxism in relation

to gwyneon

and i said it is precisely these

material premises that dugan's work

cease to give pure and undiluted

expression

read from the dogmatic straight jacket

of official soviet marxist leninist

ideology

and how poetry and mythos are the

privileged mediums for the expression of

an authentic material being freed from

the reductive presuppositions

corresponding to the forgetting of being

unique to western rationalistic

modernity dugan would call this apollyon

uh logos

apolly the logos that privileges the

rationalistic apollo right

now

zoltanius the retard has problems with

how i call this material being

the and and he justifies that by

pointing out passages in which dugan

rejects materialism

but dugan means by materialism something

entirely different

than what i mean or what i argue marx

means

so

we have yet to actually be presented

with an argument from zoltanius the

retard

we have yet to be presented with any

real argument

additions it is not about finding some

material basis to ground a people in

dugan and the fourth political

i didn't say that's what he's trying to

do

because again i have to quote myself

again the retard

um cure and undy so

when you

let's just let me roll back what this

fucking idiot just said just it's so

fucking stupid look look what he said

society it is not about shared genes

that define a people but a recognition

of common origin along with shared

language and traditions it is not about

finding some material basis to ground a

people in

and i argue it can't be that because

dugan is trying to give pure and

undiluted expression to that material

reality

which means i didn't say dugan's looking

to find a material basis

that would contradict what i have

prefaced the meaning of material to be

let's go back

and go to fucking school again

and just read what i fucking said you

fucking retard read what i fucking said

you mean by materialism the reduction of

all being to substance the reduction of

every essence to sensuous and already

measurable realities so that would be

like a gene or some kind of basis as

you're trying to put it

and i said marx never returned to this

and that's not what he meant by material

that material better translates to

essential and for the first time in the

history of thought marx conceives of an

essence that is itself essential which

means marx's materiality is not some

substance

that that grounds the basis of things

that's not what material means material

is essence

materialism for marx means

a understanding of essence that does not

already have a form

essence as itself essential is what marx

means by materialism

the real essence of the form the

materiality of the ideal

that was my argument you have not

responded to my argument every

philosophical conception of essence

conceives of essence as forms ideals or

definitions of thought

but for marx essence is itself the

essence of forms

ideals and definitions of thoughts

reducing these essence to a specific

form of material reality like economics

or in retard zoltanius's case genes

entirely misses the point and only

repeats the error of idealism for marx

to inquire into the nature of the

essence

is the province of practical science

now dogmatic or ready-made form of what

material reality is is to be presumed so

even marx is not looking for a material

basis as zolt qualifies this word marx

is totally open he's not looking for a

material basis to

elevate as the ultimate determining

factor

for him understanding material reality

is an active process

it's an active process

of understanding what the world actually

is

uh to begin

all you have to do is look at what marx

himself said

first premises of the materialist method

here

the premises that we begin are not

arbitrary ones

not dogmas but real premises from which

abstraction can only may be made in the

imagination they are real individuals

their activity and the material

conditions under which they live

both those which they find existing and

produced by their activity now here's

the best part here's the kicker

this mode of production of real

individuals should not be considered as

simply being the production of the

physical existence of the individuals

which is really funny because didn't the

zultanius retard try and say marx was a

physicalist

rather it is the definite form of

activity of these individuals a definite

form of expressing their life a definite

mode of life on their part as

individuals express their life so they

are what they are therefore coincides

with their reproduction

it's pretty modest what he's saying he's

not

having this

dogmatic uh materialist view

which dugan

means when

when he rejects it and which also

zortanius the retard means

dugan and the fourth political theory

doesn't see nations as an objective

reality

involved

yeah because dugan rejects nations

volume two of the fourth political

theory in the last appendix he makes it

clear that the nation is a subjective

reality and contrasts it to the third

political theory which

yes because

i say the word nation because i'm

working within the marxist notion of the

national question

or dugan and ethnos is an objective

reality

nation he rejects entirely he claims

sees the nation as an objective reality

moreover this phenomenological and

ethnicity

well i have the work right good thing we

have the work right before us right

hold on i have to zoom in

hold on

dugan doesn't say that anywhere in the

fourth political theory look

all 15

look

14 look

objective this is the word objective

right he doesn't is daltonius no wonder

he didn't fucking quote anything from

the book because dugan does not say this

anywhere nowhere does he say

that nations are not or ethnos is not

objective and that they're purely

subjective

nowhere does he say that

nowhere does he say that

now maybe this is what he's talking

about rejects racism societies can be

compared but we cannot state any of them

is objectively better than the others

yeah that's not

racism is based on the innate

there's he's such a fucking liar look

what he just said

look what zloth claims look at this see

nations as an objective reality

in volume two of the fourth political

theory oh man okay i'm sorry sorry my

bad

it's gotta be in volume two

volume two fourth

political theory

where's volume two

here the rise of the fourth political

theory

okay here it is

now this one

okay okay i got it

well i would like to see a direct quote

in context because this one

does not appear

to have

uh

this one does not appear to have uh

in a pdf

let's check

no yeah this one's not online

this one's not on the internet so this

one only has a physical copy so i guess

we just have to trust what zolt is

saying

uh which i don't because i'm pretty sure

in context dugan is not saying that

appendix he makes it clear that the

nation is a subjective reality and

contrasts it to the third political

theory which he claims sees the nation

as an objective reality moreover this

phenomenon yeah but what do i mean by

objective

okay

very clearly by objective

you fucking retard look at this fucking

retard

logical positivist does he takes a

paragraph and treats it like it's in a

vacuum as if it's not within the context

of a wider argument where for me

it is soviet marxist leninist ideology

that represents subjective so anything

outside of this

modernistic totalizing ideology for me

is objective

now you may say in another context it's

subjective

fine but insofar as it is outside of the

soviet marxist leninist totalizing

universalistic project of ideology

it is objective

and no actually for dugan ultimately

everything subjective is objective

in some sense has objectivity

is not like uh some judith butler of

nations where he just says oh we just

nations are arbitrary that's right he

rejects nation he doesn't say ethnos is

arbitrary ethnos is based on something

real something onto logical

so no it is objective it just depends on

what sense by which we mean objective

dugan

i will bet you anything i will literally

bet you 500 fucking dollars

that what dugan means by objective

in volume 2 in that appendix

is like in the

modern scientific sense of like some

kind of

racial biological reality or something

like that i will bet you've anything

that's what dugan means by it when he

says he rejects it i will bet you

anything i will bet you anything

because i know for a fact

that for dugan these things are

ontological they are not arbitrary

constructs

uh like genders for judith butler he

doesn't believe in uh

in that

an ethno-sociological approach should

make it clear that he isn't concerned

with a material reality of some group of

people

dugan even attacks vladimir putin for

being too concerned with the material

reality of russians and the eurasian

civilization stating quote

in my opinion even putin's approached so

you see the problem guys

in his own quote that he uses

squidward tend to cope tentacle

is admitting that for dugan

materialism is associated with

corporeality

obviously this is not my interpretation

of marxist materialism

that would be substantialism

problems is purely corporeal much like

epicurus he sees the population as an

aggregate of material objects that once

that would be like a vulgar

spinozist substantialistic materialism

which my sub stack literally addresses

feed this is all materialism putin

suggests uniting the post-soviet it's

like i wouldn't be so mad about this

shit

if it wasn't for the fact

that this retard

quoted my sub stack and made it seem

like he's like arguing with my sub stack

made it seem like he's making an

argument against something i said

all of it is there that i'm telling you

now it's all in my substance everything

i'm telling you right now is in my

substance

escape in the same way on a

materialistic basis i think that it's

necessary to move on to the politics of

spirit and quote

and a simple read from dugan's book a

theory of a multipolar world disproves

that he is approaching multi-polarity

from any sort of materialistic

perspective quote

is there is there um

is i think i can do this all night like

does he make a new argument besides like

this this is even more hilarious this

part is even more hilarious because

look compare these two quotes compare

these two quotes right ready

compare what i said compared to this

quote that sultanus is using as an

argument against me

okay

ready i mean like i could do this all

night i swear to god i could just do

this all night every philosophical

conception of essence beginning with

plato conceives of essences as forms

ideals or definitions for marx the

essence of itself the essence of forms

that heals the definitions of thought

reducing this essence to a specific form

material reality like economics misses

the point and repeats the error of

idealism

that's my argument on marx

zultanius is trying to use this quote

as an argument against me

against economic reductionism

i was saving this quote i'm gonna keep

bringing it up again

from frederick ingles

the ultimately determining element is

the reproduction of real life we never

said anything else

if somebody twists us into saying that

economic element is the only determining

one he transformed that proposition into

a meaningless abstract senseless phrase

and dugan rejects economic centrism and

the reduction of economic factors to a

lower level

than social cultural religious political

factors

reduction of

economic centrism

if someone twists this and saying the

economic government's the only

determining one he transforms what me

and mark said as a senseless phrase

that's frederick ingles directly

forget about what i said what from what

from the perspective of my sub stack

