Fresh & Fit - August 26, 2024


Andrew Wilson VS Haz Debate Communism, Morality And Religion


Episode Stats

Length

3 hours and 13 minutes

Words per Minute

161.37201

Word Count

31,247

Sentence Count

2,488

Misogynist Sentences

18

Hate Speech Sentences

82


Summary

In this episode of the Fresh Up Podcast, we talk about Capitalism vs Communism. We also introduce our special guest, Mo, and talk about the history of capitalism and communism in the United States. We also talk about a fight that happened in the elevator and how we handled it. Thanks to our sponsor, Upside, for sponsoring this episode. This episode is sponsored by Upside. The Upside app gets you cash back on daily essentials like gas, groceries, and dining. There are over 100,000 gas stations, grocery stores, and restaurants on the Upside App, ensuring that cash back is always around the corner. And yes, you can transfer straight to your bank. Frequent Upside users earn an average of $340 per year. To find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description, download Upside and use our promo code FNFNF and claim an extra 25 cents back on your first tank of gas. Next, claim an offer for as much as $1,000 worth of gas on the First Tank. Then pay as little as $5 on your usual credit card, debit card, and you can get as much cash back as you ve paid in the usual way when you use your credit card. You re getting paid 3 times more cash back with Upside! You can earn an extra $35 a week on your First Tank, and get paid up to $340 a month! when you re paying as much on your gas tank! when I m paying my credit card in the app, I get paid as much more than $3,000 in the day I m reading this episode, I ll be paying you like that. You re gonna get paid three times more than you re reading this. episode, you ll get paid a lot of cash back when I'm paying it in the second episode, and there s a chance to get paid like like like that! - Phoned in a second episode of FreshUp Podcast, Phed Phededs, I m not even getting a discount on my phone, I can t wait to read it! Thanks Phed, Phoned In, I'll be back next week, Pheeded, I'm reading it out, so I can't wait to send it to you guys! P.O. - P.S. we are live! I hope you like it! - Andrew Wilson - Mo