the retard sultanius trying to use this

quote as an argument against me is a

terminal form of stupidity it is a

terminal form of idiocy it's a terminal

form

of illiteracy

but even from the perspective of what

engels had said

it's fucking stupid

anybody who wants to debate but doesn't

state their business in uh show request

is getting banned by the way

if you just get in my show q you don't

state why you're fucking here i'm just

gonna ban you forever stupid bitch

leads to the most logical conclusion the

economic model of the multipolar world

must be based on the rejection of

economic centrism

when haas quotes right when anyone else

quotes they don't mean it that way hey

xd

i have receipts

i can actually make a fucking argument

to defend why

they don't do that

when i quote i argue

i make an argument about why that

supports what i'm saying

by the way and i already did that in my

fucking sub stack anyway which is what

he's claiming to to debunk and respond

to right here

so no you fucking idiot

i'm not just arbitrarily quoting shit

like your retard teacher

zultanius and by the way if your teacher

is is such a stupid and illiterate guy

like this you're gonna end up just as

stupid and fucking illiterate

this the funny part hasn't even started

yet though i just can't wait for it

and the reduction of economic factors to

a lower level than social cultural

religious and political factors without

the relativization of the economy

without the subordination of the

material to the spiritual without the

transformation of the economic sphere

into a subordinate and secondary one in

relation to the dimension of

civilization in general multipolarism is

impossible and quote moreover his book

lays out that his geopolitics is based

on idealism plus holism and rejects the

material plus holism of marxism okay

materialism plot this is the part this

is the funny part okay

so

luckily for us dugan actually will go

into how he defines these things so

that's just lucky for us

uh here's the holism argument

from zoltanius the fucking retard

so here's this holism argument he's

talking about

so

dugan claims that materialism implies

that strictly flexible and empirically

reliable material facts folding within

their own inherent logic lay the basis

of the processes unfolding in the field

of international relations

and dugan defined idealism as idealism

derives from the premises that not only

facts but also values and gnostological

concepts the subjective factor

predetermine the nature of processes

unfolding

well according to dugan's definition

of

what idealism is

frederick engels is also an idealist

because frederick engels

claims that the economic is also not the

only determining one there's also other

factors

which help in the determination of

history now

angles makes it very clear even

that

we had to emphasize the main principle

vsar adversaries who denied it and we

had not the time to place an opportunity

to give their due to the other elements

involved in the interaction

so for

engel's problem and marx and engles

problem was that people were denying

material and economic facts

dugan here

seems to be acknowledging

that you know not only facts but also

values and gnostological concepts

predetermine the nature of the processes

so it sounds to me like dugan's

materialism

isn't that different from what marx and

engels meant by materialism as zoltanius

would lead you to believe

all you have to do is go from just

taking these words at face value to

investigating what dugan actually means

by them or what anyone means by them for

that matter

to see the retard zoltanius's entire

edifice collapse

his entire

his entire video collapses

when you just scratch below the surface

of the fucking word

sultanius

moreover has an

understanding of language as i pointed

out before that is radically at odds

with dugan's view zoltanius has a

universalistic understanding of language

contradicts

keep in mind the entire purport of

dugan's project in search of a dark

logos

for zoltanius there is one universal

meaning of every philosophical concept

and there's only one sense in which

these concepts can be given expression

that is in direct contradiction not only

to dugan's project

uh but also in contradiction to

heidegger it's in contradiction to

guanon's traditionalism yada yada this

is a very angloid modernistic

positivistic

understanding of words and and their

meaning okay so again materialism

idealism that doesn't contain

as heidegger put it

these word things

are not themselves

bearing any meaning okay

it's meaning that gives rise to the word

the word thing doesn't contain any

meaning by itself as heidegger would put

it

plus individualism of realism and the

idealism plus individualism of

liberalism saying quote idealism

highlights the decisive importance given

to concepts theories ideas points of

views texts when compared to matter the

empirical field considered as secondary

and derivative holism in turn called

attack i love how he's just proving it

for me that what dugan means by idealism

is very different from what marx and

engels meant

the fact that we were talking about a

whole system before the allocation of

its individual atomic actors not being

possible for them to exist on their own

unquote going further dugan's

civilizational and geopolitical theory

is ontologically based on carl jung's

collective unconsciousness and the monad

from argentinian materialist leibniz a

topic talked about by muscle nanewski in

his video alexander dugan the theory of

you can't even say leibniz

is an arch anti-materialist considering

that

marx and engels's version of materialism

came after leibniz you fucking idiot

what did leibniz have to say about marks

and angles as materialism nothing

because he predated that a world which

dugan himself syndicated and for dugan

the narod or the folk is not as paz

claims dugan says quote material and

objective reality end quote

fucking retard

but rather as dukin

is it is it not sultanius what does

houzz mean sultanius go read what i

fucking wrote

and give us what i actually meant

give us an actual

honest

presentation of what i meant

according to my own words

in himself actually explains quote what

we call the body of the narod or the

vietchaft that is the economy and

production causes in this case to be a

separate domain defined by the material

factor henceforth it is the domain of

care but that justice does iron which

cannot but be concerned and

what does that have to do with anything

i said

i literally said dugan does not give any

attention to the economy

because he has a one-sided materialism

if you have a one-sided materialism

sultanus you fucking idiot

you're not gonna get into specifics like

economics or anything else for that

matter you're just gonna have a

conception of a pure material object

do you even know what you're trying to

critique you fucking moron you abject

fucking idiot

giving us a quote of dugan

rejecting

giving any care to the fucking economy

doesn't actually make an argument

against anything i said

you fucking idiot you're such a dumbass

what a fucking idiot what a fucking

stupid bitch

i've debated these fascists before they

don't know the difference between

mechanistic and dialectic materialism

but no one in the union oh my problem

thanks for the five but my problem

is that they pretend to be intellectuals

either be a dumb fuck who doesn't care

about any of this shit

or actually give this the attention

and consideration

that it needs

in order for your words to be fucking

credible

i hate the pseudo intellectual midwit

more than anything i can respect the guy

who doesn't give a fuck about any of

this shit but i hate the fucking

posturing pseudo intellectual bitch like

zoltanius who pretends to understand any

of this what a fuck i can't even say the

fucking word

fucking cigarette

of all it takes on dugan the idea that

dugan is actually a materialist and is

actually talking about marxist leninist

maoism is the most absurd position

especially why is it the most absurd

position

it makes perfect fucking sense if you

actually fucking think about it

why is it an absurd position

even that dugan has time and time again

in his writings and speeches very

explicitly rejected marxism and all

forms of material

are you guys starting to understand this

shit

are you guys starting to understand why

this guy's a fucking idiot

you guys get it now don't you

he thinks it's absurd that i can claim

mark maoism let's just call it is

the fourth political theory and at the

same time dugan can explicitly reject

marxism that those things can be true at

the same time the only intervening

variable

that needs to be there for both of those

things to be true is that dugan has a

limited understanding of marxism which

would mean that when dugan explicitly

rejects marxism

he doesn't

he's not rejecting real marxism in its

full breadth he's only rejecting his own

limited sense

of what marxism means to him

do you guys get that now do you get what

a fucking dumb asshole that he would say

that's ridiculous and absurd

when all you would need for both of

those things to

be compatible is that just say that

dugan doesn't really fully understand

marxism and that when he says marxism he

means something different

and i and i said specifically what

marxism he means it's specifically

soviet marxism leninism that he was

familiar with

and western marxism which he was also

had had a passing familiarity with

he did not have any familiarity or

engagement with the unique

chinese marxism leninism

imperialism the idea and at the very

least he didn't give it appropriate and

proper consideration

devout orthodox christian who is heavily

steeped in his tradition is as haz puts

it quote too materialistic that is

vaguely and one-sidedly materialistic

and not dialectical and quote

is very insulting to his intelligence

and betrayed why is that insulting to

his intelligence

not insulting to his intelligence

because

dugan is using words like materialism

that do reflect the majority of what

western thinkers mean by the word

also

dugan is

give me a fucking second dugan is

advancing

an understanding of marxism

that also

reflects soviet mark i mean my

understanding of marxism leninism

admittedly is extremely heterodox

i have provided an interpretation almost

no one else has

in the 21st century

now you can say that that makes me being

true my my interpretation being correct

improbable

because how could oz be just such a

smart guy but that in itself isn't an

argument you have to actually engage and

demonstrate why my interpretation is

wrong which you have not done

so it's not an insult to dugan's

intelligence

me saying he has a limited understanding

of marxism

is not an insult to his intelligence

because all it means is that he doesn't

care that much about marxism that's all

it means it doesn't mean he's

unintelligent and and relative to what

right

i mean dugan's extremely intelligent his

his forte is not marxism he doesn't have

to have

an extremely

in-depth understanding of what marxism

is because it's not his forte

i'm the marxist guy it has nothing to do

with his insulting his intelligence

moreover the same goes for materialism i

mean i'm not saying dugan's wrong for

rejecting what heath claims is

materialism all i'm trying to say is

that marx did not mean

in his materialism the same thing is

what dugan means by materialism that's

all i'm saying that's not an insult to

his fucking intelligence

how is that an insult to his

intelligence marx is an extremely

controversial figure in terms of how

he's interpreted

that's not a fucking

insult to his intelligence

dugan is an extremely open-minded guy i

think he would be really interested in

my perspective i don't think he would

agree with it but i think it would

interest him and he would he would say

hi you know i didn't i didn't think of

it that way before

and maybe he did and i don't know about

it fine but his work does not evince

that that fact

it just doesn't it doesn't evince the

the idea that he's engaged with the

perspective that i'm coming from which

is fine i mean

there's no reason for him to have done

that

how does that insult his intelligence

though right

i mean

i can't insult your intelligence

sultanates because you don't have any

so how am i gonna dude spam show cue in

my fucking chat one more time

okay m rouse you just seem like you want

a lesson you want me to teach you things

read my sub stack

and when you say i want to understand

what you mean by matter is essence dude

i literally wrote about it in the sub

stack that sultanius

is

claiming to respond to

so just read it

just fucking read it

i didn't make my sub stack of video for

a reason it wasn't made and produced in

video form why because i want people who

are smart

to read it i don't want retards who only

get their source of information from

fucking videos to do it why because look

what happens when they try to interpret

it

look at how stupid this shit is look at

how fucking stupid he's literally just

quoting dugan and he's making this is

like the only argument he made the whole

time which is that i'm insulting dugan's

intelligence everything else he did was

quote dugan

and the implicit argument which he never

even really made explicit was that

explicitly dugan says this

okay well

what do i mean by what i say

does and then when you actually take

that into account am i wrong

can you say that i'm wrong

maybe you can but not just by pointing

out what dugan says explicitly

because that's not an argument

that is not a fucking argument that

assumes dugan is talking about the same

thing i am

when i explicitly say that i'm not

referring to the same thing dugan's

referring to by materialism

you cannot use

his explicit quotes against materialism

as a fucking argument

is the fact that hawes has no idea what

he is talking about when it comes to

dugan's philosophy dugan also

essentially takes the same critique that

mumsilo made in this video attacking

haws and the page

i don't know anything that i'm talking

about

this is how you can tell if someone

knows what they're talking about guys

can they independently synthesize the

information

can they interpret a quote can they

actually like

show that they understand it

he has shown he doesn't understand any

of these things neither my sub stack nor

anything dugan's written i've already

exposed how he's lied about dugan

he doesn't understand any of these

things

he doesn't know any of these things

either he just knows how to

copy and paste quotes out of context

that have key words like materialism and

idealism and marxism

patriotic socialists which made him so

mad that in watching it he literally

punches his camera like a child for

instance dugan doesn't see the

historically self-called marxist regimes

to really be

okay is this a new argument he's gonna

make i hope yeah and the guy was so

fucking stupid

but where so wait your argument hold on

just to be clear is your argument that i

that i hit hey hey retard retard does

this hurt you does this hurt you salt

you fucking pussy get to the fucking

argument

holy shit tereshi

thank you man

appreciate you brother

but zolt does do you have a problem with

that like what about the actual argument

is this your argument that i just hit

the camera here i'll do it again there

you go zolt

yes slap your bitch-ass face slap your

bitch-ass face there you go zolt

where's the argument

do you have an uh maybe he gets to an

argument let's see you know attacking

haws and the patriotic socialists which

made him so mad that in watching it he

literally punches his camera like a

child for instance dugan doesn't see the

historically self-called marxist regimes

to really be marxist at all rather they

are forms of what he calls national

communism of which he writes in the

fourth political theory quote wrecking

themselves as being

he didn't even

he didn't even engage

hey hey zolt

what was the specific reason i got so

mad i slapped my camera what was the

specific argument i was making

what was the thing that your friend said

that was according to me so fucking

stupid that i should slap my camera

he didn't even respond to it okay so

all he's doing here is is repeating what

his retard friend said i already

responded to it so

simply communist and orthodox marxist

strictly following the teachings of the

communist classics end quote

in seeing how these regimes took certain

nationalistic patriotic and various

traditionalist tappings however

superficial he notes in volume 2 of the

fourth political theory quote

in communist regimes marxism was not

what it was claimed to be but was rather

a model of exogenous modernization in

which western values were adopted only

partially and were

yeah because

dugan again

has an understanding of marxism that is

within

the epist epistemological structure of

the hermeneutic ellipse

of our ko modernity which means it's

it's basically western marxism

so from yeah from the perspective of

western marxism yeah marxism was not

what it proclaimed to be from the

perspective the ultra-leptism dugan was

sorry zolt was trying to argue it wasn't

but my argument was that

marxism leninism

was what it proclaimed to be

um

dugan does not recognize any objectivity

of marxism leninism he only understands

marxism leninism

from the perspective of soviet marxism

leninism which was in fact just some

kind of subjective ideological project

but i argue in china marxism leninism

has acquired

definite object cognizance of its own

objectivity so that's my whole argument

now now zolt again

it guys all of this shit is gonna really

boil down to this

mod check any arguments it's really

gonna boil down to that like this is not

an argument this is not a response to

anything i've said

artistically combined with local

religious eschatology again

he might say

well dugan said this okay

why did he say that and what did he mean

by it

and what do i mean by what i say

and why is there this apparent different

in how a difference in how we use the

words differently

well i've explained that for historical

reasons because of the limitations of

soviet marxism leninism yada yada so

i've made like all these arguments in my

sub stack pretty much

and zoltanius he has not produced a

single argument against that

again the thing that matters is not that

you're gonna find a quote by dugan where

he explicitly rejects marxism or

explicitly rejects materialism we all

know that every anyone who reads dugan

knows that the argument is going to be

about

is my interpretation of what he means

correct

that's where you're gonna have to

actually make an argument

and messianic tendencies on the whole

this procedure of specific modernization

alter modernization along the

socialistic or totalitarian but not

capitalistic or democratic path served

for the defense of the geopolitical and

strategic interests of independent

states which were striving to repel the

colonial attacks of europe and later

america and okay

okay

but

in regards to joseph stalin dugan notes

in last war of the world island that as

late as may 1924 stalin took the

orthodox marxist sometimes derogatorily

called trotskyism by tanki's line of

denying the possibility of socialism in

one country and only by the end of 1924

did he break with orthodox marxism and

start the projects although rather

implicitly of national communism

marxism is the epitome of bourgeois

what a fucking cigarette

what a fucking cigarette

this is literally this is what this is

literally what left us dude

replace this shit with like chauvinist

fascist nazi

transphobe

it's literally anna

tanki it's literally anarchist shit

it's literally anarchist shit

it's literally just anarchism it's

anarchist angsty teen who's mad

that their fucking daddy idol which is

me doesn't live up to their fucking

one-sided idealized

view like

this cocksucker either has to love me or

hate me right he still has to suck my

cock and love me in every possible sense

i i am literally epitomized

in a one-sided way

the passion of his specific ideology i'm

secretly a fascist or he has to hate me

and cross out my eyes

to be destroyed

hey

fucking weirdo why don't you just take a

few steps back away from me can you do

that

can you just take a few steps away from

me

this should be good it should be funny

ideology and marxism is looking

backwards into history to project

forwards into the future a bourgeois

centric worldview tied up with notions

of class progress etc in short marxism

conceives of communism as a higher form

of boudoir society as pointed out in the

worker by the german conservative ernst

junger we can only conclude from

this that those who push the idea of

conservative communism such as haas are

trying to fool the

uh

marxism

the notion of communism is

a projection of bourgeois society into

the future okay

can you justify that from based on

anything marx angles said can you

justify that by historical experience

can can you justify that with anything

the dissident right for a communist

revolution this is an opportunist this

is my favorite part

magmatism and this is the real threat of

haws and his ridiculous project the

marxist critique of haws pushing things

into the right wing direction is

obviously wrong this is more of an

escort means to siphon off support from

the right which is basically to castrate

any right wing or nationalistic

alternatives some communists look at him

thinking he's a secret fascist and i

fell for this in our debate when i

appealed to a red round one struggle

idea but this is not his goal his

political satanism is a means to an end

a bourgeois worldview a red specter of

terror haas is the left-wing version of

the right-wing lol cow grifter nick

fuentes for this very reason

here are some final words the most

incoherent thing i've ever fucking heard

in my life

and he says i'm a threat to the the i'm

trying to castrate the rights right's

ability to actually uh uh

no don't go do what you want so i don't

give a fuck what you do sultanus go do

whatever you want to do how am i

stopping you

i'm a threat i'm a threat to you why

because this is what all this shit comes

down to i'm a threat

because

i have viewers and i have a following

that zoltanius feels entitled to so he

thinks he should have my following and

he should have my community and he

should have my viewers but he only gets

like five viewers so i'm a threat i'm a

big threat

because all of the viewers and community

that i've gained both secretly belong to

zul consultaneous

and by the way notice how it's no

different than ultra leftism

it's the same shit

um what else

paz is not actually a secret fascist

true i'm not a secret fascist not a

fascist at all but he's secret then what

am i what what

what am i

i'm trying to

deceive the right into adopting

my bourgeois communist

view

is that an argument are you making a

fucking argument here

seraphim rose quote the beginning of

religious awakening in russia is in

logical grounds for this reason i reject

the entire spectrum of liberalism even

up to the classical liberalism of hobbs

and locke that being the case i will now

share my own personal thoughts on karl

marx

but now it is

clear and

hey guys what um

so we're done with that give me parts of

this video you want me to like go

through

and address specifically

oh then here's pine

[Music]