Transcript

00:21:22.000 And we are live.
00:21:23.000 What's up, guys?
00:21:23.000 Welcome to Fresh Up Podcast, man.
00:21:24.000 We're here with Andrew Wilson and Haas.
00:21:25.000 We're going to be talking about what led to degradation in the United States.
00:21:28.000 Capitalism vs.
00:21:29.000 Communism.
00:21:29.000 Let's get into it.
00:21:30.000 Let's go!
00:22:29.000 We're good to go.
00:22:44.000 We're just in the process right now of uploading.
00:22:46.000 It's going to come out in 4K, so it'll be really good quality for you guys.
00:22:49.000 I did a pod with Rolo Tomasi, did a couple of gym streams.
00:22:53.000 Hot Swins.
00:22:53.000 I went on their show, and then they also went and did our show.
00:22:56.000 Go check that out with Hot Swins, by the way, guys.
00:22:57.000 It was literally hilarious.
00:22:58.000 One of the funniest podcasts I've done in a while.
00:23:01.000 A lot of you guys actually commented positive things on it.
00:23:03.000 You guys really enjoyed it.
00:23:03.000 We're just shooting a shit talking.
00:23:05.000 And then, obviously, when they drop theirs, I think it's going to come out either this week or next week.
00:23:09.000 And it'll be a good time, man.
00:23:10.000 But other than that, what else?
00:23:12.000 What about you?
00:23:13.000 How was your...
00:23:13.000 I saw you kick the four girls out.
00:23:14.000 Yeah, bro.
00:23:15.000 It was crazy, man.
00:23:16.000 I mean, listen, your job is not easy, bro.
00:23:18.000 I would say law and order is hard on the podcast with ladies.
00:23:21.000 But, you know, we made it work.
00:23:22.000 All things happen at Bunny Seeds.
00:23:24.000 Do sponsors, new updates, and some new guests on the show.
00:23:26.000 So, let's run it.
00:23:27.000 Here's a clip.
00:23:27.000 Here's a clip.
00:23:28.000 Here's a clip.
00:23:32.000 Literally.
00:23:33.000 Yeah, it's a fight.
00:23:35.000 And I guess, Mo, go ahead.
00:23:36.000 You got something to read real quick, and then we're going to have the guests introduce themselves.
00:23:39.000 I think we posted the video of them in the elevator.
00:23:41.000 Yeah.
00:23:41.000 When they were fighting each other.
00:23:42.000 Just hilarious.
00:23:42.000 Oh, they fought each other in their elevator?
00:23:43.000 Yeah, they did.
00:23:44.000 So apparently, two girls didn't want to leave, but they wanted to follow their friends, so they left.
00:23:48.000 They're like, why did you miss?
00:23:49.000 You guys got kicked off the podcast.
00:23:51.000 This fucking sucks.
00:23:52.000 And they started fighting in the elevator.
00:23:54.000 Yeah, it was crazy.
00:23:55.000 Oh, shit.
00:23:55.000 I didn't know that.
00:23:56.000 Yeah, it's on Castle Club right now.
00:23:57.000 So go check it, guys.
00:23:57.000 It's great.
00:23:58.000 So...
00:23:59.000 Yeah, because four of them walked off, so you're telling me two of them actually fought with each other?
00:24:01.000 So this one right here was the one I kicked off originally.
00:24:04.000 Yeah, I remember.
00:24:04.000 Because she kept interrupting everybody in the show.
00:24:05.000 So then they're like, you know what, this is our friend, we're going to leave too.
00:24:07.000 I said, okay, go ahead, leave.
00:24:09.000 But then two of them wanted to stay, the youngest ones.
00:24:12.000 So they had to change their heart when they were in the elevator waiting.
00:24:14.000 Pretty much.
00:24:15.000 And they started fighting.
00:24:17.000 Well, I can see why they would be mad because, yeah, you fucked it up for everybody.
00:24:20.000 I've won them three times, bro.
00:24:22.000 Three times.
00:24:23.000 And you know I'm nice about it.
00:24:24.000 I'm a nice guy, man.
00:24:25.000 Alright, well, whatever.
00:24:27.000 Stupid.
00:24:28.000 What I'm further ado, though.
00:24:29.000 Mo, you got a quick message and we're going to introduce our special guest and get into the talk about the debate.
00:24:34.000 Yes, we do.
00:24:38.000 This episode is sponsored by Upside.
00:24:42.000 The free Upside app gets you cash back on daily essentials like gas, groceries, and dining.
00:24:48.000 There are over 100,000 gas stations, grocery stores, and restaurants on the Upside app, ensuring that cash back is always around the corner.
00:24:59.000 And yes, it's real cash back.
00:25:01.000 No confusing rewards, points, nor credits.
00:25:04.000 Just actual money you can transfer straight to your bank.
00:25:08.000 Frequent Upside users earn average $340 per year.
00:25:15.000 To find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description, download Upside, and use our promo code FNF. That is our promo code FNF. Get an extra 25 cents back on every cashback on your first tank of gas.
00:25:31.000 Next, claim an offer for whatever you're buying on Upside.
00:25:35.000 Then pay as usual, credit card, debit card.
00:25:38.000 I personally use my credit card in the Upside app when I'm paying the gas stations.
00:25:43.000 And follow the steps in the app and get paid.
00:25:47.000 People earn three times more cash back with Upside than any other product.
00:25:52.000 This includes loyalty programs and credit rewards.
00:25:56.000 And one million cash back is being earned for users each week.
00:26:03.000 And make sure to scan the download app and put our promo code, FNF. And thank you, Upside, for sponsoring this episode.
00:26:14.000 Alright.
00:26:16.000 You're reading like fresh there for a second, man.
00:26:17.000 You need some Hooked on Phonics.
00:26:18.000 Alright, let's go ahead and introduce our special guest in the house, guys.
00:26:21.000 Welcome, man.
00:26:23.000 You've just been here a million times, but Haz, this is your first time on.
00:26:27.000 Welcome to the Fresh Hit Podcast.
00:26:29.000 Whoever wants to go first, introduce themselves, man.
00:26:31.000 Yeah, my name is Andrew Wilson.
00:26:32.000 I'm the host of The Crucible.
00:26:33.000 To those of you who are watching from The Crucible, what's up, Crucible Crew?
00:26:37.000 Make sure to come over here, donate generously to Fresh and Fit.
00:26:41.000 The reason you should is because they put this debate together, and we were able to do it in person because of that.
00:26:46.000 So I think, you know, I think, Myron, you're like fresh off a...
00:26:50.000 He got right out of a plane, came right into the studio, was like, I'm moderating a debate.
00:26:55.000 So yeah, he made it happen.
00:26:58.000 That was great.
00:27:00.000 So come over and show a little bit of love to Fresh and Fit.
00:27:04.000 I'm Hazaldeen, the host of the Infrared Show.
00:27:08.000 It was a political live streaming show that was mainly on Twitch before I got banned, moved to YouTube, and is now on kick.
00:27:16.000 I'm also the executive chairman of the American Communist Party, which is a recently launched Communist Party that consists of myself, Jackson Hinkle, the Midwestern Marx crew, and several others on the executive board.
00:27:31.000 Is that where you did that recent speech?
00:27:34.000 No, the speech I did was in Dearborn, and that was for the Institute for a Free America, which is a different thing.
00:27:41.000 So I guess I don't want to know, what's your stance on communism itself?
00:27:46.000 Me, or?
00:27:47.000 Well, yeah, unless you wanted to mention in your opening statement.
00:27:51.000 No, no, it's okay, I can get into it.
00:27:52.000 So I regard myself as a capital C communist, which is the real deal, a real type of Marxist-Leninist orthodox, just as in the Soviet Union with Stalin and China, with Mao, China today, communist states in general around the world.
00:28:07.000 And typically this is something that is foreign and not very prevalent in the Western countries, in the United States in particular, because here the self-identified communists are mainly just liberals who are becoming increasingly radicalized in the direction of wherever the Democratic Party is going.
00:28:24.000 I'm a communist in the sense that the communism in the sense of leading nations through industrialization and focusing on the development of the productive forces and focusing on consolidating sovereignty and political dictatorship In such a way that can't be usurped by the interests of the capitalist class.
00:28:47.000 So this type of communism is not very much...
00:28:50.000 The history of it in the United States is limited.
00:28:55.000 The golden age of the Communist Party here was in the 1930s, right?
00:28:59.000 And then with the Cold War, the onset of the Cold War...
00:29:01.000 You know, the rest is history.
00:29:03.000 They began to persecute them, and then they basically became irrelevant.
00:29:07.000 And then afterwards, you had the rise of liberalism, you know, left liberals.
00:29:12.000 You had so-called leftism, which was mainly based on students rather than the industrial workers that were the base of historical communism.
00:29:23.000 So, Jackson, Hinkle, and I, and others, we represent a revived communist tendency in the United States.
00:29:29.000 We're trying to restore something that has been lost in this country, which is a type of politics that's based in the working class, based in the interests of the common people, and which brings to the fore the economic question, the property question,
00:29:45.000 back into politics.
00:29:48.000 Okay.
00:29:48.000 So the way we're going to do this, guys, is we're going to have five...
00:29:53.000 Well, we're going to have...
00:29:53.000 Okay, so first we're going to have opening statements.
00:29:55.000 It's going to be five minutes where they're going to be able to...
00:29:58.000 This is going to be kind of a broad debate.
00:29:59.000 Obviously, we talked about capitalism versus communism, but there's going to be other things as well because the topic is what caused the issues in the United States, and obviously that's going to come into play and a multitude of other factors.
00:30:09.000 So we're going to have opening statements, five minutes each to state their arguments, and then we're going to have...
00:30:14.000 Five rounds, three minutes each, where they're gonna, you know, be able to make their arguments, you know, uninterrupted, of course.
00:30:19.000 And then we're gonna have three rounds, five minutes each, where it's open dialogue and they're able to kind of go back and forth and speak at the same time.
00:30:27.000 So, who wants to go first, by the way?
00:30:28.000 I can open first.
00:30:29.000 You wanna go open first?
00:30:30.000 Alright, cool.
00:30:31.000 So, let's put five minutes on the clock.
00:30:33.000 I'll have my timer here as well.
00:30:35.000 And we'll hand it off to Andrew and he'll make his first opening statements.
00:30:41.000 We gotta watch two bills on the side.
00:30:43.000 Give me one minute.
00:30:44.000 Yeah, bills will fire one up.
00:30:45.000 Yeah, I'll keep mine for now.
00:30:48.000 Okay, Andrew, whenever you're ready.
00:30:49.000 Yeah, so first I want to thank you guys, of course, for hosting and Haas for coming out here today.
00:30:54.000 I've known Haas for a long time.
00:30:56.000 I mean, way back when I started streaming, it was around the same time he started streaming.
00:31:01.000 I've always liked him personally.
00:31:03.000 I just hate his politics, right?
00:31:04.000 So I think that that's a fair assessment.
00:31:07.000 So we're getting to what is the root cause in America of the problem.
00:31:11.000 It comes down to the founding of the Enlightenment principles of the United States.
00:31:16.000 Which, in this founding of these Enlightenment principles, we had no American identity.
00:31:23.000 There was no American identity which we were able to adopt.
00:31:27.000 The egalitarian and Enlightenment principles have led to the current kind of progressive, I would almost say, zeitgeist that you see now.
00:31:38.000 So to go through what these principles are for egalitarianism, the idea that all men are created equal, for instance, these are all enlightenment principles.
00:31:48.000 Now, Haas, he kind of adheres to a philosopher named Hegel.
00:31:52.000 Hegel was part of the idea of many of these enlightenment principles, in fact.
00:31:57.000 I reject Enlightenment principles categorically, and I believe that those Enlightenment principles are the direct route.
00:32:06.000 Now, that said, I also think that Bolshevik murderous Jewish communists killed...
00:32:14.000 The Orthodox king.
00:32:18.000 They killed the Orthodox king in Russia.
00:32:20.000 They did a Bolshevik takeover of the entire nation.
00:32:24.000 I do think that this is part of what is considered a revolutionary spirit.
00:32:29.000 And that spirit is alive and well inside of the communist ethos and ideology.
00:32:34.000 And I think that communists often pretend that it's not...
00:32:38.000 But it is.
00:32:38.000 The idea of continual revolution.
00:32:42.000 And that is part of the egalitarian principle of the United States, which was founded on revolution.
00:32:48.000 So I think that this is a huge problem inside of this ideology.
00:32:53.000 Now I'm going to move, because it's such a broad topic, I have to kind of move around a little bit.
00:32:58.000 To kind of understand the central communist plot, the idea is...
00:33:05.000 And Marxist theory is pretty broad, but the general idea here is a continual social revolution until we get to the point where we get it right.
00:33:15.000 Whatever that means, right?
00:33:16.000 The reason I wanted to do this debate specifically with Hobbes is because what I don't want...
00:33:21.000 Is I don't want traditional commie speak.
00:33:25.000 And here's what I mean about this.
00:33:26.000 It's language academic prattle that relies on communist linguistics without actually speaking plainly what it is that you mean to say.
00:33:36.000 So what I'm asking Haas to do tonight for me and for the audience is to just speak very plainly.
00:33:42.000 And the reason that I'm asking that is because, and you know this, there's tons of communists who do obfuscation by moving towards Marx's principles, and they have distinct meanings which are different than the meanings how we see them in the commons.
00:33:55.000 Example of this is freedom.
00:33:57.000 Perhaps Marx has a distinct definition or way he views freedom.
00:34:02.000 And I don't know exactly what that's going to be.
00:34:04.000 I'm going to view it a different way.
00:34:06.000 So I would like it to be plain speak and not typical Marxist prattle.
00:34:11.000 So that's why I wanted to do this debate specifically with you.
00:34:14.000 And now you kind of have the outline of how I view the world, why I view Marxism as such a problem and communism as such a problem.
00:34:21.000 And what the root is of the problems inside of America, which start with egalitarian principles.
00:34:27.000 I believe that communists take advantage of egalitarian principles.
00:34:29.000 They always plan to take advantage of those principles to institute communism.
00:34:33.000 And with that, I'll yield my time.
00:34:36.000 I'll put five minutes on the clock for Haas, whenever you're ready.
00:34:42.000 I'm not a big fan of semantics.
00:34:43.000 I don't think anyone is.
00:34:45.000 It obfuscates the ability to communicate words clearly and get the meaning across.
00:34:49.000 However, I think an exception should be taken, semantically speaking, for something that's actually not necessarily Marxism.
00:34:58.000 Let's just begin with Christianity and the Lord's Prayer.
00:35:01.000 Let's begin with the etymology of the word sin in Christianity itself.
00:35:05.000 And scholars will find that etymologically and linguistically, they'll find that the word sin can be traced back to debt.
00:35:14.000 And the Lord's Prayer, which says, forgive us of our sin, and Jesus, who announces...
00:35:20.000 In his first sermon, the Jubilee Year, which was a cyclical...
00:35:25.000 A cyclical tradition among the Jews to cancel the debt every so often.
00:35:31.000 The core of the whole thing was about debt, and that's what really my view about the chief contradiction or the problem of America stems from.
00:35:41.000 I mean, we could go to the Enlightenment and defining exactly what that is, I think, would be difficult.
00:35:47.000 Although we could use Kant's definition and so on.
00:35:49.000 But in my view, the root cause of America's decay and the root cause of America's problem is actually very simple.
00:35:54.000 It's debt.
00:35:56.000 It's the fact that our total liabilities have far surpassed our assets.
00:36:01.000 There is no way that the total national debt in the United States could ever imaginably ever be paid off.
00:36:07.000 The amount of personal household debt that Americans have could never be paid off.
00:36:13.000 And we are faced with a problem where the debt is being used as a pretext for the 1%, an extremely small minority of exploiters and capitalists, to gobble up and seize all of the assets and all of the wealth of this country on the basis of them being collateralized in the first place.
00:36:31.000 So, to me, the real root cause of the problem Is that we are being held to an economic principle, namely the strict kind of narrow terms of a very ruthless form of capitalism,
00:36:47.000 and we're being crucified and penalized for having basic economic needs that we need met, not only at the level of public spending, but at the level of individuals who need to get by and make a living for themselves.
00:36:59.000 And just because of that, they're being punished with endless and self-multiplying An unpayable debt.
00:37:07.000 And to me, communism, if you want to simplify it as far as how I see it in this country, communism means cancelling the debt.
00:37:14.000 This is precisely what those murderous Bolsheviks did, which is what incurred the response of every major great power on planet Earth invading Revolutionary Russia in 1917, 1918, because what was Lenin's first act?
00:37:29.000 He cancelled all of the foreign debt.
00:37:31.000 The Tsar had accumulated all of this debt from the French banks in order to finance the limited extent of industrial development that he was partaking in, and the debt was unpayable.
00:37:43.000 It was immiserating the Russian people, the Russian peasants.
00:37:45.000 They were becoming slaves.
00:37:46.000 They were becoming proletarianized.
00:37:48.000 So what does the revolutionary Bolsheviks do when they take power?
00:37:51.000 They cancel the debt.
00:37:52.000 I don't think the elites really care about your ideology as much as they care about what you do.
00:37:57.000 And the one thing consistently we see across history is that when you cancel the debt, when you raise the question, the property question of debt, you are touching upon something that they regard as very sensitive.
00:38:08.000 You're touching upon the very source of the power of the international capital.
00:38:12.000 That's the thing that allows them to gobble up and steal and loot the material wealth of all mankind.
00:38:19.000 And to me, communism is already in the Bible.
00:38:24.000 You know, it's not necessarily something that begins just with Marx.
00:38:27.000 The revolutionary message of Jesus Christ, and I do regard him as a revolutionary, was to cancel the debt.
00:38:34.000 And it's also my message.
00:38:36.000 I'll yield the rest of my time if there's any.
00:38:39.000 Alright, yeah, there's a minute left, but I guess we'll go on to round one.
00:38:42.000 So are you saying communism is freedom?
00:38:46.000 Yes, I think so.
00:38:47.000 I mean, if you look at the Liberty Bell, it uses a term, a Hebrew term.
00:38:54.000 You'll have to forgive me, because I don't think I remember it exactly.
00:38:56.000 Something durier, or something like that?
00:38:59.000 Anyway, the term refers to the emancipation of debt servants.
00:39:04.000 It refers to the emancipation of people who had to pledge their families, their land, and even themselves, because they couldn't pay back debt to the creditors.
00:39:12.000 So this is even on the Liberty Bell that we have here in the United States, using that term.
00:39:16.000 Okay.
00:39:17.000 Alright, so we're going to go into round one, so we kind of see where both of you stand.
00:39:22.000 I guess I'll give a quick summary here, for those of you that are just tuning in.
00:39:27.000 We're having a debate on what led to degradation in the United States, what the root cause problem is.
00:39:30.000 And obviously we're going to get into the topic of capitalism versus communism.
00:39:33.000 But Andrew Stant says he rejects enlightenment.
00:39:35.000 He believes that enlightenment was the beginning of the end here.
00:39:38.000 And Marxism.
00:39:40.000 And Haas is more along the lines of debt is the main problem and communism solves that.
00:39:45.000 Would that be a fair summation of what you guys said?
00:39:48.000 Obviously, I, you know, grossly simplify it.
00:39:51.000 Yeah, you're paraphrasing.
00:39:51.000 We understand.
00:39:52.000 Okay.
00:39:52.000 All right, cool.
00:39:53.000 So we're going to round one here.
00:39:54.000 I'm going to put three minutes on the clock for Andrew.
00:39:57.000 Andrew, whenever you're ready, I'll start it.
00:39:59.000 Sure.
00:40:00.000 Three minutes on the clock.
00:40:01.000 From this point forward, we're going to do five three-minute rounds, and then we're going to do three five-minute rounds.
00:40:07.000 And then we're going to have a Zoom call after this, by the way, guys, so you guys in the Q&A and you guys can interact with us and have a good discussion with the Cals Club guys.
00:40:13.000 So that'll be after, so stay tuned.
00:40:15.000 But yeah, whenever you're ready, Andrew, and I got my time here.
00:40:18.000 Okay, I'm ready.
00:40:19.000 Yeah, so the idea that communism would be necessary to cancel out debt is absurd.
00:40:25.000 It's absurd on its face.
00:40:26.000 We have plenty of history to demonstrate this.
00:40:29.000 Andrew Jackson already did this.
00:40:30.000 Andrew Jackson killed the central bank.
00:40:32.000 He used the entirety of his administration to pay off all the national debt, which he did.
00:40:38.000 Okay, so why communism would be necessary to pay off the national debt?
00:40:42.000 I have no idea.
00:40:43.000 There's certainly tons of systems and models which could be used that are non-Keynesian to do this.
00:40:48.000 So I have no idea where their criticism is.
00:40:51.000 If you're saying that debt can be crippling to a nation, I totally agree with you.
00:40:55.000 However, communist nations in the past, including Stalin's nation of Russia, was also under crippling debt.
00:41:02.000 I mean, communism did not prevent it at all from incurring a massive amount of debt.
00:41:06.000 Which also led to financial collapse, in fact, because it didn't have access to external capital and needed it very desperately, in fact, I would say, in order to keep its country propped up.
00:41:16.000 So I would kind of categorically reject first in term of we need communism to cancel the debt.
00:41:24.000 We have a historic example.
00:41:25.000 The president already did this in Andrew Jackson.
00:41:27.000 He completely Killed a central bank concept, gave the ability to Congress to coin money, paid off the entirety of the national debt.
00:41:35.000 He had nothing to do with communism whatsoever.
00:41:38.000 Most certainly wasn't a communist.
00:41:40.000 Communism had nothing at all to do with that.
00:41:42.000 And I'd like to start there.
00:41:44.000 Maybe I can start the inquiry there so that we can just kind of dive into it without kind of bloviating for three minutes so we can just get right into it.
00:41:52.000 Okay.
00:41:52.000 All right.
00:41:53.000 I'll put three minutes on the clock for us to respond to that.
00:41:57.000 Sure.
00:41:58.000 I think that the problem, though, is that even if we accepted face value that Andrew Jackson somehow, in this sweeping way, acted against the creditor class, which I think is false.
00:42:07.000 I think what he actually did was he got rid of the Hamiltonian, which is more like a national bank, not necessarily a central bank like the Federal Reserve, which is strictly privately owned.
00:42:17.000 And that could also be interpreted as a pro-creditor move.
00:42:19.000 But even Andrew Jackson, what is he regarded as historically?
00:42:22.000 He's regarded as a populist, right?
00:42:24.000 So what communism and Marxism will often talk about, politically speaking, is that society is divided by a class struggle.
00:42:31.000 And if you want to act against the interests of creditors, you have to have your base of support somewhere.
00:42:36.000 And if your base of support is not in the people who have all the money and have all the resources and have all the wealth, it seems like at face value you're going to be screwed.
00:42:44.000 But actually, the multitudes, the majority of people, the working class, that's a base of support that could be relied upon to achieve goals that are in favor of them, right?
00:42:53.000 There's more of them.
00:42:54.000 Numerically.
00:42:55.000 So that's an advantage that can be drawn.
00:42:57.000 So part of the historical class struggle is always this struggle between a ruling class and the masses, which are part of a different class, right?
00:43:06.000 And in the case of Andrew Jackson and other cases of populist leaders, I mean, for example, even the Farmers' Alliance and the Populist Party, they were calling for a cancellation of debt, and they weren't Marxists, and they weren't explicitly communists.
00:43:18.000 But as long as they're unable to scientifically understand the ability for their strategy to work and succeed, as long as they're unable to understand the dynamics I just mentioned, that it's a class struggle, that you need this reliable basis of support, inevitably what's going to happen is exactly what did happen in American history.
00:43:35.000 The creditors will return.
00:43:36.000 Again, this is off of the premise that Andrew Jackson was an anti- Accreditor president, which I disagree with.
00:43:41.000 But even if we assume that was true, it's clear that the way history played out was exactly the opposite.
00:43:46.000 It's clear that the banking class, the creditor class, actually emerged here in the United States from the indigenous industrial capitalists that were promoted already under Lincoln, right?
00:43:57.000 So I would respond basically with, well, why did the debt come back if it was so simple?
00:44:03.000 Yeah, so...
00:44:04.000 Okay, so that concludes that round one.
00:44:07.000 We'll go ahead to round two.
00:44:09.000 I'll put three minutes on the clock again, and go ahead, Andrew.
00:44:12.000 Yeah, so I mean, this is going to be a continual struggle.
00:44:15.000 As long as you have leadership, which wants access to money, the only thing that they can do is offer up their people as a form of credit for that money.
00:44:24.000 That's the only thing they can do is offer up the tax basis as a form of credit.
00:44:28.000 You know this, and I know this.
00:44:29.000 This is the way that all nations basically back up What they need as far as credit for their nation.
00:44:36.000 They're going to put the taxpayer as the kind of collateral for whatever the loan is that they need.
00:44:42.000 So the reason that this is kind of occurring again and again and again, cyclically, I would actually say that this is due to egalitarian principles.
00:44:50.000 So this idea where you form...
00:44:53.000 You're taking humanity out of this, I think.
00:44:56.000 I think that what happens with egalitarian principles is they form small microgroups.
00:45:01.000 These microgroups then have their own assessed and addressed interests.
00:45:04.000 And once they realize that they can raid the Treasury via the vote, once they realize that they can vote in their own interest to steal your money, whatever these groups are which formulate, they will do that.
00:45:15.000 And that is part of, I think...
00:45:19.000 Democracy in and of itself and egalitarianism in and of itself.
00:45:22.000 Communism does nothing to solve for that.
00:45:25.000 How would communism, absent a central authority, where it was some type of totalitarian dictatorship, I do not understand how communism can actually solve for this issue.
00:45:37.000 If you're going to allow people to participate in any sort of democratic process whatsoever, and you're going to allow them to participate in any sort of government process whatsoever, They're going to have to be able to vote or somehow participate.
00:45:51.000 Once they realize that they can steal...
00:45:54.000 Group A can steal from Group B via the vote, they will do so because Group A will always outnumber Group B. Group B will always outnumber Group C. They can always vote themselves Group A, B, C, and D's money.
00:46:06.000 All you need to do is have the numbers.
00:46:09.000 Communism, this was known, was a big problem with...
00:46:12.000 This is why Giovanni Gentile himself kind of points to the idea of these large trade corporations swallowing up the smaller trade corporations.
00:46:22.000 Now these were actually trade unions, but he kind of understood he came from the idea of Marxism and Communist theory.
00:46:29.000 So he says, well wait, we need a body of the state which can control for these small groups Coming in and basically taking over these other groups just via numbers.
00:46:39.000 You point to this yourself when you say, look, they have the numbers.
00:46:43.000 I agree.
00:46:44.000 Group A has the numbers.
00:46:45.000 Group A can always vote or use force to take from Group B. You still haven't really explained to me how communism solves for this problem.
00:46:54.000 I don't understand how communism itself, or Marxist theory, is going to solve for that very human problem.
00:47:02.000 Okay, I'll turn it back to Haas here.
00:47:06.000 I'll put three minutes on the clock, and whenever you're ready.
00:47:09.000 I'm a little bit confused about exactly what you're talking about, because it seems clear to me from concrete historical examples that the only forces politically in modern world history that have ever been able to wage and mount a long-term defiance of the global creditor class,
00:47:25.000 and which is therefore the global capitalist class, have obviously been communist states.
00:47:30.000 I mean, what loans did Stalin need to take out and indebt the Soviet Union into?
00:47:34.000 Loans did China need to take out under Mao in order to enslave and indebt their country to international capitalists?
00:47:40.000 No such thing, because we have to look at the source of where credit comes from.
00:47:45.000 Credit doesn't just come out of thin air.
00:47:47.000 It comes from actually controlling the means of production.
00:47:50.000 I don't want to use Marxist jingo, because I know you have a kind of allergy to that.
00:47:54.000 It's fine to do.
00:47:55.000 Just explain what the term means.
00:47:57.000 It means a production.
00:47:57.000 It just means the fundamental way in which the basic necessities economically, economic necessities of your country are produced.
00:48:05.000 How do people get clothed?
00:48:07.000 How do they get fed?
00:48:08.000 How do they get shelter?
00:48:09.000 Right?
00:48:09.000 How are things made?
00:48:10.000 So this is the natural resources.
00:48:13.000 This is the factories.
00:48:14.000 This is the technology.
00:48:15.000 These are all the fundamental meat and potatoes of an economy that are necessary for human beings in a given context of civilization to exist as they do.
00:48:26.000 Credit, the ability to actually issue credit, comes from a fundamental stranglehold and control over means of production.
00:48:32.000 Historically speaking, it was always land.
00:48:34.000 If you controlled the land, you could use that land as collateral to give out loans and further gobble up more land because debtors would have to pledge their land in order to...
00:48:44.000 Take out the loans.
00:48:45.000 So historically, this is the origin of pro-creditor classes emerging across many different eras of history.
00:48:52.000 But in the case of the capitalist era, it's actually clear that we have an ownership of the means of production that is purely for-profit, which is owned by us and gobbled up by a small minority, which inevitably culminates in monopolists,
00:49:08.000 like the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, and so on and so on.
00:49:12.000 And they are the ones who actually built the foundation of the Federal Reserve Banks in the United States.
00:49:16.000 If it wasn't for the fact that they owned the railways, they owned the oil, they owned all of the factories, and so on and so on, the steel, the rise of the Federal Reserve and the pro-creditor policies we see today wouldn't have been possible.
00:49:29.000 So this communism solves this problem because the fundamental means of production are owned in common.
00:49:34.000 They're owned by the state, they're owned by the people in some other form, and this allows...
00:49:40.000 This prevents the need, A. It prevents the need from taking out foreign loans necessarily in order to develop your country.
00:49:46.000 You can develop from scratch.
00:49:47.000 Now, there's drawbacks from that because it creates instabilities.
00:49:51.000 Instabilities that, you know, historically, I won't deny, have led to brief but very, very severe, you know, economic dysfunction, right?
00:50:01.000 Ten seconds.
00:50:02.000 Yeah.
00:50:02.000 So, but I don't see the problem.
00:50:05.000 I don't see how communists haven't solved this problem.
00:50:07.000 I don't understand what you're getting at there.
00:50:11.000 Okay, that's three minutes.
00:50:12.000 We're gonna go on to round three, put three minutes on the clock again.
00:50:16.000 Are we got chats?
00:50:17.000 You know, I'll reach out after this round, because this is in the middle of a good thing here.
00:50:21.000 Ready, Andrew?
00:50:22.000 Yeah.
00:50:22.000 Alright, alright.
00:50:23.000 Yeah, you still haven't actually explained how communism has solved this issue.
00:50:27.000 So, yes, it's true that rich industrialists definitely got together with the political class in order to pass the Federal Reserve Act.
00:50:35.000 There's no doubt that that's true.
00:50:37.000 I agree with you that there's a groundwork setting for this with rich industrialists who definitely move towards the Federal Reserve.
00:50:43.000 There's just no doubt that's a matter of historic fact.
00:50:46.000 However, you still haven't really explained how it is that you would prevent Group A, Group A if they're going to participate in your communist utopia or society, from stealing the wealth of Group B. As long as they can vote or somehow participate in the political process,
00:51:05.000 they can vote themselves Group B shit.
00:51:07.000 I don't understand how communism solves for that.
00:51:10.000 You say, well, the state owns the means of production along with the people.
00:51:14.000 So when it comes to credit, well, the people are still going to be the form of credit.
00:51:18.000 You say, well, traditionally it was land.
00:51:20.000 That's true, but people have to work the land, so it's still the people who are the credit.
00:51:24.000 They're still whatever the bond is for your collateral.
00:51:28.000 So if you're a nation and you want to take out a big loan, you're going to say, hey, we can pay this loan back because here's our tax base, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc.
00:51:38.000 You still haven't actually explained how in communism, if people are allowed to participate in the political process.
00:51:46.000 How do you prevent them from stealing the capital if they have a larger group than Group B? Can you just directly answer?
00:51:55.000 It's still my time, but just go ahead and give a direct answer.
00:51:57.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:51:57.000 I mean, China is a communist country which doesn't have this problem.
00:52:00.000 Does that not answer it?
00:52:01.000 Because the reason they don't have the problem...
00:52:02.000 That's a mixed economy.
00:52:04.000 Well, look, the Soviet Union didn't have that problem, and neither did China, because in order for different private groups to constitute themselves as separate political interests...
00:52:11.000 They weren't allowed to participate, though.
00:52:13.000 You're right, precisely.
00:52:14.000 That's the meaning of proletarian dictatorship.
00:52:16.000 You have a one-party state, you don't allow different groups and private interests to constitute themselves as a political power.
00:52:22.000 So you want authoritarianism, ultimately.
00:52:23.000 Absolutely.
00:52:24.000 Yeah, so authoritarianism under a single person.
00:52:27.000 Not necessarily under a single person, but certainly under a single party.
00:52:30.000 Okay, so if we're moving towards authoritarian communism, right, now we can kind of move into...
00:52:37.000 The real kind, like historically.
00:52:39.000 Yeah, so now we can kind of move into the rest of it here.
00:52:41.000 So, this dictator, he's going to set all trade policies, right, or this authoritarian group.
00:52:49.000 People themselves will be unable to participate inside of the government structure that you propose.
00:52:57.000 I completely disagree.
00:52:58.000 I think that one-party dictatorships, such as in the Soviet Union and China, have been much more able to integrate the input and participation of the masses.
00:53:06.000 I don't mean to cut you off.
00:53:07.000 It was a question, so it wasn't a disagreement.
00:53:11.000 Okay, what's the question again?
00:53:12.000 I'm asking specifically, are you just moving towards authoritarianism?
00:53:17.000 If you're moving towards unilateral authoritarianism, can you explain how that mode works?
00:53:25.000 Do you want me to answer directly how it works and historical examples?
00:53:28.000 This time is up, so we'll turn it over here anyways.
00:53:31.000 Real quick, you guys are okay with that?
00:53:33.000 As long as you guys are both okay with it.
00:53:36.000 Sometimes we're going to have to clarify these things.
00:53:38.000 No problem.
00:53:39.000 This is what I'll do.
00:53:40.000 Since you guys are not fucking idiots like other debaters, you guys can ask each other questions in the middle of your thing, and it'll count for your time, right?
00:53:48.000 So that way we'll keep it fair, but clarifying questions and stuff like that is a complex topic.
00:53:53.000 I'll turn it right over to you in three minutes.
00:53:54.000 Go ahead.
00:53:55.000 When you just have a single party, which is based on the single purport that we want to increase the prosperity and serve the common interests of your country, then there's no more negotiation and political debates about what the goal should be.
00:54:07.000 Everyone's on the same page that the goal is about serving the common interests, serving the people, increasing the productive forces and the wealth, and so on and so on.
00:54:15.000 Now, now that you've set that goal about, the question is how do you acquire the input and the data from below from the people who are the least assimilated within the party's power structure apparatus in order to make decisions that are popular and reflect the sentiments and the reality,
00:54:30.000 more importantly, of your people?
00:54:32.000 Right?
00:54:32.000 Well, for example, we have historical examples that show how this would work.
00:54:35.000 In China, at the lowest, most rural, smallest village level, you have party members that are there that are leaders of their community, that are getting input from their community, that are actually accountable to their community.
00:54:47.000 The accountability measures that, as a party leader, as a local political leader, not even necessarily a party one, you have to perform.
00:54:55.000 You have to be doing good for your community.
00:54:57.000 If you're not performing, if you're doing...
00:55:00.000 Bad by them and abusing your power, they'll report you to the person above, right?
00:55:05.000 So this is not a matter of a hypothetical system we have to dream up and conjure from scratch.
00:55:10.000 Hang on, hang on.
00:55:10.000 Let me get clarity on two points, if you don't mind.
00:55:13.000 So point one, when you say own, own the means of production.
00:55:18.000 The people also own the means of production.
00:55:21.000 What does ownership in this context mean?
00:55:24.000 However the means of production are used, they have to be pledged ultimately, in the last and final sense, for a common goal, right?
00:55:32.000 And whatever that common goal is defined by and by who, that's who owns it.
00:55:39.000 So the Communist Party in China owns all of the land, right?
00:55:43.000 But they don't strictly define the parameters in every detail as far as how the land can be used.
00:55:49.000 You can lease land for them and use it, In ways that they can't account for beforehand as long as it doesn't violate the fundamental goal, right?
00:55:58.000 So if you're using the land in a way that ultimately benefits the country and benefits the overall goals of the party, you know, they're giving you room to be creative and entrepreneurial as far as how you're going to do that.
00:56:10.000 But can you own land just for the purpose of, you know, of speculative profit?
00:56:18.000 What if you just want it?
00:56:19.000 And you don't have any goal whatsoever?