the following is a reading of communism

is not conservative by zoltanus and

monsillo noveski

thanks to the insanity of the internet a

new phenomenon of conservative communism

formerly known as patriotic social i

think we already um

responded to this didn't

that we did respond to this that was the

whole video by that other guy we did

respond to this

is the insane idea that communism is

inherently conservative patriotic and

yes even traditional for that matter to

engage with this we would have to start

off on the foundational basis of

traditional philosophy and compare it to

the marxist philosophy in the case of

traditional philosophy it's often

metaphysically grounded in philosophical

idealism or platonism when we take marx

on face level we have a philosophy that

mixes idealism with materialism

therefore being incoherent but this is

not the place for that argument see

monsieur's article here or the video

here but when vladimir lenin came along

later relying much more off the mature

english station as secondary

yeah yeah we responded to all of this

we responded to all this in the other

video

um is there anything new i mean besides

what i just addressed because we

responded to all this shit already

ma spam the link of the video where we

had let me show you the video where uh

we address all this shit

it's kind of tucked away and it's i was

planning on making like a fucking

separate video for it but uh

where is that damn video

i think it's in this

yeah it's the cpusa chapters against me

i think it's that's very

no it's not that

the great problem

so in this video it's called the cpusa

chapters obsessed with me i pretty much

like

run a train on every single one of their

arguments

um

so yeah

pretty much blow the fuck out and i blow

the walls out of every single one of

argument

one of the arguments they make

here but is there something new

the state also sought to control the

activities of religious bodies and

essentially monarchy the russian empire

had a revolution which toppled the

entire institution of the modern region

similar measures were also taken up and

do this since it does away with private

property and educates children on a

communal basis consider the fact all

abortions legal the state also

best compared and these all sound really

familiar i think we already addressed

all this shit

marx accurately describes the

destruction of traditional society as

intrinsic to capitalism already under

communism i think there was something

about like humanism though so i should

probably address that right

the rise of the city can competent with

the rise of the merchant traditionalists

like renegonia see this as a symptom of

the decay of civilization in its sterile

phase where money value rules

marx writes that what has been created

is enormous cities which spengler calls

megalopolitanism again what

distinguishes marx from the

traditionalists in his analysis of

capitalism is that he welcomes this

destructive feature of capitalism when

marx writes of urbanization and the

alienation of the former peasantry and

artisans by their proletarianization in

the cities thereby becoming cogs in the

mass production process he refers to

this not as a process to be resisted but

as inexorable and as having quote

rescued a considerable part of the

population from the idiocy of rural life

and cooked the peasantry is

yeah

yeah marx definitely thought

modernity was inevitable

yeah he did he thought modernity was

inevitable i mean what's your point

have i claimed otherwise

you're saying i've been dishonest about

this shit

all full disclosure marx said

modernity was inevitable

i think we can kind of

cap things off

here

pretty easily

just to make clear

real world hegel on the other hand wrote

about how the historical dialectic

worked on the national spirit his

philosophy being a part of the righteous

doctrinal stream that was received no uh

he for hegel the nation

to be clear had no substance

the national spirit is just

a moment of develop guys the universal

world spirit of absolute that culminates

in absolute knowledge so to be clear

hegel's not some nationalist leaving an

important impetus from the german

thinkers in antithesis is a universalist

thought based on economics which means

apprehending and comprehending history

defining a people is something which

communists should strive to offend

workers to be indifferently nationalist

land we are fighting for the perfection

and the psych idea of large position

theory is not i don't see an argument

about humanism here i just

see these as the real patriots lenin

stated quote bourgeois historians see

societies to feudalism

and it introduced a belief where in

large i thought there was like a new

argument about humanism or something

that i would have to get into anyway

guys we're not ending the stream

uh

i'm gonna

provide a conclusion to this right the

conclusion actually going to be

important so bear that in mind

um to give you a conclusion

to this whole thing

i think a lot of the confusion stems

from this idea

that i am a reactionary

i'm not a reaction

i'm not a reaction i am a marxist i i

agree

that classical modernity was an

inevitability it was specifically an

inevitability that

could not be avoided it somehow had to

be passed through and overcome that's

what happened in the soviet union and in

china today

my specific conservatism and my specific

uh

relationship to the contemporary right

wing

the reason why people see me as a

rightist isn't because i reject

modernity no i don't reject modernity uh

i recognize modernity was a catastrophe

a disaster by nature but i don't reject

or try to resist

modernity

and also i kind of differ with dugan on

this as well but i'm gonna qualify that

but the reason why i'm i'm called a

reactionary isn't because of a rejection

of modernity

it's because of a rejection

of what dugan actually does talk about

in his work the eurasian mission

which i'm just gonna lay on you right

here right it's it's about the so-called

third totalitarianism

which dugan vaguely calls post-modernism

so

in political science the contents of

totalitarianism is communist or fascist

right yada yada

so liberals use this word

totalitarianism

but dugan

believes in this term

of third totalitarianism right

in french sociology and post-modern

philosophy

so

morning revolution

oh thank you

oh okay

hey neat feet nice thank you for that

emirio

um durkheim sociology maintains that the

contents of individual consciousness are

formed entirely on the base of

collective consciousness

the totalitarian nature of any society

including individualistic and liberal

types cannot be changed

um

liberal society which puts itself in

opposition to the collective societies

of fascism has itself become

collective

a standardized and stereotypical one the

more individual aspires to be unique

within the context of the liberal

paradigm the more he becomes similar to

everyone else liberalism brings with

itself the stereotyping and

homogenization of the world which

destroys all forms of diversity and

differentiation

on the other hand there is postmodern

philosophy which he's he's going to call

this post-modern philosophy right uh the

individual is a micro totalitarianism

that projects an apparatus of oppression

upon which the social totalitarianism is

built at both the individualistic and

sub-individual individualistic levels in

a freudian spirit viewing reason as an

instrument for repression and alienation

as

as well as a projection the

post-modernists identify reason within

the totalitarian state which suppresses

its citizens freedoms by imposing its

point of view on them even individual is

a concept that is the projection of the

degradation and violence of a

totalitarian society at its lowest

levels

postmoderners believe the social

totalitarianism

emerged out of strict hierarchical and

totalitarian structure of the rational

individual the concept of the liberal

totalitarianism as a third

totalitarianism derives its meaning and

proves itself to be completely justified

hence

liberalism is a totalitarian and violent

ideology

uh and then maybe this isn't the best

illustration i'll just get a more simple

one

this is going to clarify a lot of the

confusion

so

this is gonna be a chinese scholar who's

going to talk about the same thing he

makes the same argument as dugan

basically the soviet union once

vigorously suppressed dissidents

neoliberalism in the u.s has now also

become extreme and absolute the rights

of ethnic minorities become absolute

standard of political correctness any

speech does not conform to liberal

ideology is presumed guilty even trump

who won 75 million ballots is silenced

by the media um

soviet union once practiced chauvinism

and advocated for limited sovereignty

the united states believes in

neoliberalism the survival of the

fittest new undertakes all america

turned into a liberal totalitarian state

sprinkled the traits like an oligarchy

lead

gay

so

i'm gonna break this down i'm not gonna

really be able to give you a simple

quote right now but i can promise and

assure you dugan does talk about this

the reason why i'm associated with right

wingers

is because just like the majority of the

right

i reject

the third totalitarianism

which comes after classical modernity so

basically the whole argument i made in

the video communism is conservative

has basically been

modernity was an inevitability i fully

uh recognized the inevitability of

modernity yada yada but

once the project of modernity basically

has exhausted itself

now we enter into the so-called cultural

term

gender

culture

political correctness yada yada and to

me

this represents today

a form of liberalism's totalitarianism

where the liberal individual and the

subject of liberalism has become its own

substance so to be clear the liberal

subject of classical modernity is the

universal citizen

who's an abstract subject devoid of

substance it's an abstract universal

substance everybody fucking listen right

now

i want everybody to fucking pay

attention to what i'm saying

this has now gone far though that it's

being applied from the sphere of the

state

which marxist had considered kind of

like an objectively progressive

development of history to this fear of

our substantive humanity and our culture

now contemporary western marxists

made the assumption

that this leap represents a form of

progress and that marxism must have the

same attitude toward postmodern

liberalism that it did toward the

liberalism of classical modernity i have

intervened

and said no

uh this cultural turn

uh and of the counterculture and the new

left and so on does not represent

just some kind of rehashing of the

history of liberal modern progress

but represents as a matter of fact a

reactionary

nazi neo-nazi

psychosis of liberalism the liberal

totalitarianism just like nazism

is elevating the abstract form

of the subject into its own substance

now nazism and fascism did this to the

nation-state the nation-state was this

universal state

abstract and empty form the fascists

came and turned that into a substance

i claim liberalism neoliberalism

whatever you want to call it is doing

the same thing to culture doing this to

gender it's doing this to race it's

doing this

uh to sexuality it's doing this to um

everything uh political correctness

ableism disability fat phobia whatever

this stuff so my specific understanding

of that communism is conservative

does not mean

a rejection of modernity yes communists

obviously accept

the achievement of modernity

but once this achievement has been

uh

achieved

so to speak

there lies our ability to rediscover our

traditional humanity

once for example women can be educated

and have equal opportunity and have

equal formal rights

and you know have uh

be able to express authentically and

have the freedom to express their

humanity we can then return to

celebrate and venerate

our traditional gender roles our

traditional humanity our whatever right

the post-modern liberal whatever you

want to call them i'm just saying

post-modern the way dugan uses it says

no that's oppression even if it's not

forced

and it's just some authentic cultural

whatever they say no that's that's

oppression that's a microaggression for

example

that's cis heteronormativity this is a

patriarchal or whatever that's my

problem

that's my problem

so because i reject that

i have

been accused of being a reactionary

but that makes the assumption that this

new

political correct

cultural turn is progressive in a

marxist sense which i reject

so i'm not trying to say i'm a some

fascist reactionary i'm not i'm a

marxist i'm a marxist leninist

i have been very clear and specific

about where i stand here for me

conservatism a real conservatism

moreover is doomed to vanity at best

sorry doomed to failure at best

and it's opposite at worst which is a

form of psychotic anarchism

and ultimately liberalism

at worst as in the case of fascism if it

does not accept how it is

that this apocalypse and i recognize

dugan's description of modernity i

accept this description it is a

apocalypse it is a form of destruction

it is an all-encompassing negation i

accept

the traditionalist critique of modernity

i merely

regard it

as an unavoidable inevitability we must

accept we must own up to it we must face

it

soberly

boldly

and without

uh

hesitation without fear

we must have the bravery to face

the destructive

singularity that is modernity right we

can't run away from it or resist it in

this sense i'm like an accelerationist

in the landing sense

it's simply inevitable you must go

through it

so

that has been my stance okay

uh that that has always been my stance

the conservatism comes from the way in

which after you accept the necessity of

this destruction

after not before after

you can then

um

arrive at

some substantive

tradition

with a capital t of humanity that

somehow reconciles this destruction as

part

of the tradition part of the humanity

so modernity becomes a moment in the

realization of the tradition this for me

is mongol modernity

it also takes the paradoxical structure

of the archaeo modernity how

because for me

this destructive modernity that the

soviets and chinese communists

pursued uh sorry uh

based

and the corresponding alternative

modernity that dugan talks about

that define their development afterwards

its modernity is not

simply the western modernity

the essence of this modernity does have

its origins in the mongol conquests

which confronted the sedentary

civilizations as an apocalypse

that is the root and order that is the

lost modernity rediscovered by communism

and it's the true modernity that is the

truth of modernity in the guananian

sense

of being part of the perennial tradition

you my view is modernity must be

re-examined and relocated

as a part of the perennial tradition

with a capital t

and the way in which i do that is locate

its material origins not its ideal

origins its material real historical

origins in the mongol conquests and in

the mongols

the mongol empire more specifically

so that is my position

i

think so basically let me put it this

way you have the modernity right and

then there's two paths for modernity one

path

is the return real return to tradition

mongol modernity

relocate the destructive modernity

within

the wealth of the perennial tradition

render the destructive modernity which

is by the way not going away

it will always reassert itself and the

revolutions of the forces of production

but relocate that into

perennial tradition which allows us to

at the same time boldly face

the unknown and destructive reality set

before us

and its power the power of being able to

apprehend it in the true form of a

universal state

that's on the one path the other path is

liberal totalitarianism political

correctness american globalism

uh gender

gender stuff and all that cultural

bullshit identity politics yadda yadda

so

that's where i stand

now

this cigarette zortanius claims i'm

lying about something he's saying i'm

deceiving right wingers

i have just presented you my philosophy

so take it or leave it i don't care if

you're right wing or left wing or

down wing or upwing i don't give a fuck

what the south wing north wing east wing

west wing i don't go fuck what you are

that is my view

you can accept it or reject it i don't

care i don't care where you're coming

from but when you call me a liar and say

i'm being dishonest

you've just exposed you're not a

credible fucking person

how is all this philosophical ramblings

not just paying into the bourgeois

obfuscation

i don't understand why this has to do

with feeding their kids

or exploitation of labor dude set up a

gofundme because

you're interested in something different

than what we're interested here right

because this stuff about the cultural

turn is important

it is important

because the communist party which does

want to feed people

or allow people to feed themselves and

have dignified jobs

the number one obstacle to that is

this false

western

interpretation of marxism leninism

which is being reinforced both by the

third positionist

and the leftists themselves

so there's your fucking answer

also it's about intellectual credibility

simple

very simple

it's about simple intellectual

credibility

what about alexander the great

that's fine

the greek

the greek turn

all well and fine but

my my problem is that

greek

the greek turn

if you want to call it that in heidegger

sense the greek turn

uh

did not represent

this defining threshold of modernity

keep in mind hellenism

was inherited not just by there's a big

myth the big myth is that

the west inherited

hellenism

no

no islamic society also inherited

hellenism

there's two hellenisms there's two greek

civilizations one greek civilization was

roman the other was

byzantine

there's two of them

not just one

there's the greek civilization of uh

the roman church

then there's the orthodox church then

there's the western christianity and

then there's islam

both of them

take for granted the greek

islam just adds the persian world

in addition to the greek one that's what

islam does

to be honest

to me the defining moment was mongol

modernity and why

precisely because

let me put it to you this way

during the uh russian civil war

the bolsheviks

were a force of pure iron

rule red terror right

no toleration of any political

opposition none of that

none of that if i any of you so much as

rebel you're getting wiped out

blind force

of modern

statehood

but then

as time passed

this blind force

is increasingly

filled with content

and suddenly

the russian people discover in that

blind force their own tradition

so this is what happens

but in liberalism you also have the same

terror

uh

except it doesn't get filled with the

content of a determinate civilization it

evolves into the form of political

correctness

and uh

neoliberal individualism whatever right

so

that's where i'm coming from here but my

view is that

what i just told you what happened with

communism was what happened with the

mongols

the mongols represented the pure force

of brutal terror

and rule

just like communism initially

but then

once they settled the mongols

rulers

assimilated to the civilization

so they

have this kind of weird syncretism

between this alien force

of universalism

that is given determinate form through

the civilization

and to for me it's the same

baghdad never recovered after getting

sacked

the library of alexandria also never

recovered

to be honest

any good books that were in the library

of alexandria or that we're in baghdad i

mean

sorry but at a certain point you gotta

show the results

you know i don't really give a fuck

utter nonsense

what's utter nonsense about what i just

fucking said you dumbass

every

the mongol conquest

once it was over was then defined by

assimilation what's wrong about what i

said

how is that nonsense you angloid brain

fuck what is nonsensical about that

tell me what's nonsensical about that

you fucking dumbass

properly gendering something see it

sounds innocuous when you point it out

that way

except we're not just talking about

properly gendering someone

and not being ableist you make it sound

like it's reasonable but then

and then it manifests itself in the most

irrational way and then you're nowhere

to be found

you're nowhere to be fucking found

oh it's just something totally

reasonable oh yeah except when it's not

and then you're nowhere to be found

that's how the majority of us experience

that politically correct reality you're

talking well

completely complete madness

um

basically an idea that

the more an individual is unable to

premise their substantive humanity the

more that they're oppressed sorry i

reject them that's not marxist

and i don't care if that means ablyism

or transphobia or homophobia whatever

the fuck it wants to mean for you i

reject that fundamentally

um

no i'm sure there was a lot of cool shit

in the library of baghdad

i'm just trying to say that

it wasn't this loss

it wasn't the laws that they make it out

to be because

anything truly worthwhile will

manifest itself in reality somehow

any any of the books that were lost in

the library of baghdad i mean i'm sure a

lot of treasures were lost you're right

right but ultimately for them to

actually be something worthwhile

they have to have already manifested

themselves in reality somehow

i don't believe that the key to

civilization lies in books

to me the key of civilization

lies

in the real civilization itself

and

good books are just people who

articulate that

well and um there's a lot of talented

authors

whose articulations and knowledge was

lost

but does that mean the civilization

itself was lost no i think that's

idealist just think that's wrong

they had history worth a millennium yeah

that's another thing that sucks

history uh was lost but hegel said

history is a blank page

hegel said history is a blank page

i think all of the good things in

libraries

are reproduced and are on other

libraries if it's only in one library i

mean how important could it really be if

there's a form of knowledge that's

literally only in one library and it's

not being reproduced in any other texts

or any other books anywhere else

how important could it really be

is there like a secret to the ancient

egyptians that was in the library of

alexandria well it wasn't a secret that

was astounding enough for anyone to have

recorded it elsewhere that's the problem

right

that's the issue like the library of

alexandria had such a huge

secret

someone would have been able to take

note of it and maybe they just didn't

read it i don't know maybe there was

shit no one read

so i can admit that maybe there's just

shit no one read but i don't know you

know it's one of those things

it's one of those things

but what what do you want me to say what

do you want me to say specifically like

uh

it sucks

but

it also sucks in modernity how

you know millions died of starvation

during the russian civil war it also

sucks that people died during

collectivization i mean that wasn't just

libraries that was people right

those things suck but

what's i mean what's your point is what

i'm trying to say the mongols were bad

haas no that's a meaningless statement

that's a normative statement that has no

practical significance

therefore it's meaningless

the question isn't if they're good or

bad but what they meant for history

it wasn't just libraries being destroyed

it was also the basis for an alternative

modernity

but the mongols did bad shit okay

are you a child i'm not telling you to

i'm not telling you that they're like

it's a k-pop

band that you should stand

that's not what i'm i'm not saying it's

a k-pop group that you should stand

saying you should recognize

the determinate nature of modernity's

origins

it's like what is your point

like get over it the destruction yeah

the destruction of knowledge is part of

history

just get over it like what do you what

do you want me to do with that

it's part of history

it's part of life

is it bad when a little bunny gets

eaten by a fucking fox yeah it's bad

there's nothing we can do about it

should we seek to preserve libraries in

the future of course

but i can't go back in time and save the

library of baghdad i can't

i can't i can't impose that view on

people in the past so what do you want

me to do i can't go tell genghis khan i

can't go tell hulu

yo hulugu can you like

not burn the library man

thanks man appreciate it

that'd be super cool if you just don't

burn this library man

he's super cool

inner asian modernity existed before the

mongols called the rus cagonate

yeah let me also be clear about

something

the mongol modernity does not really

have an origin

this is another weird thing about it it

doesn't like begin anywhere right it

only culminates in the mongol empire

but it has it almost eternal history

goes back infinitely into the past

it's an ontological aspect of humanity

that's always been there

at least beginning with the history of

the steps

at least beginning with the history of

the steps

jackson sent you

oh he raided

what up jackson

what up guys thank you for the raid man

appreciate it

appreciate it

yo yoga music

uh yeah i was just

getting into some good stuff

just getting into some good stuff

it's kind of like modernity modernity

has no origins right has no

fundamental discrete cause

it's something that was always in the

process of culminating

into what it became

good morning that makes sense

thank you emirio

and knee tweet added such i didn't even

know you could do that

neat feet added such a cool uh thing

yeah a reminder i'm ben from stream labs

and banned from

i'm banned from stream labs i'm banned

from

uh stream elements

all for what for what we don't know

we should probably do a space twitter

space right i'll do a twitter space

but uh let me see if there's someone in

the show queue that wants to debate

first

okay this guy just wants to debate

hello

yeah what is it

since about your reading of um

the marxist uh you know end of history

and i just really appreciate i really

appreciate your take

but i really see it as an eccentric

reading of marx and that's the thing

that i um suspect i feel like

you have a shell game going on where you

claim that marxist leninism is the

fourth position but you go way beyond

marks to the point where you can't say

that

like you want to have the marx's

aesthetics without the marxist baggage

which makes sense is why you think it's

the fourth position but i feel like you

have to go beyond marx

so i kind of wrote um

my uh comments and uh the show requests

so

according to haas the point of marx's

history is to ride modernity to its end

and watch as technological forces

eradicate tradition and all its limits

bonds and obligations that sets on

humanity so that we could freely return

to it later and understand its

importance

and i would say that i don't think marx

would agree with that i think he would

he wouldn't be sad to see them go to

marx traditions like culture region or

religion nation etc are relics of

outdated modes of production they

unnecessarily divine mankind they

prevent man from realizing their

commonality as species being and fully