00:56:49.000 Control is about management and administration and the degree to which there's flexibility and freedom for people to find different ways to realize the same goal.
00:56:57.000 But ownership is fundamentally about sovereignty, right?
00:57:00.000 Ownership is about the fact that, okay, if you're in China, this is our land, foreigners and bankers and capitalists, they can't just take this land and use it for willy-nilly to enslave all of us and hold it against us.
00:57:10.000 It's ultimately ours in the last and final sense.
00:57:16.000 So, instance, that's what I meant to say.
00:57:20.000 Sorry.
00:57:21.000 No, no, no.
00:57:21.000 It's fine.
00:57:22.000 I added 30 seconds extra because he asked you a question in the middle.
00:57:24.000 Oh, okay.
00:57:25.000 That's why I added more time to you.
00:57:26.000 That's time right there.
00:57:27.000 Yeah.
00:57:28.000 But did you want to finish your thought before I... Yeah, yeah.
00:57:31.000 I was going to say...
00:57:32.000 I was going to say...
00:57:33.000 You're talking about the...
00:57:34.000 Ownership is about sovereignty.
00:57:37.000 It's a sovereignty question.
00:57:38.000 It's not necessarily about administration and management.
00:57:41.000 Okay, fair enough.
00:57:43.000 I'll put three minutes on again.
00:57:45.000 And do you guys want this where we go ahead and you guys can ask questions to each other?
00:57:49.000 Yeah, I prefer to just open it up, honestly.
00:57:51.000 You guys want to open it up?
00:57:52.000 I'm cool with that.
00:57:52.000 Yeah, I'm totally cool with that.
00:57:53.000 Okay, so that completes, because you went first, that completes round three.
00:57:56.000 So we'll go ahead and make these.
00:57:58.000 I'll put five minutes on.
00:57:59.000 You guys okay with five minutes?
00:58:00.000 Yeah, we'll take a quick break.
00:58:01.000 We're from our sponsor.
00:58:02.000 Yeah, a quick break from our sponsor, and then we'll go ahead and restructure this stuff.
00:58:05.000 So we completed opening in three rounds.
00:58:07.000 Go ahead, Mo.
00:58:09.000 Or I can reach out.
00:58:10.000 I can reach out.
00:58:12.000 Alright, yeah, go ahead, read the ad, and then we'll do chats after.
00:58:17.000 That's good stuff, man.
00:58:18.000 I've been taking notes the whole time.
00:58:19.000 I'm learning a bunch from you guys.
00:58:21.000 Go ahead, Mo.
00:58:22.000 This episode is sponsored by BioComplete 3.
00:58:27.000 Digestive issues is something affecting millions of people.
00:58:30.000 This is caused by a potential toxin that's in all of the healthy foods.
00:58:35.000 Oh, no, it's alright.
00:58:36.000 Thank you.
00:58:40.000 Toxins in all of the, quote, healthy foods that scientists have been telling us to eat with a fraudulent food pyramid for the longest time.
00:58:50.000 And this potential toxin causes digestive issues according to Dr.
00:58:56.000 Gundry, a world-renowned cardiologist.
00:58:58.000 This is affecting millions of people in the nation.
00:59:03.000 Warning signs include weight gain, fatigue, and digestive discomfort and stiff joints, even skin problems.
00:59:10.000 Dr.
00:59:11.000 Gundry explains these side effects are often mistaken for normal signs of aging because digestive issues develop usually over a matter of years, even decades.
00:59:22.000 I can assure you that the damaging is probably caused by these health foods And it's far from normal.
00:59:31.000 The good news is you can easily fix the problem from your own home.
00:59:36.000 And it's very simple.
00:59:38.000 Go find this yourself at gutcleanseprotocol.com slash studio.
00:59:46.000 That is gutcleanseprotocol.com slash studio.
00:59:51.000 Clink the link in the description below the video.
00:59:55.000 And remember, gutcleanseprotocol.com slash studio.
01:00:01.000 And thank you, BioComplete, for sponsoring this episode.
01:00:05.000 I'll retell the charts, and then we'll get back into it.
01:00:07.000 So we completed an opening round, right, where they gave their stance on everything, and then obviously three rounds back and forth, and then we're going to open it up for five minutes of open dialogue, versus only three.
01:00:19.000 So it'll be a total of five rounds of open dialogue, five minutes apiece, and you guys will be able to kind of just have dialogue, because you guys are pretty much...
01:00:25.000 We've established your grounding, and now it's more about clarifying the other's positions so that you can respond to it.
01:00:31.000 So that makes more sense in this situation.
01:00:32.000 Got to be fluid, right?
01:00:34.000 We got here, Myron.
01:00:35.000 Have you heard about Telegram CEO getting arrested for not moderating in individual chat groups?
01:00:38.000 I know, bro.
01:00:39.000 It's fucking crazy.
01:00:40.000 What will this mean going forward for FNF Telegram group?
01:00:43.000 Well, we still got our Telegram group, but it might have to move to Signal, man.
01:00:46.000 This is wild.
01:00:47.000 France is a failed nation.
01:00:48.000 What else we got here?
01:00:50.000 Eggie goes, WFNF for having such great content, especially this year.
01:00:53.000 We got you guys.
01:00:54.000 Always the best when Wilson is on the pod.
01:00:56.000 W Andrew, WFNF, God bless.
01:00:58.000 So where are the beads at?
01:00:59.000 Fucking beads.
01:01:00.000 The beads.
01:01:02.000 I told you, Mo.
01:01:03.000 The beads.
01:01:04.000 Speaking of which, by the way, guys, we're going to actually have Hobbs and Andrew on tomorrow.
01:01:09.000 We're going to do FNF News tomorrow, guys.
01:01:13.000 Mo, Mo, shut up, man.
01:01:16.000 Goddamn, let me say what I'm saying.
01:01:18.000 Yeah, so we're going to go ahead and have FNF News tomorrow, guys.
01:01:22.000 With Haas and with Andrew Wilson.
01:01:23.000 Maybe we'll get Jackson Hinkle in here as well.
01:01:26.000 It'll be a good conversation.
01:01:27.000 And then, obviously, Wednesday, I think we're going to go ahead and drop the Dan Bilzerian interview.
01:01:30.000 So we're going to do the debate tonight, and then FNF News will be tomorrow, guys.
01:01:33.000 Tomorrow night, 9 or 10 p.m.
01:01:34.000 Nice change.
01:01:35.000 Yeah.
01:01:36.000 What do we got here?
01:01:37.000 Yo, Mo, I sent you a DM on IG, agl.sdl99.
01:01:41.000 I'm trying to start.
01:01:42.000 No.
01:01:42.000 Oh, man.
01:01:42.000 This dude, bro.
01:01:44.000 Communism will win.
01:01:45.000 Stop crying.
01:01:46.000 B-Men.
01:01:46.000 Okay?
01:01:47.000 That's from Janner.
01:01:49.000 Meyer needs to check his ears.
01:01:50.000 Mo spoke fine.
01:01:51.000 Okay, just quiet.
01:01:53.000 What else do we got here?
01:01:55.000 Anything else?
01:01:56.000 Oh, okay.
01:01:57.000 Beyond Sarah Penn, he goes, What does communism have to say about morality?
01:02:02.000 Communism being a strictly materialistic philosophy, what's to stop degeneracy from developing in your communist utopia?
01:02:10.000 We'll get into that probably during the debate.
01:02:12.000 And then we got, What Haas means by brief economic disruption is the single greatest loss of human life in recorded history caused by mass famine.
01:02:21.000 Um...
01:02:21.000 I don't know if you want to respond to that.
01:02:23.000 That's complete nonsense.
01:02:25.000 China had cyclical famines regularly, all the time before communism.
01:02:30.000 So much so that nobody even noticed it.
01:02:32.000 Nobody cared.
01:02:32.000 It's like in Africa today when we know everyone's starving, but we somehow don't attribute this to capitalism.
01:02:38.000 We just say, ah, they're starving.
01:02:39.000 That's how it is.
01:02:41.000 Okay.
01:02:41.000 What else we got here?
01:02:43.000 Alright, cool.
01:02:44.000 So we're going to go ahead and put five minutes on the clock, guys.
01:02:47.000 And we're going to go into more of the open dialogue.
01:02:50.000 We'll start with, I think it's, yeah, it's on Andrew.
01:02:53.000 Andrew.
01:02:54.000 Yeah, so, Haas, I appreciate you opening it up, too, because some of this requires a lot of clarification so we can get to the heart of these positions.
01:03:01.000 And you're welcome to ask me whatever you want.
01:03:03.000 And if you think you have a point that needs to be clarified and you need to cut in, I'm not going to take any offense to that.
01:03:10.000 Okay, sure.
01:03:10.000 Yeah, so to kind of dive in here, I did notice something of a contradiction, and this is why I'm focusing on the ownership portion, what you mean by ownership here in the means of production.
01:03:21.000 Yeah.
01:03:22.000 To me, ownership is this belongs to me, the individual.
01:03:27.000 You're making kind of a different claim here.
01:03:29.000 I think that ownership of property is a way to exercise power, and I think that you're trying to control that exercise of power at the individual level.
01:03:38.000 And perhaps regulation could be good for that.
01:03:41.000 But can you just clarify one more time because we just had to break what you mean by ownership here?
01:03:46.000 Because when you gave the example of the Chinese, you said, well, wait a second.
01:03:51.000 What can happen is they have a rep, and if the rep isn't doing, you know, or...
01:03:56.000 That's just the ability to get people's input in the political process, not necessarily the fundamental ownership.
01:04:05.000 The ownership is that all of the land, for example, in China is either owned by the state or it's owned by the cooperatives of the village level, collectively.
01:04:13.000 And they have the power to lease out the land to whoever they want.
01:04:16.000 And these leases are never permanent.
01:04:19.000 They're a few decades or something.
01:04:21.000 What about individual interests?
01:04:23.000 Individual interests for land ownership for just the sake of having it.
01:04:27.000 How could that be an immoral proposition?
01:04:29.000 How could that be a proposition in which you can say, this is wrong for a person to do, to actually own a thing which is then theirs?
01:04:37.000 Well, because it's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of power and politics.
01:04:40.000 To own land, to truly own it, you have to conquer it by the sword.
01:04:43.000 That's how you own land.
01:04:45.000 Why would that be an entailment that it must be conquered by the sword?
01:04:48.000 Because there is no ownership of land to anyone or anything in history that was not conquered forcefully.
01:04:57.000 Perhaps you could say certain groups come in and they take land, right?
01:05:01.000 Sometimes the land isn't even occupied, right?
01:05:04.000 They don't even need to use force.
01:05:06.000 They just put up a flag and say, this is mine.
01:05:08.000 What makes it not theirs?
01:05:10.000 What makes it not theirs is...
01:05:12.000 I mean, what makes it theirs, historically, from classical political economies, they'll say because their labor was used to cultivate the land and their labor is being used to participate in it, this is what makes it theirs.
01:05:23.000 This is what makes it reflect their fundamental essence and their fundamental being, right?
01:05:27.000 When you have societies constituted by a very complex division of labor, where in order to produce the civilization itself at the aggregate level, You have a bunch of different moving parts and a bunch of different kinds of labor that are working together that are necessary and indispensable for each other.
01:05:42.000 I mean, for a factory, you need, you know, there's so many different specialized roles just for something like that, right?
01:05:47.000 That's just at the factory level.
01:05:48.000 Now think of it at the level of a country.
01:05:50.000 There's so many different types of labor that are necessary for a nation to exist, just to be able to feed itself and clothe itself and so on.
01:05:58.000 No disagreement there.
01:05:59.000 So how can we pin down, you know, if you want to take this at a more moral level, that someone in particular is entitled absolutely to own this in the way that you're talking about, like at the level of sovereignty and power, when they are interdependent on others just as much as well?
01:06:17.000 Because if all we have is what's intuitive...
01:06:20.000 And it seems like this is the system that you're advocating is intuition.
01:06:24.000 I don't see how else you're advocating for anything other than I would, and I'm going to be tongue-in-cheek a bit here, my preferences, right?
01:06:32.000 And my intuition.
01:06:34.000 Intuitively, people seem to want to own things themselves.
01:06:37.000 They want those things to be theirs.
01:06:39.000 They don't want them to be collective.
01:06:41.000 For instance, right?
01:06:42.000 I own my wife.
01:06:44.000 Now, I don't mean ownership the same way that, you know, I would maybe own this studio or something like this.
01:06:50.000 But I think you understand the gist, or the geist, as Hagel would say, of what I'm getting at here.
01:06:55.000 She's mine.
01:06:56.000 I'm not sharing her.
01:06:58.000 I'm not sharing my kids, right?
01:07:00.000 Now, aside from the wife thing, we can get into that later, but let's just say this mug, this is your mug, I want to drink out of it, I don't want to share it with anyone else, it's mine.
01:07:08.000 No, no, no, this is, yeah, I get what you're saying now.
01:07:11.000 This is my mug.
01:07:13.000 I use it for something.
01:07:14.000 It's mine.
01:07:15.000 I'm the one who uses it, and it's mine, right?
01:07:17.000 So you're giving content to it.
01:07:19.000 You're using it in a way that is reflective of your humanity, reflective of your existence, and, of course, any civilization recognizes and respects those boundaries, that this is yours because this is what you use, right?
01:07:33.000 But here's the problem.
01:07:34.000 Capitalist private property isn't just I want to use this, and that's what defines its exclusivity.
01:07:40.000 It's about an institution where you're pledging fundamental means of production and resources that we all depend on and all rely upon for the sole and exclusive purpose of making a profit.
01:07:51.000 Not even necessarily making profit For, like, a predefined goal of, like, I want to get rich, I want to have a yacht with women, and I want to have a luxurious life.
01:07:59.000 Even that would be more compatible with communism, because at least there's a goal that's human at the end of it, right?
01:08:05.000 But the capitalist system doesn't have human goals.
01:08:08.000 It's a maddening process of capital just self-expanding blindly only for the purpose of profit.
01:08:15.000 And that's five minutes there.
01:08:17.000 I was going to just let him start.
01:08:18.000 Can we extend it for a minute?
01:08:19.000 Yeah, yeah, we can.
01:08:23.000 These systems don't exist in a vacuum.
01:08:25.000 When you say a capitalist system, you're talking about people.
01:08:28.000 These are human beings who are at the heads of these systems.
01:08:32.000 I don't believe that just because you're a capitalist, you're a monster.
01:08:35.000 Of course you don't believe that either.
01:08:36.000 Nor if you're invested in a capitalist system, you're a monster.
01:08:39.000 Clearly though, people want to individually be able to have at least some autonomy.
01:08:46.000 Auto, law, right?
01:08:47.000 Law of yourself.
01:08:49.000 To own things which are theirs, and they share with nobody.
01:08:52.000 It's not yours.
01:08:53.000 It's not to help you.
01:08:54.000 It's not to do anything for you.
01:08:56.000 And you can go fuck yourself, right?
01:08:58.000 But that's just a personal use.
01:08:59.000 That's for personal consumption.
01:09:00.000 Yeah, but the thing is, is like, why is it that that would in any way...
01:09:05.000 Well, but hang on.
01:09:06.000 You said earlier, when I asked about private land ownership, you said, no, you can't own that unless it's benefiting somebody else.
01:09:12.000 Yeah.
01:09:12.000 Ah, no, no, no.
01:09:13.000 Okay.
01:09:14.000 There's a misunderstanding there.
01:09:15.000 I can clarify.
01:09:17.000 I'm talking about, for example, owning fundamental means of production that, like, everyone relies upon, right?
01:09:23.000 And you're just saying, I want this just because I want it for no reason.
01:09:26.000 Well, if you want it just because you want to use it exclusively, that's still a reason, right?
01:09:32.000 That's not for no reason.
01:09:33.000 That's not an arbitrary thing.
01:09:34.000 There's civilization, and it varies...
01:09:37.000 By what civilization we're talking about, recognizes boundaries by which, you know, privacy of the individual is recognized.
01:09:44.000 See, this is the thing that I think is so difficult, and I think this is maybe the language stuff you were talking about earlier, that Marxists are obfuscating language.
01:09:52.000 Well, it's because things didn't always mean...
01:09:55.000 What they mean to us now, like private property.
01:09:57.000 We think of private property, we're like, this is my lawn, it's private property, fuck off and don't come on my lawn.
01:10:03.000 Like, oh, that's private property.
01:10:04.000 But in reality, the private part of private property wasn't that it was an exclusively individual or human use, it was that this was institutionally cast off Yeah.
01:10:21.000 Yeah.
01:10:24.000 Yeah.
01:10:33.000 Own so many homes that are meant for people to live in just for purposes of speculation and just for purposes of generating fictitious capital and fictitious profits that are not even productive.
01:10:45.000 This is exactly what I'm talking about.
01:10:46.000 A bank owns an asset.
01:10:48.000 Hang on, I'm sorry.
01:10:49.000 Let's back up.
01:10:50.000 I'm talking on the individual level.
01:10:52.000 Before we get to the corporate level.
01:10:53.000 That's the beautiful thing about what I'm talking about here.
01:10:57.000 That's the kicker.
01:10:58.000 We tend to think that capitalism promotes individual ownership and individual autonomy or whatever.
01:11:04.000 But the opposite is true.
01:11:06.000 Capitalism has led to banks owning everything, not individuals.
01:11:10.000 And to me, that is exactly the consequence of the system of private property itself.
01:11:14.000 Yeah, but communism itself, the way that you are promoting it here, is not really telling us why we wouldn't just be shifting from bankers owning everything to just Group A owning everything.
01:11:25.000 If you believe in forced doctrine, Group A, in this case government's just going to own everything.
01:11:29.000 They'll allocate the housing how they see fit instead of the bank.
01:11:33.000 It seems like all you're doing is shifting from one person who owns everything And is then utilizing speculation and everything else in order to profit themselves to just another group doing the exact same thing.
01:11:46.000 Well, I would say, although there's no guarantees that it would be perfect, I would say it would be an improvement.
01:11:50.000 Why?
01:11:50.000 Because the banker is accountable to no one.
01:11:52.000 It's my private property.
01:11:53.000 I do whatever the fuck I want with it, and I'm accountable to no one.
01:11:56.000 Even if you have a corrupt...
01:11:58.000 Haas, hang on.
01:11:59.000 Who the hell are you accountable to when you have the force doctrine on your side?
01:12:04.000 What do you mean?
01:12:05.000 Banks don't have individual...
01:12:07.000 I mean, banks themselves don't have force doctrine.
01:12:10.000 They rely on governments who they bribe to protect them from the people or whatever it is.
01:12:15.000 They own the government.
01:12:15.000 Yeah, yeah, sure.
01:12:16.000 But in this case, all you're doing is shifting the goal to the government doing the exact same thing you're claiming these banks are doing.
01:12:23.000 And now they have all the machine guns, too.
01:12:25.000 What redress do you think the people have?
01:12:27.000 Okay, so even if we're talking about a corrupt authoritarian government that's communist or something, even if it's corrupt...
01:12:33.000 Wasn't that all of them?
01:12:34.000 No.
01:12:35.000 No, they weren't fundamentally corrupt.
01:12:37.000 But even then, even if we assume they were, it's still better because even in order for them to not get overthrown instantly, right, they have to at least justify themselves on the basis that this is what we're using it for and have to be held to that standard.
01:12:52.000 Even that, even if it was corrupt, that's better than if a banker owns everything or bankers own everything for totally antisocial purposes, just to, you know, systemically dysfunctional purposes, ones that don't even make rational economic sense, just for the purposes of making money,
01:13:09.000 but the money's backed up by nothing, and it's self-multiplying because of the way interest works, and it's totally negating its own fundamental premises.
01:13:17.000 It's not being reinforced.
01:13:18.000 Even if I agree that this could be superior to a banker class, right?
01:13:22.000 It seems like neither class is necessary for humans to be dominant.
01:13:26.000 So humanity can still move towards its interests, absent having an authoritarian, autonomous, communist government.
01:13:33.000 What's an example of that, though?
01:13:34.000 So, an example of people's self-governing, during Jackson's day, this happened often.
01:13:39.000 So, you can look at an example in American history.
01:13:43.000 Often, this was the case that people self-governed, especially around land ownership.
01:13:47.000 Now, you talk about people who bought up large swaths of land.
01:13:50.000 That's true.
01:13:51.000 But originally, you have to remember that that was done away with as well.
01:13:55.000 You could not buy up X amount of acreage if it was outside of the public use.
01:13:59.000 So, the reason for this is they wanted to stop those monopolies from happening.
01:14:04.000 So I agree with you in this sense, that it's okay.
01:14:06.000 But they happened.
01:14:08.000 Well, but, okay, under communism, the same exact types of things happened.
01:14:13.000 Like what do you mean?
01:14:14.000 Like the government now, you just have shifted the means of ownership.
01:14:17.000 But when has this happened under a communist government?
01:14:20.000 What?
01:14:20.000 Which thing?
01:14:22.000 When has a creditor class, a monopolistic class, been able to just come and take over everything?
01:14:28.000 You just shift who has it.
01:14:29.000 So you're just shifting the authority from the bank to the government.
01:14:33.000 So when does this happen under communism?
01:14:36.000 Hang on.
01:14:36.000 It always happens under communism.
01:14:38.000 It's just that you shift who owns the means of production to the authoritarian portion instead of the banker portion.
01:14:44.000 It's the same thing.
01:14:45.000 But at the worst, a communist government is mismanaging.
01:14:48.000 They're not fundamentally using the resources for an antisocial private goal.
01:14:53.000 So, okay, when you say...
01:14:55.000 Or else, if they are, then it's like the collapse of the Soviet Union where oligarchs just come and they just say it's no longer communism.
01:15:01.000 But when you say antisocial goal, what do you mean by antisocial goal?
01:15:05.000 One that in no way is accountable to the public and to publicly accountable and stated and enunciated goals like the five-year plans they have.
01:15:14.000 That's all private property ownership.
01:15:16.000 I don't have to account for what I do with my private property to the public.
01:15:19.000 It's none of their fucking business.
01:15:20.000 You're right, but a Communist Party does.
01:15:22.000 Yeah, right, exactly.
01:15:23.000 So the thing is, if I'm under the Communist Party, right, and I have my private property, do I have to give a fucking accounting to them of what I'm doing with my private property?
01:15:32.000 If I own 300 acres and, you know, there's an eaves there, there's something in the public domain, public interest...
01:15:39.000 Under communism, all of the fundamental means of production, including land, will be owned in common.
01:15:44.000 Now, if you're leasing out the land, let's say, to the state, and you have the rights to the lease one way or another, because historically, your parents had it or whatever, do you have to be accountable for everything?
01:15:54.000 I mean, no.
01:15:54.000 I mean, look, you think Chinese fruit stand sellers have to report to the government everything they're doing?
01:15:59.000 Absolutely not.
01:16:00.000 There's even more, it's even ironic, they have more autonomy and freedom and wiggle room than here.
01:16:05.000 Yeah, because the government's turning a blind eye to it for the purpose of social cohesion.
01:16:08.000 No, no, no.
01:16:08.000 Well, it's not that they're turning a blind eye.
01:16:10.000 It's that they're not interested in just meddling and interfering with people's day-to-day lives.
01:16:14.000 But what the Communist Party is ensuring, though, is that people, in the course of just living their lives normally, are doing so in a way that is harmonious and compatible with the reproduction of civilization.
01:16:26.000 The problem in America is not necessarily there's too much government or too little government.
01:16:31.000 It's that we're not holding ourselves to the standard of being reproduced as a civilization.
01:16:35.000 So anti-social values can be freely cultivated.
01:16:38.000 Pornography, OnlyFans, you name it.
01:16:41.000 These are things that are not compatible with a functioning civilization.
01:16:44.000 These things thrive under communism.
01:16:46.000 So let me give you some examples.
01:16:49.000 Abortion completely thrived under communism.
01:16:51.000 It's only stamped out by Stalinists because they were extinguishing their civilization.
01:16:57.000 The great abortion advocates in feminism...
01:17:00.000 We're, in fact, communists.
01:17:02.000 Some of the greatest abortion advocates.
01:17:04.000 That is not conducive to...
01:17:06.000 I don't think that's true at all.
01:17:07.000 I think that what you're talking about is that abortion was legalized and relaxed initially because they eliminated all of the civil codes.
01:17:14.000 But even the...
01:17:16.000 I wouldn't call them feminists, but even Alexandra Kolontai, for example...
01:17:20.000 You don't think she was a feminist?
01:17:21.000 No, I don't.
01:17:22.000 Even though she was in favor of the legalization of...
01:17:24.000 She's considered one of the great feminist minds of our time, Haas.
01:17:28.000 By Western feminists, sure, but in Russia, that's not how she would be regarded.
01:17:31.000 But anyway, look, the point is, even they recognized that even if it was to be legalized, they didn't think it was a good thing.
01:17:38.000 They thought it was a necessary evil, and that their idea was that, oh, it's harm reduction, because people are doing it anyway, because these are wartime conditions, and it's very dangerous to their health.
01:17:46.000 And they said, our goal is to eliminate this, but we're just going to make it legal so it's less dangerous to them.
01:17:51.000 Now, we could disagree with that or agree with that.
01:17:53.000 That's not necessarily my point.
01:17:55.000 But even when communist countries allow for abortion, and many of them banned it, by the way, at different periods, I don't think there's any states in history that were more aggressively pro-natalist in terms of how much they were trying to pursue these policies than communist states.
01:18:09.000 Let's remember that.
01:18:10.000 But even in the cases where it is legalized...
01:18:13.000 But that came later, Haas.
01:18:13.000 You have to concede that that came later.
01:18:15.000 We're talking about the first ten years...
01:18:18.000 Yeah, but the thing is, they foresaw that when they looked at how many abortions were happening, they went, oh shit, this is not going to be good for the numbers that we need for the state that we want.
01:18:31.000 They didn't have any moral qualms with abortion itself.
01:18:35.000 There was nobody out there moralizing about the great evil of abortion.
01:18:39.000 Okay.
01:18:54.000 I think that that is antithetical.
01:18:56.000 But who is promoting abortion?
01:18:58.000 I can give you a massive list, and you can also go to Occult Feminism.
01:19:01.000 My wife wrote it.
01:19:02.000 She gives an entire list.
01:19:03.000 But Kolontide is another one.
01:19:06.000 These people worked directly with the Soviets.
01:19:09.000 The Soviets definitely, well, before they were even really Soviets, as communism comes in, definitely abortion is something which was running rampant.
01:19:20.000 All over the place.
01:19:21.000 This is not an inherently communist thing.
01:19:24.000 This is just a modernity thing.
01:19:26.000 That wasn't that modern, right?
01:19:28.000 What do you mean by modernity?
01:19:31.000 Because many European countries had already laxed their abortion rights at that time.
01:19:37.000 This is not a uniquely communist thing at all.
01:19:39.000 Which ones?
01:19:40.000 I can't name them off the top of my head, so I could have seen that.
01:19:42.000 But look it up.
01:19:43.000 They had already legalized it in some of them.
01:19:45.000 Yeah, some of them, maybe, but the thing is, it's like, no, this was not considered a good thing at this time in history.
01:19:52.000 The communists themselves did not regard abortion ever as a good thing.
01:19:55.000 I would like one example where communists are promoting it as a good thing.
01:19:59.000 What was this year of time that you guys were talking about specifically about abortion being a thing?
01:20:03.000 He's trying to say that.
01:20:04.000 I mentioned how there's anti...
01:20:06.000 Oh, abortion was legal in the Soviet Union up till 31 or 30, I forget exactly.
01:20:11.000 That's all I want to know as a time for the audience to understand.
01:20:15.000 Neutrality on an issue like abortion is in and of itself an evil.
01:20:20.000 Saying I'm neutral to the murder of others is in and of itself an evil.
01:20:24.000 Listen, I... I respect your opinion.
01:20:27.000 I think there should be room for opinions like that, but it's not everyone's opinion.
01:20:30.000 You know, for the world.
01:20:32.000 For the world's majority.
01:20:33.000 Even in the strictest Islamic countries that have Sharia law, they still make exceptions where abortion can be allowed.
01:20:39.000 Even in the most extreme religious conservative countries in the world, they don't ban every kind of instance of abortion.
01:20:45.000 But regardless, I don't want to get into a debate about abortion.
01:20:47.000 But that wasn't what they were doing.
01:20:48.000 They weren't like, oh, the mother's life is in jeopardy.
01:20:50.000 Yes!
01:20:51.000 What did you think?
01:20:52.000 No, they were making an allowance for any case where a woman wanted to have one, they could have one.
01:20:57.000 They had nothing to do with the health of welfare.
01:20:58.000 Read their moral codes.
01:21:00.000 They had moral codes about how communists should behave.
01:21:03.000 And they shouldn't be promiscuous.
01:21:04.000 They shouldn't be sleeping around and doing whatever.
01:21:06.000 They promoted morality.
01:21:07.000 They weren't just telling everyone to...
01:21:09.000 And so the original point, though, is that we're talking about antisocial things like pornography and OnlyFans and prostitution and all these things.
01:21:16.000 I consider that to be an antisocial thing.
01:21:17.000 Right, but every communist state...
01:21:19.000 You said, well, communists promote things like that.
01:21:21.000 Every communist state totally cracked down, eliminated, and banned all of those things.
01:21:26.000 What?
01:21:26.000 Which things?
01:21:27.000 Pornography?
01:21:27.000 Prostitution, pornography, all this sex industry in general.
01:21:31.000 Yeah, sure.
01:21:31.000 The kind of tightness which was around there, but so did fascist states.
01:21:36.000 They did the exact same thing.
01:21:38.000 Fascist states will also clamp down on moral degeneracy.
01:21:41.000 This is not a point towards communism.
01:21:43.000 No, no, no.
01:21:43.000 Fascist states...
01:21:46.000 Fascist, I would say, fascist-occupied countries were hypocrites.
01:21:49.000 They would claim that, oh, we're against degeneracy, and they would target the degeneracy on a superficial level, but as far as the root causes of the degeneracy, they would leave a blind eye to it.
01:21:58.000 The Nazis, when they occupied Europe, they would establish institutionalized brothels where they would...
01:22:04.000 Yeah, yeah, I'm just telling you, they didn't...
01:22:06.000 Yeah, but you're moving the goalposts.
01:22:08.000 Hang on, hang on.
01:22:09.000 Saying, well, wait a second.
01:22:10.000 Yes, they did the exact same thing that the communists did by outlawing it.
01:22:15.000 They did.
01:22:15.000 You're just making the claim, oh, they weren't going after the root, which is capitalism.
01:22:19.000 Right, so they didn't eliminate it.
01:22:21.000 Failed to demonstrate, though, that capitalism itself was the root of the problem.
01:22:25.000 And the thing is, is like, look, they crack down on the same sorts of degeneracy inside of fascist states, and you don't need communism nor fascism to crack down on this.
01:22:35.000 This type of degeneracy comes from egalitarian principles.
01:22:38.000 It comes from equality principles.
01:22:40.000 It does not come from theological principles.
01:22:44.000 So is communism egalitarian?
01:22:46.000 I think, fundamentally, it proposes egalitarianism.
01:22:50.000 So why were communists so severely against moral and cultural degeneracy, then?
01:22:56.000 Because I think it wasn't in the interest of the state to pursue those things.
01:23:02.000 But I just gave you an instance where the ultimate degeneracy, which is murder in the womb, they definitely stayed completely neutral on that.
01:23:11.000 I think the sex industry is a much more fundamental evil than a case where some abortions are allowed.
01:23:18.000 I'd rather that there be prostitutions and dead babies.
01:23:21.000 I mean, again, I understand it's a contentious issue, and there's a lot of extremes.
01:23:25.000 For example, the United States, liberal states, had very extreme lax abortion law, right?
01:23:30.000 Where you can terminate at eight months and nine months.
01:23:33.000 Nowhere in the world was this...
01:23:35.000 I mean, it's unthinkable in liberal Europe.
01:23:37.000 It's unthinkable anywhere in the world.
01:23:39.000 I don't think this is an egalitarian issue.
01:23:41.000 It's a liberal problem.
01:23:43.000 Where they promote the most forms of egalitarianism they possibly can, under the idea, even surpassing equality to equity, saying, okay, equality's not even enough, has to be equitable, right?
01:23:57.000 Where now, if your box isn't big enough at the analogy, you've heard this, right?
01:24:02.000 If the box isn't big enough, we have to build you a bigger box.
01:24:04.000 You could look over the fence, too.
01:24:05.000 Let me ask you a question.
01:24:06.000 Why take them at face value?
01:24:08.000 They say, we want to have equity for all these oppressed minorities.
01:24:11.000 Why take them at face value?
01:24:12.000 I don't, but I don't take communists at face value.
01:24:14.000 Well, communists have results, and meanwhile, what Kamala Harris has is promising World War III, more funding for Israel, and more enriching of the capitalist class.
01:24:22.000 So, but here's the issue, right?
01:24:23.000 This talk of equity and stuff, is it not clear that this is just a way to stem the majority working class populist occurrence in your country?
01:24:32.000 If I'm constantly propping up minorities as a political tool, it's not that I want everyone to be equal or it's about egalitarianism.
01:24:39.000 It's just a political strategy to demoralize the working class majority.
01:24:43.000 You're absolutely right, but...
01:24:45.000 That being said, I can concede the point that this type of class warfare is being utilized on purpose to create division among individual people.
01:24:54.000 You and I both agree that that's true.
01:24:56.000 There's no dispute there.
01:24:58.000 But saying that communism, the answer to this, is to strip autonomous property rights, period.
01:25:05.000 Which is basically what your position reduces to.
01:25:08.000 Seems like you're really throwing the baby out with the backwater here.
01:25:11.000 I want to draw from the spirit of the Communist Manifesto, which is like, we don't want to strip the autonomous property rights of the individual because capitalism has already done this.
01:25:23.000 Capitalism has enslaved and immiserated this entire nation with debt such that even business owners...
01:25:29.000 And this is the quintessential example that we're told of free enterprise.
01:25:33.000 Majority of them are in debt.
01:25:34.000 They don't own everything.
01:25:35.000 They're in debt.
01:25:35.000 They have to pay mortgages.
01:25:36.000 They have to pay interest on the loans that they took out.
01:25:39.000 And how many of them are actually profitable?
01:25:41.000 Even the biggest corporations in this country.
01:25:44.000 Are in debt.
01:25:45.000 They are not autonomous.
01:25:46.000 Even the largest, most, you name them, Starbucks, McDonald's, whatever, they all are in debt, and it's ultimately the bankers and the financial institutions that control everything.
01:25:57.000 They're not really in debt.
01:25:57.000 They get obscene profits, and they report that they have a lot of debt, so they don't have to pay taxes.
01:26:03.000 That's true.
01:26:03.000 They're not in debt.
01:26:04.000 That's only true for the industries that collateralize.
01:26:07.000 That's most industries.
01:26:08.000 No, no, no.
01:26:09.000 The industries that collateralize the loans that creditors give out, this is oil, this is energy, and on that account, you're right.
01:26:15.000 This is what the oil industry does.
01:26:17.000 And going back to force doctrine, right?
01:26:18.000 Who gives a shit how much debt you have when you have the most powerful military on planet Earth with a navy that can say, oh, we'll just blow you up, fucker.
01:26:26.000 But who owns that military?
01:26:28.000 Well, the United States government owns it and deploys it.
01:26:31.000 But if the government is in debt and 50% of my income taxes are going to servicing the interest on the national debt, then our government is clearly occupied and controlled by the private interest.
01:26:43.000 By who?
01:26:44.000 By the private interest.
01:26:45.000 And who are they?
01:26:45.000 The international financial institutions, the bankers.
01:26:49.000 And who owns them?
01:26:51.000 That's the thing.
01:26:51.000 There's no individual that owns it.
01:26:53.000 It's an institution that is set aside and is the basis, the purport of this institution.
01:26:58.000 If you had to give a representation between a people group of who owns most of these banking institutions, who would it be?
01:27:06.000 You think it's the Jews?
01:27:07.000 I'm asking you.
01:27:08.000 I don't think it is.
01:27:09.000 I've looked up the numbers.
01:27:10.000 I've looked up the names.
01:27:11.000 I've studied this.
01:27:12.000 I've had my people study it.
01:27:13.000 We do not find any case where the ruling capitalist class is majority Jewish.
01:27:18.000 Now, is there over-representation relative to their population?
01:27:21.000 Of course, yes.
01:27:21.000 Is that because, though, Haas?
01:27:23.000 But there is no one ethnic group or ethnic or religious group.
01:27:27.000 I want to make sure I'm totally clear here.
01:27:29.000 Okay, real quick.
01:27:31.000 I just want to make sure I'm completely clear here.
01:27:32.000 Yeah.
01:27:33.000 I want to make sure that you're not being biased because Bolshevikism, which you believe in, Big C Communism, was conducted, orchestrated, and executed by Jews.
01:27:44.000 No, it wasn't.
01:27:45.000 It was.
01:27:47.000 I mean, okay.
01:27:48.000 Well, if it was conducted and orchestrated by Jews...
01:27:53.000 Why is it that only for two years, and not even two years, just like specific months within a year, was the Politburo even half Jewish?
01:28:01.000 For the all-round majority of the existence of the party, Jews were a minority at every level and at every rank of a position you can have.
01:28:09.000 So, when you take a whole, you take a whole of an organization...
01:28:12.000 Right.
01:28:13.000 You can have people who over-represent different key positions inside of an organization.
01:28:19.000 If they over-represent these key positions, they're still in positions of authority.
01:28:24.000 Over-representation doesn't imply control.
01:28:27.000 That's just relative to your population.
01:28:29.000 That's true, unless we have the positions of which they're in control.
01:28:32.000 Such as which?
01:28:34.000 Well, so, for instance, inside of a bank, right, you would look at who are the policy makers?
01:28:39.000 Yeah.
01:28:39.000 Inside of government, you would look at the same thing.
01:28:41.000 Who are the people who actually...
01:28:42.000 Right.
01:28:42.000 So in the Bolshevik Party, who controlled everything in the Bolshevik Party, then?
01:28:47.000 Who?
01:28:47.000 You tell me.
01:28:48.000 It wasn't Jews.
01:28:50.000 Well, who was it?
01:28:50.000 Well, okay, we have Stalin as the General Secretary.
01:28:53.000 He's not a Jew.
01:28:54.000 The major Jew is Lazar Kaganovich, who's the Commissar of Transportation, okay?