realizing the full productive potential

of mankind so like from marx's view once

they're gone there's no reason to return

to it unless you know unless there are

idealistic essentialists and

supernatural reasons for validity which

marx projects you know by saying that

you know man creates religion

if you believe in english

so much lean i couldn't but

like if you 100 believe in religion then

you believe that you know god created

the universe and then a chain of events

has gone on ever since okay

so

most of what you're talking about

is from the perspective of culture okay

uh

and you say

the point of mark's history is to write

a maternity to the end and watches the

technological forces eradicate

traditions

so just to be clear it's not so much

that it eradicates tradition as much as

it eradicates eradicates the previous

grounding of those traditions where

before they are somehow grounded in

everyday intuitions and mores and

customs

you know everyday things

they're now

that grounding has somehow been upset

and somehow the grounding of our

humanity becomes bounded up with this

seemingly abstract cruel

universal

object of singularity right the

universal state

and so on and so on so the question is

how can those things be rediscovered

after this

after this cruelty of modernity

basically not so much that everything

just gets destroyed as much as it gets

displaced right

so you think that marx would not agree

with that

the problem is that marx's humanism

already implies this

because from marxist humanism

the notion of man universal humanity

right just human

that itself is

analogous to particular humanity

as the same way that the modern state is

to all the things you described

traditional culture yada yada so

marx's specific humanism

accepts the universality of man

and yet

uses this abstract universality as the

launching pad

with which to

delve into real humanity

of which he does not make any

presumptions

or claims

in other words

marx offers a different view of

modernity remarks modernity does not

have to be

destruction for its own sake this

destruction this leveling

can be a launching pad with which

culture and traditions and yada yada can

be rediscovered

what marx elects to rediscover within

the realm of knowledge through the

science of man

it also

logically follows

that society must discover its own

particular humanity in the form of its

particular cultures and traditions

after modernity

you don't have to take my word for it

because that's actually what happened in

the soviet union

and now china

but there lies the problem you talk

about a rediscovering of humanity

and that's already a very platonic way

of viewing things you know i guess

the way i'm

to kind of use the framework

in mathematics is the debate between

whether

mathematics is invented

or is it discover mathematical truth's

true because they lie in the some sort

of

abstract in material realm they're

always true and you just have to just

find the right answer

or are they just are they created

constructs that just somehow just

continue to work

and i think that's the biggest problem

with

the materialism of marx because

you can't really take traditions with

you once they're gone once they're gone

the essence is no longer known like

there's a whole like uh thing in his uh

the whole thing among historians where

you know they would kill to just go back

in time and live for a 10 seconds

walking down you know

like the avenues of rome instead of

having to deal with you know even

documentary evidence and everything

to cut it to cut you off for a second

are you saying that in your view

humanity is invented and not

discovered

no i think i think the problem is that

there is a alt there's an immaterial

like realm of the good form of the good

and that has to be that has to be

discovered the thing is we don't know it

for sure we have to sure but if if it's

truly immaterial and it has to be

discovered

why how could upon losing a tradition

you cannot rediscover it again

because it's still there it's immaterial

and it's eternal right

well i think i think tradition is

something that is

it's more of a form of perennial wisdom

suited to

adapt to the time

to a particular time and place like if

you look at all traditions

it's it's based off of a particular

revelation at a particular period of

time like this is when it comes to

religion

if you look if you look at cultures well

it's bound to a geographical location

which has had which has its own unique

uh pressures or or materials or there's

there are multiple ways of doing things

and you know like life is difficult you

need to come up with solutions to things

or just ways of passing the time i mean

sharing in one's humanity and or

celebrating what's important in life

and then you just you take that you take

you create your traditions

and then you in the best traditions tend

to survive over time but eventually they

outlive their purpose

the thing is traditions are actually

quite um

they

they change significantly over time but

there is a there is a spirit that

remains yeah that's fine but sorry we

just gotta make this a little faster

like

what

so just to bring this back to the point

if traditions are rooted in something

immaterial and eternal

how is it that they can be completely

forgotten

with modernity they and that that means

that there's no opportunity to

rediscover them

well i think this is the key points

where i get

really concerned with a reliance on marx

because with marx we you know the most

like i guess you say the superb the

superlative traditions which is religion

those are

he he

he outright states that they are created

by

mankind which means that well

they are quite arbitrary and you could

say not true they are created by mankind

then what's the substance of them every

priest will agree that they're created

by mankind you want to prove it tell a

priest we don't have to observe

religious practices anymore

and will the religion survive of course

it won't we do create religion

i mean we can sustain religion but what

is the ultimate grounding of religion

you know in in human practices of course

no it's in god or you know the

supernatural how are those

okay first of all the supernatural is

another story but you say god how are

those incompatible perspectives god can

only be given he can only be worshipped

by man

from man's as far as man is concerned

right

so of course man makes religion

well it's not it's it's it's only one

side of the story in the sense that man

has to be there to receive the

revelation but whether we continue to

practice it or not that's pretty much

yeah but religion isn't

revelation religion is the way in which

revelation is received and obeyed

and related to by people

i think that's the the main problem with

um with marx then because once all those

all those ways of uh you know carrying

on that on carrying on revelation or

discarded with

you you're pretty much left with

what is the what is the final end

of mankind to strive for what exactly

grounds

the human experience what grounds human

nature as sacred

i think there's this

to call to call um

to call communism conservative

it's it's not conserving anything in the

sense that it's hoping that

once everything is all said and done

once the damage has been done

it can all be rebuilt and i think

there's just no guarantee to that maybe

it could you're misunderstanding what

i'm saying uh i am not saying everything

gets destroyed and then rebuilt

saying

everything gets re-grounded

and then rediscovered

and it gets rediscovered because it gets

proven

that this very destruction is part of

the perennial tradition itself

it gets discovered as a moment within

the tradition

it's filled with actual content

my point is modernity is not inherently

uh disposed to any permanent revolution

or permanent overthrow

of tradition and culture

it what it specifically does is

establish

let's just condense it in this view the

universal state

then when the universal state is called

to be filled with some kind of content

suddenly all of these things that were

displaced settle back into place

so it's more of a settling back into

place

rather than complete destruction and

then accidental reconstruction

i guess it depends on how far this uh

train ride goes until uh

the resettlement happens because i guess

what you're talking about isn't

modernity

it's what dugan would refer to as the

quote-unquote post-modernity of like

now with all this lgbt whatever like

that's what you're thinking of in your

head how far is this train gonna go but

you've i think have made the mistake of

establishing an unabridged continuity

between modernity as such

and then the present day but

even dugan recognized a discontinuity

something happens in the so-called

post-modernity

where

there's this kind of self foreclosing of

modernity which does not happen in

marxism or communism

well yeah i guess i guess the whole

point of modernity is is to try to

rationalize

um

of human history

human politics

where we're heading why we should be

heading there any ground that is not

supernatural that it's not ordained by

god

it's just like humanity taking so what

do you mean by no supernatural

monitoring is just like nothing actually

making any sort of sense everything is

quite arbitrary and thus we're watching

the

destruction of things as we know it

so what do you mean by uh

supernatural

well i'm the things that we can't

necessarily explain um what like where

we come from why what make what exactly

uh determines

morality at the end of the day and i

don't mean in the sense of like like the

practices that peop that are uh seen as

good i'm talking about what is actually

good so do you think those things

do you think those things can't be

understood or this they can't be

explained

here go they can't be um reduced to some

premise or first cause that we know

i don't think they can be reduced to any

sort of natural causes and i don't think

they can be fully attained well marxism

agrees

marxism does not even believe in uh

this mechanicus mechanistic idea of

cause and effect so marxism agrees with

us marxism believes that while we can

understand these things we can't

ultimately reduce them

to some cause that's also a marxist view

we can understand

things

and we can understand the development of

things

and we can understand determining

elements

that form things

but

we can't locate

what all of that can be reduced to

that is something that's not buried in

the past

but from the marxist perspective reveals

itself from the future so for example

the cause of humanity's origin

is not something we discover in the past

like some event that's the origin of

life on earth i mean

maybe for natural science whatever but

marxism doesn't say that marx says

humanity discovers its cause

from the future from a future

perspective like

by for example

participating in the communist

revolution we are discovering our true

cause

but we're not doing that when we locate

some dogmatic premise

in the past

i guess perhaps maybe to get to the crux

of the matter here what concerns me the

most about marx and marx's theory is his

his focus on liberation emancipation

and you could say uh positive liberty

because it seems that his um the way he

frames history it's all about escaping

necessity like you know first we were

you know cavemen you know or

hunter-gatherers

afflicted by the necessity of the

necessity provided by nature as in

nature is the first

and most terrible uh slaver

because you know you know you have

hunger thirst the elements wild animals

um

natural disasters and so on

leading to the formation of societies

i'm sure you know that you know the

primitive societies more complex

societies guilds the industrial era now

here we are

and of course the whole point of

the whole point of you know a marxist

revolution is to eventually

surpass that limit to actually have

to actually have um control the means of

production to actually realize a

complete form of human personality and

discover

what

the purpose of human nature is i know

that's

really accurate because

you don't reduce necessity necessity

remains as necessary necessity's

necessity

freedom is insight into necessity and

nothing more

what does change what does amount to

some kind of progress remarks

is the extent to which

mankind's subsistence is dependent

on factors not so much outside of their

control

but outside of their intercourse outside

of their involvement outside of their

labor and outside of their activity

and the bible says what it says be

fruitful and multiply

so human beings being able to produce

more wealth to ensure that less of us

die

to ensure that we can have more

offspring and more children to ensure

that we can develop our human and

creative powers to the fullest extent

to ensure that we can even have the time

to study things like the bible and

develop our literary and be a cultured

and understand religion and dedicate

time to whatever like this ability to do

that i think is consistent with the

values

of at least the religions i'm familiar

with which want to promote human

prosperity you know be fruitful and

multiply

yeah actually i agree with that i was

about to point to um you know genesis

you know i was i was about to say yeah

that sounds like it's mirroring the

the

you know the story of the garden of eden

quite well which is i think an

interesting story about how we uh first

didn't really have freedom in the sense

that we just listened to god and then we

decided to

explore freedom

you know by biting from the

from the fruit of you know good and evil

and now it's kind of returned to like