01:28:59.000 So that doesn't sound like having an office or an administrative position where you're like...
01:29:03.000 Controlling everything or controlling everyone.
01:29:06.000 All the main positions of executive control...
01:29:08.000 I mean, for a few years, you had an NKVD chief who was Jewish.
01:29:13.000 That was Yagoda, right?
01:29:15.000 After Yagoda, he gets purged, he gets shot, so clearly he wasn't...
01:29:19.000 What about Lenin?
01:29:19.000 Lenin wasn't Jewish.
01:29:21.000 Okay, what about Trotsky?
01:29:23.000 Trotsky was killed, okay, and he was kicked out in 1926.
01:29:26.000 Was he Jewish?
01:29:28.000 Trotsky was a Jew, but he was not a Bolshevik.
01:29:32.000 The thought leaders definitely were Jewish.
01:29:39.000 Give me the list.
01:29:42.000 I'll explain the history to you.
01:29:43.000 Trotsky, the Bolshevik party existed for decades.
01:29:47.000 That was Lenin, that was Stalin.
01:29:49.000 These were the OG Bolsheviks.
01:29:50.000 They were a group that stuck together, right?
01:29:53.000 Trotsky was never part of this group.
01:29:55.000 Trotsky latched onto the revolution at the last moment in 1917, and because of his pledging of support and enthusiasm, the Bolsheviks let this guy in.
01:30:04.000 Now, when all is said and done, the civil war is over.
01:30:09.000 Trotsky is trying to usurp power from the Bolsheviks.
01:30:11.000 Stalin has to come and say, you're not one of us.
01:30:13.000 You weren't an OG. You know, you weren't there with us in the very beginning.
01:30:16.000 So Trotsky wasn't a Bolshevik, and he was kicked out in 1926, shortly after the state itself was created.
01:30:22.000 So to say that Trotsky was a thought leader of the Bolsheviks, A, he's not even really a Bolshevik, B, he wasn't in all significant influence on the formation of the Soviet state, because he was kicked out in 1926.
01:30:35.000 Let me concede the point that it wasn't.
01:30:37.000 And then we'll fast forward to modernity, when you're trying to talk about these issues which communism is going to solve.
01:30:44.000 When you're asking about the same thing, who is in these key points?
01:30:47.000 Who is in these key demographics?
01:30:50.000 Who?
01:30:51.000 Who in terms of their ethnicity, or what do you mean?
01:30:54.000 Well, I'm asking...
01:30:55.000 The capitalist class.
01:30:56.000 Yeah, so who's in control of the means of production of information?
01:31:00.000 Let's start with that.
01:31:01.000 The banks.
01:31:03.000 It's really gonna come down to the financial institutions.
01:31:06.000 Let's talk about the media itself.
01:31:08.000 Same thing.
01:31:09.000 Okay.
01:31:10.000 No, there is no...
01:31:11.000 Is there any over-representation?
01:31:13.000 Yeah, yeah.
01:31:13.000 Look, there's so many different groups with over-representation, though.
01:31:17.000 Episcopalans have over-representation.
01:31:19.000 As a matter of fact...
01:31:20.000 Yeah, but if you look at a percentage which is narrow, the narrower the percentage gets, the more the over-representation becomes.
01:31:27.000 The reason I'm hesitant to focus that it's the Jews, the Jews, the Jews, because the majority of Jews...
01:31:33.000 Yeah, yeah.
01:31:33.000 But the majority of the Jews are not in power, and the majority of the people in power are not Jews.
01:31:38.000 Now, if there's a relationship of over-representation relative to their population, that's fine.
01:31:42.000 We could talk about that and what the causes of that are.
01:31:45.000 But over-representation doesn't prove they control it.
01:31:49.000 It just proves that they're over-represented.
01:31:51.000 That's it.
01:31:51.000 Yeah, but so what would be the proof that you control a thing?
01:31:55.000 The proof, it's in the very nature by which your power over the thing is executed, and it's all superficial.
01:32:01.000 There's a capitalist system in which all of the wealth...
01:32:05.000 We need to be super clear.
01:32:05.000 We need to be super clear.
01:32:07.000 I need to know, how do I know if you're in charge of a thing?
01:32:12.000 How do I know that?
01:32:13.000 You will know them by their fruits.
01:32:14.000 Right, you know them by their fruits.
01:32:16.000 Right, okay, so all we need is critical positions.
01:32:19.000 That's it.
01:32:20.000 The critical position, the decision-making, this type of thing.
01:32:23.000 Okay.
01:32:24.000 That's how you know who's in charge of a thing.
01:32:26.000 And the only consistent variable as far as how power has been executed and has been used, right, let's just talk about the last 50 years, is to enrich the capitalist class.
01:32:38.000 That's the only constant variable.
01:32:40.000 Is it to enrich the Jews?
01:32:41.000 Well, why are there all these poor Jews in New York that are dirt poor, that have literally nothing, that are Orthodox Jews?
01:32:46.000 Why are they literally broke, you know?
01:32:49.000 Why are there so many Jews that are broke?
01:32:50.000 It's clearly not for the benefit of...
01:32:52.000 By the way, nothing has been a bigger disaster for the Jews, if you ask me, than Israel itself.
01:32:58.000 Okay?
01:32:58.000 The Zionist project has been a total failure and a big disaster.
01:33:02.000 In whose interest was the Zionist project?
01:33:04.000 Yeah, but hang on.
01:33:04.000 Let's move back a little bit.
01:33:06.000 Yeah.
01:33:06.000 What the fuck would...
01:33:07.000 Oh, there's some poor Jews in New York have to do with anything that we're talking about when it comes to the key...
01:33:13.000 Because the only consistent variable, know them by their fruits, enriching the ruling financial class.
01:33:18.000 That's the only consistent variable.
01:33:21.000 Okay, so you can have poor people who are in New York, who are whatever ethnicity.
01:33:27.000 I still don't understand what that would have to do if you have an over-representation of certain groups in keyed-in positions.
01:33:33.000 Well, what are they doing in those positions?
01:33:36.000 On behalf of whose interests?
01:33:38.000 What are they using their power to do?
01:33:40.000 To enrich themselves.
01:33:42.000 There you go!
01:33:44.000 So that's the capitalist class.
01:33:45.000 It doesn't matter if they're Jewish, it doesn't matter if they're...
01:33:47.000 Yeah, I don't believe that if you were a communist that you couldn't do the exact same thing.
01:33:50.000 That you couldn't enrich yourself...
01:33:52.000 Show the examples, though.
01:33:53.000 ...of communists enriching themselves?
01:33:55.000 Yes.
01:33:56.000 Did Stalin die poor?
01:33:57.000 Absolutely!
01:33:58.000 He died with nothing.
01:33:59.000 He died with a pipe, he died with his shirt and his suit, and I think he had one small cabin in the woods somewhere, and that's all he had.
01:34:07.000 Look it up!
01:34:08.000 He had nothing!
01:34:09.000 He had no bank accounts.
01:34:10.000 He had no wealth.
01:34:11.000 He literally had nothing.
01:34:12.000 He could just get whatever the hell he wanted when he wanted it.
01:34:14.000 What evidence is there that Stalin was living a luxurious life?
01:34:17.000 Even Khrushchev in his memoirs, Khrushchev would complain and say, Stalin, he's so hard on us.
01:34:23.000 This is in the 1930s.
01:34:24.000 He makes us eat porridge every night.
01:34:26.000 We're never able to eat nice food.
01:34:27.000 He makes us live austere, ascetic lives.
01:34:30.000 This is the nature and character of Stalin.
01:34:32.000 So what?
01:34:33.000 So he makes you eat forage?
01:34:34.000 This somehow means that he doesn't have complete and total unilateral control?
01:34:38.000 He clearly did.
01:34:39.000 Where is the proof that he is using power to aggrandize himself and...
01:34:47.000 You mean, the proof that Stalin is what?
01:34:51.000 He's utilizing the state's resources to enrich himself?
01:34:53.000 Yeah, where's the proof?
01:34:55.000 Yeah, he's in charge of the state.
01:34:56.000 Could he have whatever he wants when he wants it?
01:34:58.000 So, Stalin is someone who fully put himself in the service of his country and his people.
01:35:02.000 Fully.
01:35:03.000 Not even 1% was dedicated to himself.
01:35:05.000 Where is the evidence of that 1%?
01:35:07.000 I'm trying to be clear here.
01:35:09.000 What is it that you're asking me?
01:35:12.000 Was Stalin not the head of the state of Russia?
01:35:16.000 Yes.
01:35:17.000 Could Stalin get whatever the hell he wanted whenever he wanted it?
01:35:21.000 Could he?
01:35:22.000 I mean, could he abuse his powers?
01:35:24.000 You're saying maybe, but had he abused his power, there would have been consequences.
01:35:27.000 When you're in a position of total unilateral control, whatever your preferences are then...
01:35:32.000 He didn't.
01:35:33.000 Even the CIA released a memo in the 1950s that said it's a big myth that Stalin has total control.
01:35:38.000 He doesn't.
01:35:38.000 He's accountable to his party.
01:35:40.000 He's actually accountable to his party.
01:35:42.000 Unless he wanted to kill him.
01:35:45.000 He could only kill people in the party if he had a consensus of the party.
01:35:48.000 That's the thing.
01:35:49.000 It's not just that Stalin didn't like this guy he had him killed.
01:35:52.000 It's a big nonsense myth.
01:35:53.000 So Stalin, who is the unilateral leader, would you say that Kim Jong-un or Kim Jong-il, same thing?
01:36:02.000 Yes.
01:36:02.000 The problem is we have an information blackout because all we get from North Korea are bullshit stories, like Yanmi Park and all.
01:36:08.000 We have an information blackout.
01:36:10.000 The reason we know, as much as we know about Stalin's Soviet Union right now, is because when the Soviet Union collapsed, the archives opened up.
01:36:16.000 So we can actually look and see about how it was working and what was going on.
01:36:20.000 We have CIA stuff that was leaked, all this kind of stuff.
01:36:23.000 North Korea, there's not a lot of information, and the only information we do seem to be getting is bullshit, you know?
01:36:29.000 Yeah, but, well, so let's move back again.
01:36:33.000 When you're talking about North Korea, you say, okay, there's an information blackout.
01:36:37.000 What I'm asking you specifically, though, you say Stalin has never used his position of power to enrich himself.
01:36:45.000 Where's the evidence of that?
01:36:46.000 Yeah.
01:36:47.000 So, when he's in service to the people, what is he doing as part of this service?
01:36:52.000 What is it?
01:36:52.000 Leading them.
01:36:53.000 He does what a leader does.
01:36:56.000 What do you think a leader does on their day-to-day tasks?
01:36:57.000 I'm asking you.
01:36:57.000 What is Stalin doing here as the position of leader?
01:37:00.000 He is attending and overseeing the business of the state, making sure that the five-year plans are being executed correctly, attending and being sent.
01:37:09.000 He's literally reading the letters of ordinary people that are being sent on a regular basis to him.
01:37:14.000 He's actually reading these things and replying.
01:37:16.000 He's overseeing the people that are under and making sure that they're doing their job.
01:37:20.000 He's consulting with all the different departments of the state in order to make sure that everything...
01:37:25.000 And how many people died under his reign due to the massive famine which was caused...
01:37:31.000 The one in 32-33, where there was a combination of one of the biggest droughts in their history and there is proof that the Kulak class was destroying and burning grain as a form of political resistance.
01:37:43.000 That they were trying to reallocate and redistribute these supplies, and they were literally putting them in grain houses and in storage units and things like this.
01:37:53.000 They were rotting away because they were trying to distribute equally these types of supplies.
01:37:58.000 Listen, the famine was a disaster, but let's actually place things into context.
01:38:02.000 Real quick, guys.
01:38:03.000 We've been going 35 minutes on this topic, and I didn't want to stop anything because you guys were going...
01:38:09.000 But, you know what we'll do?
01:38:11.000 We'll take a quick break, and then I'll read some chats, and then we'll go back into this, and we'll talk about the famine and Stalin.
01:38:15.000 This is getting heated, man.
01:38:16.000 No, I mean, no, I didn't want to stop it.
01:38:18.000 Obviously, this is open discourse here, and doing time rounds would probably interrupt the flow.
01:38:23.000 So what I'll do is, this is like a good little point to put the bookmark in.
01:38:27.000 We're going to continue to talk about Stalin and, obviously, the famine.
01:38:31.000 What else do we got?
01:38:32.000 We got any chats here to read?
01:38:33.000 Yeah, we got chats and then that.
01:38:34.000 Okay, go ahead, Mo.
01:38:35.000 Do whatever you want to do first.
01:38:37.000 All right.
01:38:38.000 Go ahead, real quick.
01:38:39.000 This episode is sponsored by...
01:38:44.000 No, I'm good.
01:38:45.000 Rumble 1775 Coffee.
01:38:49.000 What do President Candidate Kamala Harris or even former President Barack Obama Hussein have in common with our Rumble 1775 Coffee?
01:39:02.000 Nothing at all!
01:39:04.000 Because we don't lie about our origin, that's why.
01:39:07.000 We tell you exactly what's in our beans and where they come from, why they are the best and richest tasting coffee beans in the world.
01:39:15.000 At 1775 Coffee Company, we cut straight to the point.
01:39:20.000 So stop supporting the woke liberal coffee from big corporations that hate you and make you sick.
01:39:28.000 Rumble's very own 1775 Coffee not only tastes amazing, but it also supports free speech and all the rumble.
01:39:38.000 So go to 1775coffee.com slash fresh and use the code FRESH right now and get 15% off your order.
01:39:50.000 So that is 1775coffee.com slash fresh.
01:39:57.000 And use the code FRESH right now.
01:40:00.000 Get 15% off your order.
01:40:02.000 Fight the woke mob.
01:40:03.000 Brew rebellion.
01:40:05.000 And thank you, 1775coffee, for sponsoring this episode.
01:40:12.000 Gotta stay fresh.
01:40:13.000 Alright, so I'll read some of these chats and we'll get back into it.
01:40:16.000 Was the Hold'em War a cynical, cyclical famine also, Haas?
01:40:20.000 Weird how the famine in China coincided while Mao mobilizing peasants to make big iron during the Great Leap Forward instead of growing food?
01:40:28.000 Okay, that will be addressed, I think, in this next conversation, right, brother?
01:40:31.000 Yeah, yeah, hopefully, yeah.
01:40:33.000 And then, thanks to both Andrew and Haas for this great debate and the Fresh and Fit host and crew for setting it up.
01:40:38.000 Communism is her on, bro.
01:40:39.000 Okay, let me go.
01:40:40.000 I just wonder what the chat thinks, who's winning this debate right now.
01:40:43.000 It's like split half and half.
01:40:45.000 It's going everywhere, but it's good discussion.
01:40:47.000 Hey guys, big fan while Andrew's out there.
01:40:49.000 Can you guys do a Money Monday with him on how to support a family on a low-income and or how to change policy in your local government?
01:40:57.000 If Andrew wants to do it, we can.
01:40:59.000 Sure.
01:40:59.000 WFNF, fresh updates, thank you.
01:41:02.000 And then Emmanuel goes, quick question, Haz.
01:41:04.000 Why did communism, if so great, lead to nearly 100 million deaths?
01:41:08.000 Why have you never thought critically about whether that's true or not?
01:41:11.000 Because I'll spoil it for you.
01:41:12.000 It's fake.
01:41:13.000 It's not true.
01:41:15.000 And then Godboy says Gorilla's in control.
01:41:18.000 Okay.
01:41:19.000 Anything else?
01:41:21.000 Alright, cool.
01:41:22.000 So we will go ahead and turn it back.
01:41:26.000 Do you guys need anything to drink or anything?
01:41:28.000 I'm good, yeah.
01:41:29.000 You sure?
01:41:30.000 I'm ready to keep going.
01:41:32.000 You guys just want to keep going free dialogue or you want to put a timer on the clock?
01:41:40.000 I'm cool with it.
01:41:41.000 Free dialogue is okay with you guys.
01:41:43.000 Because you guys are actually respectful and you guys are able to answer each other questions and keep going.
01:41:47.000 I do want to get into, and I've been kind of fleshing this out, pulling out the dialogue so I understand exactly what your position is.
01:41:55.000 I'd finally like to get into the moral position of communism.
01:41:59.000 But not the famine?
01:42:00.000 Because I kind of want to...
01:42:01.000 Yeah, we can get to that.
01:42:02.000 Can we start with the moral position of communism?
01:42:05.000 And then we can dive into the famine portion.
01:42:07.000 That's where we left off with the fanning, but wherever you guys want to start.
01:42:10.000 Yeah, I'm cool with the morals.
01:42:11.000 I want to make sure that we don't bypass it because it's an elongated conversation.
01:42:16.000 I'm going to start the timer anyway, just so I know it, but you guys go ahead.
01:42:19.000 Take it away.
01:42:20.000 Yeah, so my biggest issue here is the reconciliation.
01:42:24.000 So I'll concede a few points.
01:42:26.000 There's no doubt that Haas knows far more about communism and communist history than me.
01:42:30.000 He should, right?
01:42:32.000 He's not an orthodox apologist, for instance, nor...
01:42:35.000 So I expect that he knows inside of his domain more than I do about X thing.
01:42:40.000 But it still has to, from his view, logically add up to two things.
01:42:44.000 One, the practical application, which I can concede even there could be some practicality to communism.
01:42:50.000 But I need to know the moral implication.
01:42:53.000 And this is what we're diving into, is the moral implication.
01:42:56.000 And I need to know what you're basing this on, other than your own intuition.
01:43:00.000 And if there is something external to your own intuition, and why we should follow it...
01:43:06.000 I would say, and I'm going to posit this, that people themselves need to have something which is higher than them to move towards.
01:43:14.000 I think that you would say the same thing with the state, right?
01:43:17.000 History.
01:43:18.000 But when it comes to decadence, right, how is communism preventing this except with the barrel of a gun versus argumentation and the ethics around argumentation that you find from religion and theology?
01:43:30.000 And I'd like to dive into the moral discussion of that.
01:43:33.000 You know, I think, yeah, it's a good question.
01:43:36.000 I think that, you know, I reject the separation of morality from the other spheres of the division of labor, so to speak.
01:43:45.000 I think that a human existence, inclusive of its economic reality, inclusive of its social and political reality, and its historical reality, is infused with the moral.
01:43:55.000 The moral has significance for every historical era, for every historical situation we find ourselves in.
01:44:02.000 So, for example, we don't have to get into the conflict itself, but just an example, you can disagree.
01:44:08.000 I think, for example, the question of morality for a Palestinian, it's not a question of propositional logic.
01:44:14.000 It's not a question of reasoning.
01:44:17.000 It is based in a concrete historical circumstance in which their people are being occupied by a foreign aggressor, and it is...
01:44:24.000 Yes, maybe it's a matter of intuition, but it's the clear moral path, which is to resist, right?
01:44:30.000 So, history is riddled with situations like this.
01:44:33.000 I would argue that every instance of the emergence of prophets, biblical prophets historically, they're giving people a message, but the message is not being justified to them on the basis of propositional logic.
01:44:47.000 It's not being justified on the basis of...
01:44:50.000 A rational authority.
01:44:51.000 It makes sense in the time that it's in, and people heed the call because they receive it as something that's making sense of the injustice of the era they're living in.
01:45:00.000 There's many things here which would make sense even in this situation, which could be superior to picking a side.
01:45:06.000 For instance, why do I care if Jews and Palestinians kill each other?
01:45:09.000 Fuck them, right?
01:45:10.000 What do I care?
01:45:11.000 Yeah, but if you were a Palestinian, you would regard it as the moral thing to resist, no?
01:45:14.000 Or if I was a Jew, I would regard it as the moral thing to exterminate the Palestinians, right?
01:45:18.000 But what kind of morals would you have?
01:45:20.000 I think as Stalin...
01:45:21.000 But this is why I'm asking for kind of the epistemology here.
01:45:26.000 I'm not asking for anything too precise.
01:45:28.000 Yeah.
01:45:29.000 Right?
01:45:29.000 Kind of the general idea.
01:45:31.000 I don't actually understand what the moral proposition of communism is, and Hegel certainly is not offering one.
01:45:38.000 Okay.
01:45:38.000 So what is it?
01:45:39.000 What is the morality of communism?
01:45:41.000 I think, you know, look, I don't want to...
01:45:43.000 I'm not dodging the question.
01:45:43.000 This is a direct response.
01:45:44.000 Putin said that the moral code for communist builders was a document the Communist Party of the Soviet Union released precisely to answer this question.
01:45:53.000 He says it's the same thing as the Bible.
01:45:54.000 It's the same thing.
01:45:55.000 It's not the same thing.
01:45:56.000 Well...
01:45:57.000 In my view, the morality of the communists is not a morality separated from the one that is actually ingratiated and is based in the historical existence of the people through the Bible, through the Quran, through the Confucianism in China, for example.
01:46:11.000 The communists were killing the Christians.
01:46:13.000 They weren't elevating them.
01:46:16.000 Communism, we can get into that, but communism doesn't propose creating a morality from scratch.
01:46:21.000 We regard the real moral sensibilities of the people as they actually exist, as they've been inherited and passed down by generations.
01:46:29.000 What are those moral?
01:46:29.000 Like, what is the moral thing we should be moving towards?
01:46:34.000 That question is a descriptive question.
01:46:36.000 It's not a propositional one.
01:46:37.000 It's not what should it be.
01:46:39.000 It's what is it.
01:46:40.000 It's a question of analysis.
01:46:42.000 So, for example, we can say the morality...
01:46:45.000 It's also a question of the analysis of...
01:46:47.000 Hang on, hang on.
01:46:47.000 I'm sorry.
01:46:47.000 I don't mean to cut in.
01:46:48.000 I want to clarify, though.
01:46:49.000 Yeah.
01:46:49.000 Yeah, there's a descriptor, that's true, but we're looking at an is and an ought here, all the same.
01:46:55.000 So you say, okay, we can adopt to the description of whatever the morality is...
01:46:59.000 Clearly you're not going to adopt the prescription of the morality of putting someone on a pyramid, cutting out their heart, holding it up to the sun god.
01:47:06.000 You would say, no, we're not doing that.
01:47:08.000 But human beings did do that for a long period of history.
01:47:11.000 Yeah, but that doesn't mean communism would endorse that.
01:47:13.000 No, absolutely not.
01:47:13.000 So it's moving towards some moral something.
01:47:15.000 Because communism is not something that is separating itself from the development of history.
01:47:20.000 It's the culmination of history.
01:47:21.000 We're not here to reject the Bible and reject the religious traditions of the people.
01:47:25.000 What is your grounding to say you can't take them on top of pyramids and cut their hearts out?
01:47:32.000 Why does there need to be a grounding for that?
01:47:36.000 And by grounding, by the way, you're talking about propositional logic.
01:47:39.000 You're talking about something that is basically the self-consistency of a concept.
01:47:44.000 Well, we do need to know why we're moving towards something.
01:47:49.000 The foundation of morality does not lie in logic.
01:47:53.000 The foundation of morality lies in existence.
01:47:56.000 It lies in the real existence of people struggling to make sense of that existence in relation not only to themselves, but toward others and toward the natural world.
01:48:05.000 Let's back up a little bit.
01:48:07.000 Yes, I will agree that there's something far more expressive about what morality is than propositional logic or logic of any kind can really ever express.
01:48:15.000 The external that you're talking about.
01:48:18.000 But you should still be able to give me a general idea of what it is communism, the moral descriptions of communism, are moving towards.
01:48:27.000 So in Christianity, for instance, let me give you the example.
01:48:31.000 Inside of your worldview, isn't it true that you believe that it's material conditions, right, which set what men will do, not some sort of ontology which is the man which sets what they will do?
01:48:44.000 Materialism is not about a single directional cause and effect.
01:48:49.000 What man is doing is a material reality.
01:48:53.000 It's not that the material reality is the cause of his actions.
01:48:57.000 The context by which his actions are suspended in a way that reproduces his real existence is a material existence.
01:49:03.000 So if this was a video game called Communism, the game, what's the win condition?
01:49:08.000 What do you mean?
01:49:10.000 So if you have a video game, let's say you have World of Warcraft, it's going to have its own economy, it's going to have its own player base, it's going to have its own everything, right?
01:49:20.000 It's not reality, but it's like a demi-reflection of reality, right?
01:49:27.000 So, inside of the game, there's going to be a victory condition, right?
01:49:31.000 The victory condition is, you know, kill this bad guy, right?
01:49:33.000 Ah, you beat the game.
01:49:35.000 So, what is communism's answer to beating the game?
01:49:39.000 So, the Christian answer is theosis.
01:49:40.000 That's how you win.
01:49:41.000 You beat the game, you become more like Christ, you enter into theosis.
01:49:46.000 This is our objective.
01:49:48.000 Hang on, hang on.
01:49:48.000 What we're moving towards.
01:49:49.000 This is what we want.
01:49:51.000 Theosis.
01:49:52.000 That's the victory condition.
01:49:54.000 What's the victory condition side of communism?
01:49:56.000 What is it?
01:49:57.000 What is the thing that we're moving towards so we know we beat the game?
01:50:02.000 You know, broadly, I would say the overall development of the productive forces and the prosperity and well-being of mankind.
01:50:11.000 And how do we know that that is the moral thing to move towards?
01:50:15.000 Probably in terms of population growth and the growth of wealth.
01:50:20.000 So, the growth of wealth?
01:50:22.000 The growth of wealth and the growth of human beings.
01:50:24.000 For the nation or for the individual?
01:50:26.000 For the people, not just for the individual.
01:50:29.000 Of course, not just for the individual.
01:50:30.000 And how is it that you, Haas, describe what is a wealthy person?
01:50:36.000 What is wealth to an individual?
01:50:37.000 Is it money?
01:50:38.000 Is that what you're talking about?
01:50:39.000 Material conditions?
01:50:40.000 I think it can be recorded objectively.
01:50:43.000 I mean, by wealth, I'm not just talking about luxury, I'm talking about the necessities of people to exist.
01:50:50.000 So the growth of a population, for example, can clearly be an indication that there's an expansion of wealth.
01:50:56.000 It can be, but the poorest people also populate the most now.
01:50:59.000 And they could not survive relative to...
01:51:03.000 They survive better often than the rich who abort their kids, and the middle class who abort their kids.
01:51:08.000 But if it was not for at least a relative degree of the expansion of the overall productive forces in material wealth, they would not be able to survive.
01:51:17.000 The poor seem to survive better than the rich do.
01:51:21.000 Then why weren't there 8 billion people in 1800?
01:51:26.000 Well, so, you have, and by the way, we're about to go way less than 8 billion people now.
01:51:31.000 Sure.
01:51:31.000 And there's never been more wealth.
01:51:33.000 But in 1800, we couldn't...
01:51:34.000 Hang on, hang on.
01:51:34.000 There's never been more wealth produced...
01:51:36.000 I agree.
01:51:37.000 ...on planet Earth.
01:51:38.000 So, hang on.
01:51:39.000 In 1800, we couldn't support that amount.
01:51:40.000 Hang on, hang on, hang on.
01:51:41.000 That's the question.
01:51:42.000 You have just contradicted yourself.
01:51:44.000 How could it possibly be that we have now produced more wealth on planet Earth than ever before, but we're moving into a birthrate crisis like we've never seen before?
01:51:53.000 There's no possible way that we're going to be able to reproduce at 8 billion long term.
01:51:58.000 That's fine.
01:51:58.000 No projection is saving that.
01:51:59.000 But in 1800, 8 billion people could not exist on Earth.
01:52:02.000 Because the material wealth and the productive forces in technology wasn't to advance to a sufficient degree to support them.
01:52:08.000 There's also an issue of it takes X amount of generations to reproduce X amount of people.
01:52:14.000 We don't know exactly when the starting point was.
01:52:17.000 How long do you think human beings have been around?
01:52:19.000 I don't know.
01:52:20.000 Neither do you.
01:52:20.000 No, I don't.
01:52:21.000 I'm just saying, like, do you think it's at least...
01:52:22.000 I have no idea.
01:52:23.000 Is it at least thousands of years?
01:52:25.000 Yeah, thousands, sure.
01:52:25.000 Okay, so there's thousands of years, okay, and we can clearly...
01:52:29.000 Do you think that we're recording the population accurately, or maybe like in ancient Egypt, there was like billions of people...
01:52:37.000 No, I don't think there was billions of people in ancient Egypt, but that makes my point not yours.
01:52:42.000 I think that there's a clear case in which we can see the expansion of the growth of the population globally, you know, corresponds, at least, if it's not absolute, it's a rough general tendency that this is...
01:52:53.000 This is because of the expansion.
01:52:55.000 Hang on, I'm not going to let you evade this.
01:52:57.000 You didn't really answer the question of how you reconcile this contradiction of saying, well, wait a second, it really takes a lot of wealth for this expansion to happen, and then you say we're creating more wealth than we ever have before, but this expansion of population is not happening.
01:53:11.000 In fact, it's going the other way.
01:53:12.000 Well, okay, I think there's two different arguments.
01:53:14.000 I'm not...
01:53:15.000 I'm not necessarily saying that growing wealth will inevitably, under all circumstances, expand the population.
01:53:20.000 I'm just saying...
01:53:21.000 Because materialism is not the goal, right?
01:53:23.000 Hold on.
01:53:23.000 That's not...
01:53:24.000 I'm saying it's a necessary prerequisite for it to be possible, though.
01:53:28.000 I'm saying that I don't think so.
01:53:31.000 I think that the people being born itself...
01:53:33.000 People need to eat.
01:53:33.000 They need to eat.
01:53:34.000 They need food.
01:53:35.000 But necessarily additional labor is going to create additional food.
01:53:38.000 That's what the population bomb was all about.
01:53:40.000 The population bomb had the same ideology that you do.
01:53:42.000 Oh, hey, there's too many fucking people.
01:53:44.000 Too many mouths to feed.
01:53:45.000 I'm not saying that.
01:53:46.000 I'm not saying that.
01:53:46.000 I don't know why.
01:53:47.000 Listen, listen.
01:53:48.000 I'm actually saying we should have more people on Earth, okay?
01:53:51.000 Yeah.
01:53:52.000 My point though is that in order to have more people, you need to be able to support them through developing the productive forces.
01:53:59.000 Yeah, but just having more people is going to necessarily do that.
01:54:03.000 It necessarily adds to labor.
01:54:05.000 Even if we...
01:54:09.000 I don't know if that's exactly true.
01:54:11.000 How could it not be true?
01:54:12.000 Because it's not just labor, because there's finite resources, but when you increase the methods of production with the same amount of resources, you can actually yield more.
01:54:22.000 Yeah, that's going to require labor.
01:54:25.000 Yeah, but labor alone is not enough, I think.
01:54:27.000 I think it's clear that...
01:54:28.000 What else could...
01:54:29.000 I mean, yeah, the resources are everywhere.
01:54:31.000 Here's the problem, right?
01:54:33.000 We have a steady rate of population growth for thousands and thousands of years, right?
01:54:39.000 Thousands and thousands of years, right?
01:54:40.000 In some areas, yeah.
01:54:43.000 Okay, and then in the last 200 years, it's like, wow!
01:54:46.000 It's like all the way going up.
01:54:47.000 In the last 200 years, it's gone the opposite.
01:54:48.000 So from the year 1800 to right now, I'll pull up a graph right now and show you.
01:54:51.000 It's literally done this.
01:54:53.000 The birth rates have dropped and dove out like nothing you can even imagine.
01:54:58.000 Wait, so the population has decreased significantly in the last 200 years?
01:55:01.000 Going to.
01:55:02.000 So you're going to see the zenith of this.
01:55:04.000 But I'm not talking about what it's going to.
01:55:05.000 I'm talking about what has happened as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution.
01:55:09.000 Yeah, I'm saying that the birth rates in the West have sunk like this, even though they're producing the most material wealth.
01:55:14.000 Because we utilize immigration coming in to bolster our numbers doesn't mean shit.
01:55:19.000 We're bringing into the tune of one million immigrants per year.
01:55:23.000 Let's say I concede the point that in the foreseeable future, the population numbers we have now are not going to be sustainable.
01:55:28.000 What does that have to do with the fact that the only real...
01:55:32.000 I mean, how do you explain why in such a rapid period of time the population has grown as significantly as it has?
01:55:39.000 Because it has land to expand.
01:55:40.000 What?
01:55:41.000 Because what?
01:55:41.000 Because of land to expand.
01:55:43.000 So, for instance, let's take the United States, for instance.
01:55:46.000 Population density has nothing to do with it, because most of the land on Earth is not dense, populated densely.
01:55:52.000 Yes, so you can expand into it.
01:55:53.000 So technology assists.
01:55:54.000 There has never been a deficiency of land.
01:55:56.000 Technology assists with that, yes, but you have to have people.
01:55:59.000 People are the ones who drive technology.
01:56:00.000 But there has never been, there was not a shortage of land 3,000 years ago.
01:56:04.000 There was a shortage of people.
01:56:05.000 Every single human being can fit.
01:56:07.000 In Texas with a homestead.
01:56:08.000 There's not a shortage of land on Earth.
01:56:10.000 There was a shortage of people.
01:56:11.000 Why was that?
01:56:12.000 Because you have to hit a zenith snowball effect forward for reproduction, just like you have to...
01:56:18.000 I'm going to explain it, Oz.
01:56:20.000 Give me a second.
01:56:20.000 What causes that, though?
01:56:21.000 I'm going to explain it.
01:56:22.000 There can be a multitude...
01:56:30.000 Yeah.
01:56:47.000 And somebody else, right?
01:56:49.000 You have to be able to replace at least you.
01:56:52.000 Most people were not even able to do that.
01:56:55.000 I just want to clearly understand something.
01:56:57.000 You agree that we've been around for thousands of years.
01:57:00.000 So, for a short period of that time, the population has exploded, yes?
01:57:04.000 Well, it's all throughout history there's been times where that's happened.
01:57:07.000 It hasn't been a steady rate of growth.
01:57:08.000 You can look at the chart.
01:57:09.000 I didn't say it was.
01:57:09.000 Within a short period of time, relative to when we've existed.
01:57:13.000 It just happened multiple times.
01:57:15.000 This is what I'm saying.
01:57:16.000 Do you think that there was a point in human history before where there were this many people, or what?
01:57:20.000 I'm not saying that, but that doesn't logically make sense.
01:57:23.000 I think that it's clear that the main cause of population growth, as far as the modern period, Has been the development of the productive forces and industrialization.
01:57:37.000 I think that's pretty obvious.
01:57:39.000 I'm not disputing that technology has assisted with this.
01:57:43.000 What I'm saying is that the thing which makes the technology possible is the people element.
01:57:49.000 It's the human element.
01:57:51.000 Humans have been around for thousands of years.
01:57:53.000 Why is it only until recently?
01:57:54.000 Because you still have to have X amount of numbers who can run the production of this technology in order to continue this bloodline going.
01:58:03.000 You have We have to have that.
01:58:04.000 But why is it only recently that the population exploded?
01:58:07.000 It's not recent.
01:58:08.000 There's been many times in history where there's been explosions of population.
01:58:11.000 Relative to the 8 billion people that are on Earth right now, yes, it was recent.
01:58:16.000 No, okay, but you know what else?
01:58:18.000 If in 4000 BC... When you're eliminating half of your population like you're doing in China, where you go, oh, we have too many people, we're just going to start drowning them, right?
01:58:27.000 When did they do that?
01:58:28.000 You can curtail, oh, the one-child policy in China?
01:58:31.000 Yeah.
01:58:32.000 How did they eliminate half of their population, though?
01:58:34.000 They're slated by 2050 to have eliminated half of the population via birth rate.
01:58:39.000 I've seen different statistics on that, so I'm not going to really get into it.
01:58:42.000 No, I think we need to get into it.
01:58:44.000 By 2050, 2060...
01:58:46.000 I've seen by 2100 it's going to decrease to 1 billion.
01:58:50.000 I've seen that.
01:58:51.000 I haven't seen the extreme numbers that you're talking about anywhere.
01:58:54.000 They're slated, okay.
01:58:55.000 2050, half the population, that's crazy.
01:58:57.000 Let me ask you a question.
01:58:57.000 In South Korea right now, do you know what the birth rate is?
01:59:01.000 Low.
01:59:01.000 Very low.
01:59:02.000 Do you know what it is?
01:59:03.000 Not exactly.
01:59:03.000 It's 0.7.
01:59:04.000 Yeah.
01:59:05.000 And it's slated to go to 0.5.
01:59:06.000 Yeah.
01:59:07.000 Okay.
01:59:08.000 Is that culture doomed, Haas?
01:59:11.000 It's a crisis.
01:59:12.000 It's an existential crisis.
01:59:13.000 If they don't find a way to fix it, then yeah.
01:59:15.000 Well, could you hit the point of no return?
01:59:20.000 Where, in just one generation, you just don't have enough people.
01:59:24.000 I think, look, I want to get back to this point, though.
01:59:26.000 I'm in this point.
01:59:26.000 Wait, wait, I want to get back to this point.
01:59:27.000 I'm in the point.
01:59:28.000 Hang on, hang on.
01:59:29.000 We'll get back to it, but I need to finish my inquiry here.
01:59:31.000 Yeah.
01:59:32.000 Okay?
01:59:34.000 They're doomed.
01:59:35.000 If you get underneath a certain threshold in your birth rates, your population is doomed.
01:59:41.000 Listen, Andrew, I am ready to accept that, but we need to get back to the point, which is that if you don't expand the material wealth through modern industrialization and so on and so on, it's not even possible to expand the population.
01:59:56.000 But humans have been around for thousands of years, so why is it only recently that it exploded?
02:00:01.000 I don't understand why you keep making my point.
02:00:04.000 It exploded to 8 billion people only recently, okay?
02:00:06.000 For thousands of years, we have never gotten the rate of growth that we have since the rise of industrialization.
02:00:12.000 That's because we didn't have aircraft travel and mass land travel and steamboats and steam engines and all of those things.
02:00:15.000 And I wonder what contributes to the possibility of these things.
02:00:18.000 It's the expansion of the productive forces.
02:00:20.000 All it takes is one technological marvel to open up possibilities.
02:00:24.000 So, for instance, okay, if we invented a spaceship that took us to Mars...
02:00:28.000 Tomorrow.
02:00:29.000 Okay?
02:00:29.000 And we could have viable life on Mars.
02:00:31.000 Do you think the population of Mars would fucking explode?
02:00:34.000 Okay, so you agree it's technology then, right?
02:00:37.000 Hang on, hang on.
02:00:37.000 That's my question.
02:00:38.000 If we had a spaceship to go to Mars...
02:00:40.000 If you had a spaceship that would go to Mars...
02:00:41.000 Yeah.
02:00:41.000 ...and you landed on Mars, right, would the population there on Mars explode?
02:00:46.000 Yeah, sure.
02:00:47.000 Absolutely it would, right?
02:00:49.000 Yeah.
02:00:49.000 So you can have one technological marvel...
02:00:52.000 But we can't even do that.
02:00:53.000 ...which can complete this...
02:00:55.000 So what are the factors that contribute to that?
02:00:57.000 ...but it takes the human element to go to Mars, thus expanding the labor pool on Mars.