return to that garden of eden you know

try to act because you know now that

we're afflicted with sin and we're

mortal and we have all these flaws and

we're afflicted by

you know concerns from nature well how

do you overcome nature how do you

overcome each other until we can

actually go back to that garnet and

actually

live a uh

flourishing and enriching human life as

possible

it's

it's that's actually very interesting

except

exceptions of um

of the bible and of marx i just don't

think i'm not convinced that marx would

agree with that though if you could

point me in um any uh well let me tell

you the problem

marx did not really dedicate a lot of

time

to religion more so

as he did to those who professed

to engage in the critique of religion so

marx's basic view was i'll just read it

out here

you know

hegel for example

only conceives

religion

as the estrangement of yes man's

essential powers

but for hegel

this only takes the form of man

conceived as mind and as thoughts

so

marx is saying for hegel religion

somehow alienates us

from our humanity

we're somehow separate from our humanity

but marx says for hegel

our humanity only takes the form of mind

of knowledge right that the

the tree of knowledge

that eve

did right

so

hegel allows himself to privilege

philosophy and thought over religion

because for him

religion is estranged from man only in

the form of the mind

now the postage aliens run wild with

this and marx deals with that and then

feuerbach also kind of comes and says

religion is the estrangement of man

man

right it's the alienation of man it's

nothing more but he reduces it to man

more he does more than what hegel does

marx says religion is the estrangement

of man

but man in his actual reality

now this dis privileging of concepts and

thoughts and the mind and knowledge

means that

the difference between religion

as it is estranged

and man in his actual reality

makes it so that the criticism of

religion that began before which was

basically from the perspective of

philosophy

and marx himself didn't play this out

explicitly but this is a logical

conclusion can't be sustained anymore

now we have to have an understanding of

religion that is sensuous and effectual

and based not in like um

you know

his privileging of philosophy like oh is

religion

uh

is religion

nothing more than you know a disguise

for our mind

but

understanding religion in terms of real

material humanity

well i think this is fertile ground for

a rediscovery of divinity and the divine

because after all

since materiality is not something we

can reduce the thoughts

since it's not something we can reduce

even to its knowledge it exists prior to

the form of its knowledge even

i think

divinity and materiality can be

reconciled

uh man in his actual reality and

religion

seem to contradict one another in the

same way that

the authentic and raw religious

revelation might contradict

established philosophical

or clerical interpretations

as they did for

christ's

own life

yeah i agree with that as well i mean

this i've been exploring um the thought

of a um

of

the philosopher leo strauss who

basically tries to his entire life's

project is about

um the conflict between uh revelation

philosophy which eventually he says

can't you can't really

you can't really deal with uh my basic

position here is that marx is on the

side of revelation in that dispute

it does sound a little bit speculative

but i can see how it works

i mean like mark's

religion then becomes for marx a kind of

memory a kind of intuitive effectual

revelatory

memory of

some

deeper more fundamental reality right

it's no longer reduced to like some

axiological proposition or anything like

that like we get it from philosophy

so i think

like

that's why i think marxism is ultimately

compatible

with religion in its everyday

um

reality it's intuitive reality i just

don't think it's compatible with

religion

uh

taken as a form of philosophy

religion expounded into philosophy

is incompatible with marxism

but religion in its raw sense of the

religion of revelation

that is compatible with marxism fully in

my view

because revelatory religion does not

make assumptions or claims

uh about

the

let's call them logical and metaphysical

and rational implications

it's based on feeling and it's based on

a type of perception of

forms that cannot be rationalized into

thought

when we talk about the various forms of

the christian religion right

the um let's just say about the

circumstances of

the virgin birth

the miracles

created by christ

are the various ceremonies and practices

the eucharist the baptism those aren't

really things

you rationalize as much as you do

because they somehow are meaningful to

you right

now

why are they meaningful to you is

something you leave open

you don't make assumptions

i think that's why it's compatible with

marxism

it's it's almost like it's similar to

culture and art right

actually hegel does relate religion and

art

directly yeah i mean he basically takes

the line from plato a bit by saying that

it's you know it's the

madness of the poets or the the

revelation of the poets

and just you know

just churning out

you know like you can say what is

true in on its for for its own sake

which is which is the thing about

revelation philosophy is an

investigation we start somewhere

uncertain we end somewhere uncertain and

revelation is supposed to be something

that it is what it is you can try to

rationalize around it and so on but i

want to kind of return one last point

about um

the point you brought up about religion

being intuitive

the only in

like the only way we can perceive

religion

or revelation to be true

it's hard to just reduce that to

something that's entirely materialistic

i guess i i sense that this is where you

were criticizing um

confusing marx's materialism with

physicalism

and i'm sure you you can correct me here

after i've made my point

but i

have a hard time understanding how

perception or ideas or

can can can be reduced to mere to mere

matter to mere this is like two mirror

neurons firing two mere um to mere

sensory experience

this is kind of a

like long-standing debates within you

know the philosophical tradition you

know rationalism versus empiricism

uh

i i guess that and also what whether you

know do the ideas come first

does the inspiration and the imagination

and the drive come first or

you know do the material circumstances

come first to me even that in itself is

a dialectic that remains uncertain and

it seems that ideas tend to have the

pull though matter you know the

materialistic constructs cannot be

ignored

but like if the materia if materialism

seems to be true

in a deterministic effect then it almost

robs

it kind of seems to siphon out like what

is moral what ought to be done whether

humans have agency

i mean that's the way i understand i

know that sultan's guy claimed marx was

a physicalist but he's a liar he just

lies about things and

pulls them out of his ass so marx is not

a physicalist per se um

when he talks about matter he's not

actually referring to a

specific form of matter right he's just

talking about matter as such

so what

how matter is organized

can only be as complicated and

you know

can only be as let's just call it uh

active

as the idea which reflects it

so it's not like you reduce the idea

something

with great depth and meaning and

whatever to something simple and base

and meaningless

if an idea has meaning

its material reality is really the

meaning

it's so it does have meaning basically

there is meaning in the real for marx

that's this whole humanism rests on that

idea and

um

he doesn't reduce

ideas to material reality although he

does say ideas reflect material reality

uh it that can only be possible if

material reality is sufficiently let's

call it ideal

if material reality has

the essence of the idea in it already

that makes sense and material for marx

does mean content it means basically the

content of the idea

so you can take a given idea

which is basically a form

and then marx will ask what is its

content

what is it

basically

how is it

as he put it in his first premises of

materials method

how is it

this is how you investigate the deeper

content in material reality it's not

accomplished

by setting up some substance

supreme

and then reducing the idea to that

substance

that putting the card before the horse

so that actually gets into a very um

interesting critique of marx's history

because if you think about um matter and

form from the aristotelian point of view

both being

key parts of what makes

what makes up a thing what is its

essence matter and form

matter of being you could say the

marxist side and

form being you could say the maybe the

hegelian side

marx would talk about you know what it

is how it is

but it doesn't seem as if

that form of analysis can tell you

what it should be

and that's the key point that i think

that concerns me the most about a

materialistic analysis

it

remarks backwards remarks it's again

about the

it's you have to remember his material

dialectical

so freedom is insight into necessity

form

is not separate

form is unified with content

but for marx that unity is itself

material

and it goes on like a recursive

structure like

the unity of form and content can either

be formal or material for marx it's

material

which i think

basically refers to an openness to the

divine

if form and content their unity is

formal that means the divine can be

reduced to some limited form

of our understanding

i guess that's the key

the key issue here i mean it works but

only in the sense that

you'll you have to wait for the

dialectic to play itself out before you

understand what actually works there's

it seems that there's no foresight that

can happen with that kind of approach

because

the idea is even

even if there is a foresight based on

wisdom

which i think religion is

that foresight cannot account for the

way in which it will happen

so let's say for example we believe in

the bible

there's a great deal of which the bible

will not tell us

we have to

always have this hermeneutic where

we are thrown into these realities the

bible did not directly talk about we

have to rediscover the wisdom through

reality itself

i don't think there's a point in

religious text where you could just

isolate it and say okay here i stand and

then set that against reality

i think it always has to be rediscovered

through a reality that the text

will not apparently directly account for

only later you'll see how it accounted

for

only later do you see the divine wisdom

you don't know divine wisdom first

it it reveals itself in reality

it's not be held

first you know that would make us like

god you know

i think this may be one last question

before i'm signing off but this has been

a great conversation

when it comes to odd questions like how

like where how should we proceed what is

the right thing to do

what is the

on perfection of mankind because it

seems that perfectability is such a

common theme in human history

how does marx exactly approach that

because it's hard to really

it's hard to really get a good answer of

what morality is from most marxists

except a uh

a product of times a a certain kind of

super structure unique to a uh

to the to the

to the heyday of

to like to to the

moments uh

to a particular time and places uh modes

of production

whatever is determined by that

a reflection of that

so

what is what is your how do you think

marx accounts for that kind of um for

foreign

the objective i would decide to

reintegrate morality within the sphere

of aesthetics

which means

morality is that sphere

of let's just call it

the will

it's the space

and room where will counts

and will precisely counts in that

determinate

sphere

of form

where form matters right

we're giving expression

to an insight into the unity of content

and form

matters art for example

uh

so to me morality belongs to the realm

of aesthetics morality is about where in

this

um

unfolding of material reality and

material being we are called

to um

we are called to draw out more

and this actually really i really like

that answer because i was just thinking

about this a while when

everything is rendered when all the

things that were seen as virtuous or

rendered unnecessary

why should someone you know why should

someone go and lift weights why should

someone

why should someone dress well why should

someone

go out of their way to

do something that just helps somebody

out in in their time of need when a

machine could just do it just as well

why why even relive

um the elements of humanity that we've

experienced for thousands of years in

its various forms that will eventually

be

outdated my only answer to that question

besides just you know surrendering to

this path towards transhumanism is just

aesthetics the aesthetic of the of the

human condition as we've known it

throughout time immemorial

but

what what can a materialist aesthetics

be like what is that like what exactly

is a materialistic aesthetics is that

always seems as like an ideal thing

something that almost almost comes as a

revelatory thing it's an imaginative

thing maybe it's

inspired by the past but it's you're

creating something new something that

may have never been realized before it

seems to be an ideal process that

happens

what are your thoughts to me of course

it's an ideal process but yes if the

aesthetic is truly revelatory

then it's going to draw from

uh

it's going to

let's just say

receive the calling

of a material

uh object

like something in material reality that

does not have form

needs to be given form

through our will

uh that's to me where

where there's a materialist aesthetics

but in that case it seems that form

comes first it has to lead the charge in

a sense

no no it's

form is just

form is just um

the way in which we draw out the

discontinuities within material reality

well yeah it's it's it's basically

taking all that we know materially um

abstracting from it form is the um

how should i put it

i phrased this directly before form is

the way in which

um

across the discontinuities of reality

they are themselves

come on let me let me just um

hold on let me pull up

sorry give me a second

uh

give me one sec

no worries

because there is a specific way that i

would put this

that i have

let me just get this pdf

okay

okay here it is

this is what i wrote

so

form is but the instance of the object

where it can be posited

across the particular discontinuities of

reality by thought

so it is this positioning of the object

the material object itself across the

particular discontinuities

by thought

that that is what form is

positing this object

would then merely refer to um

the way in which we give expression to

the way in which it is

uh separate from us or discontinuous

from us

which is of course implied by thought

itself the reflecting upon reality

material reality so basically for me

form

just refers to the way in which we try

to give expression to material objective

reality

in general across its

particular discontinuities that's how i

put it

so

when we are faced with these um

let's call them material discontinuities

we are called to relate them to

uh

material objectivity in general or at

least the highest extent of our ability

to comprehend it

it just seems like a very an

insufficient answer for understanding

how new

how new modes of living how new

aesthetics that

also seem to be

grounded in what was

in in in the material route in the

material realities of the past

it it's just it just seems like it's

putting

here um the cart before the horse

because

you don't go you usually don't go out to

uh

create with just materials you go out to

create with a blueprint in mind

yes

that is within the realm of memory

right that's going to be within the

realm of something we can remember

language is probably the biggest

example of this remembering of uh

form right

what about imagination

but

what happens during imagination is

basically that we

uh attempt

how do i put this in a way that makes

sense because when i say thought i'm

already

being too

greedy with what i'm able to work with

like like just for purposes of

clarifying right because then i'd have

to explain paul too but

for me

imagination is

obviously constrained with

what you can work with right

so the moment of novelty within the

imagination the moment where you can

imagine something new

that is to me a singular moment it's not

like imagination has this unlimited

capacity to me every instance in which

we can arrive at some novel form through

the device of imagination

is a unique encounter with material

reality

it's really strange if you think about

it though because it almost seems as if

we can't create anything new because

everything

new that we create and it has to be

predicated on what we already know what

we've already experienced what material

conditions we've already lived through

so it's almost like a living factor in

itself no there can definitely be new

things as far as we're concerned there

can be new forms

it's just that there cannot be new

realities

right but we don't know what reality is

just like we don't know what divinity is

it's almost like if you want to think

about it this way

of course there cannot be new divinities

but there can be new forms of revelation

still one divinity sure but

how do we understand that divinity well

only through the new revelations

of which there of course can be new ones

and why are there new ones well there's

new ones because

um

the prior revelations were not able to

satisfy

requirements

of

mankind's relation to the divine in a

new era or in a new circumstance

i'm going to have to maybe at some point

return

in a future stream whenever it's uh

appropriate

but you know thank you for taking the

time but it's getting pretty late to try

to reconcile

marx and hickle but

you know i was very i was impressed i um

i enjoyed this conversation with you

yeah thank you see you later

what a fun stream

what a fun stream and i have so much

shit

open

i have so much shit open

um

and i'm closing it all now

so what did we take away from before the

debate guys what do we take away about

that sultan's guy he's a fucking idiot

and a fraud

who's wrong about almost everything that

they say

they don't know or understand anything

um

okay there was some shit

from the cpu would say we're like

they're um

talking about abolishing the republican

party

should it be made illegal

said should they should we make illegal

the republican party

um

ah

i feel like some ominous thing is

missing

i feel like i'm missing something

something ominous something

something bad

uh yeah the the the um

the guy

consulting revolution yo amirio thank

you so much

um so yeah the debate debate offers

still there

you know

so what can we take away from this right

he's a fucking idiot he claimed to

critique my sub stack without reading it

within the substance itself i made very

clear

i mean i said things that would render

all of his the arguments he tried to

make really fucking stupid

um he didn't actually make an argument

against anything i actually said he just

took a paragraph out of context

when i literally addressed

whatever argument he was trying to make

in his video in the sub stack itself

that he was spent all this time trying

to critique

um

so yeah he took a big fucking out he

took a big fucking out

that much is very clear

so

i'm looking at his fucking profile right

now

let's check this out

he's saying

zolt you're watching haas right now nah

his point is that dugan doesn't get

marxism

that wouldn't no that's not my point

maybe that was my original point

in the sub stack but my point is that

zoltanius

doesn't understand haas okay

or dugan or marxism for that matter as a

consequence

uh lmao he took the l

how

in

look at this why call him squidward tend

to cope

if you watched

my

thorough dismantling and destruction of

that fucking video

and think i took the l

i don't know what fucking video you just

watched

i didn't say that dugan agrees with my

interpretation of marxism

nowhere in my sub stack is that implied

i say the opposite i say for dugan

marxism is only taken within a limited

sense of

i mean just read it just fucking read it

like holy shit

the brahmins of democracy just fucking

read it

it's all you got to do

i go over you know the problem is dugan

whether he believes it or not doesn't

mean the materialism of marx

uh

if i took the l that would be like i'm

saying this in a new way

results you fucking idiot this is what i

originally said how did i take the l

when this is what i originally said from

the thing

that you're claiming to form a response

to

this is what i originally said

i'm not saying this now and taking an l

and conceding that oh actually dugan

i concede dugan um on face value rejects

marxism no that's something i clearly

against

a clear understanding of and i even

explained it because one marxism

leninism was never rendered

into the terms of modern philosophy

uh it's typical

it's typical that soviet marxism

leninism when rendering the name the

philosophy is taken in french this is

all part of the paradoxical elliptical

structure

of archaeo modernity that i talked about

or

it's part of the same same fucking thing

yeah the challenge to a debate is still

there

um

otherwise this dude's just gonna keep

coping just gonna keep coping putting

words in my fucking mouth and creating a

straw man

that wasn't there

oh yeah this guy said i skipped almost

all of this video no the overwhelming

majority if not all of that video was

covered in my previous stream

because i also went through that sub

stack and responded to all that dumb

bullshit every i

every point in that video that i didn't

cover today

was in these responding to the cpusa

chapter video

you want to go see my critique of the

rest of the video go watch that other

stream i did i already responded to it

i'm not even gonna respond to this shit

there you go

danger

hold on it seems like he responded to my

comment

as well

fucking pussy

[Music]

zolt is discount new frontier usa

um

did you guys uh let me see

damn only one person

commented from

us damn

but um let's check this out

you haven't even watched the full video

yeah i responded to the other one in

full

this one has nothing new anything you

want new

bring it to a fucking debate you pussy

if there's something i didn't address

that's in this video you should have no

trouble debating me about it you fucking

pussy

the entire video was responded to in

full in a previous stream as far as

every substantive point that was made

if you think there's something still

missing go tell

squidward tenta quote

to debate me on it he should have no

trouble doing it

doing that then

fucking dumbass

what a bunch of what a cigarette

community bunch of fucking cigarettes

um it's over for you

is this it me these people look like

leftists like what the fuck is this

you didn't address them or to justify

your liberal humanism

okay where did where where is there a

humanism part of this video i don't get

it i i

where's the humanism part

right here

the french revolution part is that it

rousseau content hegel from chris chris

kurtron the platypus guy

well

the burden is not me to respond to your

argument about liberal humanism the

burden is on you to respond

to the way i've i've talked about marx's

humanism time and time again and the way

i've differentiated that

from bourgeois and liberal humanism

liberal humanism is universalist

uh and idealist

marxist humanism is not

he takes one quote

from what chris kratron to say that marx

is a liberal humanist how

marx ep these this is not marx none of

these people are marx himself

because a result of human agency that

caused the entire country to reject

accumulated experience okay

just because this guy's saying that

doesn't mean it's fucking true

um

okay this is going beyond that

so this specific section where he's

talking about the continuity of the

french revolution

to marxism is what he's talking about

i've talked about that i mean i talked

about it in my speech in the cpi i've

talked about that a year ago when i

talked about the french revolution and

its significance the left right and so

on and so on i talked about how

robespierre was a kind of new

traditionalist

um but i digress i've been been there

and done that bitch you have nothing new

you have nothing new

nothing new whatsoever

literally nothing new

yeah i'm pretty satisfied with uh how

things went

uh

yeah i mean i just what else is there

that whole community should be destroyed

by now like they

i don't know how you could be like a

thought leader

or an influencer

go through the absolute thrashing

that i just subjected you to and still

have a fucking community so i don't know

what what else is there really what the

fuck else is that

there are deeper criticisms to be made

if you have the imagination there's no

deeper criticisms to be made whatsoever

i mean i could talk more about

what dugan means by logos and how this

radically differs from the

idealism that marx was dealing with um

i could talk more about marx's humanism

and his materialism but it's like he

hasn't given me anything to work with in

terms like to respond to all i would be

doing is just educating you about shit i

wouldn't be able to fucking respond to

anything because this dumb fuck hasn't

made any arguments

he hasn't made any specific arguments

you didn't make any arguments justify my

uh

liberal humanism

you didn't make any arguments sultanius

all you did was point out the obvious

continuity between the french revolution

and communism and i addressed the

significance of that in the prior stream

when i was addressing what your fucking

friend said so

yeah i did fucking address that argument

which wasn't even really an argument at

all because in my video about

communism is conservative

i already addressed that you didn't

respond to anything i've said ergo you

have no argument

your entire premise was that the

definition of materialism didn't match

dugan's

if that's true retard tariq if that's

fucking true then zolt should have

responded to that because that is much

that is very clear in my sub stat that's

not my entire pr that's not my entire

premise as far as this video is

concerned that was the entire premise of

what i was talking about in my sub stack

if i'm using the word materialism in an

entirely different way than how dugan is

using it

then

it's calling me a liar and saying that

i'm wrong about it in this video is then

meaningless you fucking idiot should

have been able to see that in my sub

stack if that's true

because i'm not making any new argument

i'm just telling you what i said in my

sub stack which is what he's claiming to

refute and respond to

fucking dumbass

what a stupid fucking community

these turd positionists are literally

mentally retarded literally a stupid

fucking community

thank you sean appreciate you

i don't think i'm missing anything i

think that's it

that's it

i think that's it

anyway guys

see you tomorrow

[Music]

just bye

[Music]

me

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

spend

[Music]

cause you was just

in my life

[Music]