02:01:03.000 Human element by itself has no explanatory value.
02:01:06.000 I'm being more specific about the nature of that human element.
02:01:09.000 I think it does.
02:01:09.000 I think the human element itself is the pinnacle of the value.
02:01:14.000 Once again, human beings have been around for thousands of years, and only recently, okay...
02:01:19.000 Have we seen the explosion in the population relative to every other point in history?
02:01:24.000 Yeah, but that's the Mars argument I just made.
02:01:25.000 Sure, absolutely.
02:01:26.000 They've been around for thousands of years, but the second they can make a rocket ship to Mars, now the Martian population explodes!
02:01:31.000 What about the human element, and this has to have explanatory value, is necessary for population growth that we've seen?
02:01:39.000 What about the human element needs to be there?
02:01:42.000 It can work.
02:01:43.000 It can work.
02:01:45.000 So human beings have not been working for thousands of years until recently?
02:01:47.000 I didn't say that.
02:01:48.000 So what needs to be there?
02:01:49.000 What's the decisive thing?
02:01:51.000 The human being.
02:01:52.000 Because absent the human being, you can't expand.
02:01:55.000 Right, but human beings have been around for a long time.
02:01:57.000 So what's the decisive thing for the past few hundred years?
02:02:00.000 They weren't around.
02:02:01.000 I don't understand your argument, Horace.
02:02:03.000 I think, just to bring it back to the whole topic at hand, I think both of you are obviously correct.
02:02:08.000 You're talking more about technology.
02:02:10.000 He's talking about the human element, which creates the technology, but both need to be there.
02:02:14.000 I'm presupposing the human element.
02:02:15.000 I'm not denying it.
02:02:16.000 That's a given to me, right?
02:02:18.000 But I'm just saying, let's be more specific.
02:02:19.000 Maybe you can make the argument about which one matters more, which I think is what this argument is going down.
02:02:25.000 But the human element is not in question right now.
02:02:27.000 It's not called into question.
02:02:29.000 I think it was in question.
02:02:30.000 Why?
02:02:30.000 Because you questioned it.
02:02:31.000 You said, no, it's an expansion.
02:02:32.000 I don't understand this misunderstanding.
02:02:35.000 Okay.
02:02:35.000 I'm not calling into question the human element.
02:02:37.000 I'm calling into question the idea that industrialization is somehow not the decisive thing relative to the thousands.
02:02:45.000 We're presupposing we've always been human beings.
02:02:48.000 Okay?
02:02:48.000 It's not like we were sheep 500 years ago.
02:02:51.000 The human being thing, it's like it's taken for granted.
02:02:54.000 All right?
02:02:54.000 Yeah.
02:02:55.000 But specifically, right, the past few hundred years, something new happened, right?
02:02:59.000 Which is what we call industrialization.
02:03:01.000 I'm not disagreeing with the technological element, though.
02:03:03.000 I think the big thing here is that both of you are correct.
02:03:06.000 I think just going back to the...
02:03:07.000 Because we got in a kind of little bit of a circle there with the whole industrialization versus human concept of creating said industrialization.
02:03:15.000 What about, I guess...
02:03:16.000 So hang on, hang on.
02:03:17.000 I think I can make this easy, right?
02:03:18.000 Yeah.
02:03:19.000 I think I can make this easy.
02:03:21.000 Because this is, remember, the corruption of the United States.
02:03:23.000 Human beings can't exist absent technology.
02:03:28.000 Technology cannot exist absent humanity.
02:03:30.000 Okay.
02:03:31.000 Do you agree?
02:03:32.000 Yeah.
02:03:32.000 Then that would mean, definitionally, that the human element is the most necessary element for the expansion of humanity.
02:03:41.000 Who's calling that into question?
02:03:43.000 I'm not saying we should mutate into a different species.
02:03:45.000 Yeah, but you're saying because there was a technological advance.
02:03:49.000 Yeah.
02:03:49.000 Okay, which nobody disputed that a technological advance couldn't lead to more of a population increase.
02:03:57.000 Nobody's stating that that is not the case.
02:03:59.000 What I'm stating is that the necessity of the human element is what allows that to happen.
02:04:05.000 That's all.
02:04:05.000 Now, let's presuppose the necessity of the human element, because again, I'm not arguing people were sheep 500 years ago.
02:04:11.000 We've always been human.
02:04:12.000 Now, what...
02:04:13.000 Okay, I don't know why this is so confusing for you.
02:04:16.000 Why specifically, over the course of the past few hundred years, did we see the dramatic explosion of the population that we have?
02:04:24.000 Specifically.
02:04:25.000 In a way that has explanatory value, such that it happened at this moment, not 7,000 years ago, but at this moment.
02:04:31.000 Because there was technological advancement, sure.
02:04:39.000 Right.
02:04:41.000 Right.
02:04:41.000 Right.
02:04:51.000 So I think that you can have technology which actually pulls back productive forces in such a way where it makes labor far more simple.
02:05:00.000 That's why I say productive forces rather than just technology, because productive forces also refers to the way human beings are organized and their social relations.
02:05:08.000 But human beings are the pinnacle of that technology, then.
02:05:10.000 That was my whole point.
02:05:12.000 What do we disagree about then?
02:05:14.000 I said the goal of communism is to expand the productive forces and the overall wealth and prosperity and happiness of the people.
02:05:22.000 Yeah, but it's going to take the people to do that.
02:05:24.000 I guess that was what our hang-up is.
02:05:27.000 I agree.
02:05:27.000 Yeah, but you didn't agree a few minutes ago.
02:05:30.000 A few minutes ago, you were so worried about the idea of a technological advancement.
02:05:34.000 Here's the issue, though.
02:05:35.000 You were trying to say that...
02:05:38.000 You were saying, okay, so what are ways in which you can measure the development of the productive forces?
02:05:42.000 And I said, one of the ways you can measure it is the expansion of the growth of the population and the material wealth.
02:05:47.000 And then you said, well, hold on, wait a minute.
02:05:50.000 Um...
02:05:50.000 You seem to call into question the relationship between those two things.
02:05:54.000 Yeah, but here's why.
02:05:55.000 Again, so I've already reconciled this and showed that you're giving a contradictory position, not myself.
02:06:01.000 So here's a contradictory position.
02:06:04.000 Materialism itself can be self-defeating to humanity.
02:06:09.000 The poorest on planet Earth are those who reproduce the most.
02:06:12.000 Okay, but this is why we got into this argument, because I'm trying to explain to you that they're poor relative to us today, but compared to 7,000 years ago, the only reason they're able to survive and live is because we have more wealth than we did 7,000 years ago.
02:06:25.000 Yeah, but, okay.
02:06:26.000 We can support, I told you, we can support 8 billion people today.
02:06:30.000 We couldn't do that in 1700.
02:06:33.000 Okay, prove it.
02:06:36.000 Why didn't we have 8 billion people in 1700?
02:06:38.000 That's not proof.
02:06:38.000 That's the question.
02:06:39.000 So you think 8 billion...
02:06:40.000 No, no, no.
02:06:40.000 Don't ask me a question.
02:06:41.000 Yeah.
02:06:41.000 Give me the proof.
02:06:42.000 I think the proof that we couldn't support 8 billion people in 1700 because we didn't have the productive forces to produce enough.
02:06:50.000 Oh, so the thing...
02:06:50.000 So...
02:06:51.000 Oh, I'm sorry.
02:06:53.000 What productive thing do you think was necessary to support 8 billion people in 1700?
02:06:58.000 Things like the Green Revolution, where we revolutionize agricultural methods to yield outputs that are not even conceivable in 1700?
02:07:05.000 Saying that technology has advanced and is better than it was in 1700 is not a dispute.
02:07:09.000 You're not getting away with this.
02:07:12.000 I need the proofs that in the year 1700, there could not have been 8 billion people on planet Earth.
02:07:17.000 I need the actual evidence for that, Haas.
02:07:19.000 I mean, look, I have to concede there is no way for me to give you absolute proof because it's like proving a negative.
02:07:25.000 So you have no proof?
02:07:25.000 I have no absolute proof.
02:07:27.000 Then why do you make the assertion if you have no proof for it?
02:07:29.000 Because I think it's fair to infer we couldn't support 8 billion people in 7 billion...
02:07:34.000 Based on what?
02:07:35.000 Because...
02:07:35.000 The growth of the population reliably seemed to correspond to being able to yield more outputs in agriculture and material wealth and goods that are necessary for people to survive.
02:07:47.000 That's completely speculative.
02:07:48.000 Andrew, you tried to say earlier that the fundamental factor is actually just more labor.
02:07:54.000 More people.
02:07:55.000 Yeah, more people.
02:07:56.000 But we've had the capacity to grow the supply of people for a very long time.
02:08:00.000 It's only when we added the factor of industrial modernization that that seemed to compound in the explosive population growth that we've seen in the past few hundred years.
02:08:09.000 Yeah, but correlation is not causation.
02:08:11.000 And this is why you would need to demonstrate that in the year 1700, we could not have supported 8 billion people.
02:08:17.000 What about the technology could not have supported 8 billion people?
02:08:24.000 You don't think medicine was important or anything?
02:08:26.000 I think that when I look back in history, after you got out of, I think it was about three, you lived about as long as you do now.
02:08:38.000 Okay, so the medicine wasn't a decisive factor to support more people?
02:08:41.000 I think that it's helpful, right?
02:08:43.000 But I would also make the counter-argument that medicine can also be very detrimental.
02:08:47.000 That obesity, all of these different things.
02:08:49.000 What about more intensive agricultural methods that allowed us to have with the same amount of land?
02:08:54.000 None of this is a demonstration, though, that in the year 1700, there couldn't have been 8 billion people who lived comfortably on planet Earth.
02:09:01.000 Where is the proof that you have?
02:09:02.000 No, no, no.
02:09:03.000 It's not my assertion.
02:09:04.000 It's yours.
02:09:04.000 You can't put the burden of proof on me.
02:09:06.000 So I want to know where you stand on this.
02:09:07.000 That's why.
02:09:08.000 So in 1700, I suspect that they didn't have the agricultural methods to feed 8 billion people in 1700.
02:09:17.000 Okay, so what are the requirements for these agricultural methods?
02:09:19.000 The argument started at 1800, but, I mean, it's fine.
02:09:21.000 Yeah, yeah, whatever, whatever.
02:09:23.000 Yeah, whatever.
02:09:24.000 Again, it's a combination of the increase of technology, as you put it, and the relations of production organized in such a way that frees up the means of production from their, you know...
02:09:35.000 Real quick, guys, I think we've kind of, like, hit a standstill here, because, like, you guys are both actually correct, and I feel like, just from listening to this, you guys are kind of talking past each other, because both of you are 100% correct.
02:09:45.000 I'm not sure we are.
02:09:46.000 Thanks to the famine.
02:09:48.000 We'll never know.
02:09:50.000 You're arguing more along the lines of, hey, it's people and population, and then you're arguing more it's technology, because there's been people forever.
02:09:58.000 But going back to the whole situation, because we were talking about the famine originally, and then communism versus, I guess, capitalism.
02:10:05.000 Can we go back to that?
02:10:07.000 Just going back to that whole topic.
02:10:10.000 I think we left off when we were on that conversation on famine.
02:10:13.000 You guys discussed morality, and then we went into this whole thing with technology.
02:10:16.000 I think your turn for famine now.
02:10:18.000 I feel like we didn't really get into the morality very much, but that's fair.
02:10:23.000 I'm fine getting into that, too.
02:10:24.000 I would like to finish that up.
02:10:26.000 Who wants to kick it off with the morality, then?
02:10:28.000 So, how does Christianity fit into communism, Hoskins?
02:10:33.000 I think that communism has always presupposed, even if it's unconsciously and not explicitly, Christianity and their biblical traditions.
02:10:42.000 I think even Stalin, who is kind of a vowed atheist for a large period of his life, was, when he was giving speeches to the Bolshevik Congress, quoting the Bible all the time, you know, to make his points.
02:10:54.000 So, if you had a church, let's say the Orthodox Church, the Christian Orthodox Church, who says communism is anathematized by the Orthodox Church, You mean Patriarch Tekin's anathema against the Bolsheviks in 1918?
02:11:08.000 Oh, no, no.
02:11:09.000 There's a current status, even now, that all communism is anathematized.
02:11:13.000 When was the date for that?
02:11:16.000 When they anathematized it?
02:11:17.000 Now, I know that in Catholicism, I think they can't reverse the anathemas, but in Orthodoxy, is it not possible that through confession and through apology, the Church can decide to reverse them?
02:11:29.000 Maybe perhaps individually.
02:11:31.000 The church could collectively, I guess, have an ecumenical council or something like this, or they could reverse this.
02:11:36.000 But hang on, the question still logically stands.
02:11:39.000 If Christianity itself rejects communism, will communism impose itself on Christianity?
02:11:45.000 I think it's a simplification and misunderstanding of...
02:11:48.000 To the extent of my knowledge, how the Orthodox Church works, that there's no active relation...
02:11:54.000 And discussion about church decisions.
02:11:56.000 It's just infallible, and that's all Christianity could ever be.
02:12:00.000 Whereas, it seems to me, from what I can observe in Orthodox Christianity, at least there's lively debates, there's discussions, there's people who disagree with these decisions, right?
02:12:08.000 And they're not necessarily...
02:12:10.000 There are certain things that are binding and unquestionable, like the seven councils or whatever, but...
02:12:15.000 But decisions like this, I mean, look, in Russia, the overall majority of the second largest party in Russia is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.
02:12:22.000 They're Orthodox believers.
02:12:24.000 I mean, do you think that they're just stupid?
02:12:25.000 That, oh, okay, they don't understand that they can't take inventory of the fact that there's been difficult relationships in the past between communism and the church?
02:12:36.000 To what the Orthodox Church and their policies are.
02:12:40.000 But the majority of the...
02:12:41.000 Their job inside of Russia...
02:12:42.000 The majority of the people in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation are Orthodox believers.
02:12:45.000 So what?
02:12:47.000 What do you mean so what?
02:12:47.000 You can be inside of the Federation, that does not mean that you yourself are in support of Communism.
02:12:54.000 No, I'm not saying the Orthodox Church officially supports communism.
02:12:56.000 No, it doesn't.
02:12:57.000 So the thing is, again, what do you do if you're anathematized by the church?
02:13:02.000 They say, we reject communism.
02:13:04.000 We don't want it.
02:13:04.000 Will communism impose itself?
02:13:08.000 First of all, I can get into that in a second, but just to be clear, it doesn't mean that every communist is anathematized.
02:13:14.000 Doesn't mean every member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is anathematized and can't participate in the Church, because I know that's not true, because Zhiyuganov, who's the leader, meets with Church officials and participates in the faith.
02:13:25.000 So it's not true that individual...
02:13:26.000 Can he take the Eucharist?
02:13:29.000 He's a baptized Orthodox Christian.
02:13:30.000 Yeah, that doesn't matter.
02:13:31.000 Can he take the Eucharist, right?
02:13:33.000 I'm not concerned about these details, but I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to.
02:13:37.000 Well, it's important because then we would know that he can participate.
02:13:41.000 Now, regarding the relationship between communism and Christianity, look, I think it was off to a bad start, so to speak.
02:13:46.000 I think that there was a lot of misunderstanding and difficulty in the history.
02:13:49.000 And my goal as a communist, when it comes to all of the major traditional religions on Earth, is to mend that banned relationship.
02:13:57.000 This is a This is literally the official position of the Communist Party, the Russian Federation.
02:14:01.000 Work closely together in a new alliance between the believers and the communists to work on common goals and hopefully in the future we can come to a better understanding with one another and the church can be open to communists more and then communists can be open to the church more.
02:14:16.000 This is my official position to you about my understanding of the relationship between communism and Christianity.
02:14:24.000 Yeah, but I need this question to actually answer the one that I'm asking.
02:14:28.000 Sure.
02:14:28.000 If the Orthodox Church rejects communism...
02:14:31.000 Now, for now they do.
02:14:33.000 Yes, for now.
02:14:34.000 Yeah.
02:14:34.000 Will the communists impose their will, if they can, and make the Orthodox comply with communism or not?
02:14:43.000 No, no.
02:14:45.000 Well, for example, when the Bolsheviks made the Orthodox Church comply, how is that different than when the Tsars controlled the Orthodox Church?
02:14:53.000 Which Tsars?
02:14:54.000 The Romanov Dynasty, for example, which abolished the Patriarchate.
02:14:58.000 Yeah, what does that have to do with anything?
02:15:00.000 You're saying, hang on, you're saying, what about them?
02:15:02.000 The Church is receptive to political circumstances.
02:15:06.000 That's a fact of history.
02:15:08.000 So it can be so.
02:15:10.000 Yeah, it can be so.
02:15:11.000 Hang on, it can be so that the Orthodox Church, the Patriarchs could, I guess, come together and say, it's not anathematized tomorrow.
02:15:20.000 That really has nothing to do with my question.
02:15:23.000 Yeah.
02:15:23.000 Right?
02:15:24.000 So you're entering into the logical possibility of thing X being true.
02:15:28.000 I'm agreeing.
02:15:29.000 I guess, logically, it could be so.
02:15:30.000 If the church...
02:15:31.000 My question specifically, the church says, no fucking communism, we don't want it.
02:15:36.000 Yeah.
02:15:37.000 And the communists are able to seize political power.
02:15:40.000 Yeah.
02:15:40.000 Are you gonna make them comply or not, Haas?
02:15:43.000 No, I think they should have religious freedom.
02:15:45.000 No, no, no.
02:15:45.000 They don't want to comply at all with whatever communism.
02:15:50.000 They have their own ecclesiastical authority.
02:15:51.000 What does that look like in practice?
02:15:53.000 Their ecclesiastical authority has been in practice.
02:15:55.000 So they have religious freedom, and they don't have to agree with communism, and they can continue carrying out their religion as they want to.
02:16:01.000 That's my view.
02:16:02.000 Okay, so what if they're preaching against the state?
02:16:07.000 Then they would be treated like any other enemy of the state.
02:16:09.000 Yeah, right.
02:16:10.000 Damn!
02:16:11.000 So then, just to make sure we got this clear, if they're anathematized, okay, in communism, you say, nope, you're going to have freedom of religion as long as the thing...
02:16:22.000 Christianity itself preaches compliance with the law.
02:16:24.000 I just want to make sure that I got this right.
02:16:25.000 If the Orthodox Church itself says, no, we don't want communism, and they publicly state this, they need to be treated as enemies of the state, correct?
02:16:36.000 In a wartime scenario, absolutely, in a peacetime condition.
02:16:40.000 You know, people can challenge the state, they can disagree with it, but I don't know what you're getting at here.
02:16:45.000 What are you trying to get at?
02:16:46.000 What I'm trying to get at is, you will, if possible...
02:17:03.000 We're good to go.
02:17:13.000 They're the enemy of the state by your own lips.
02:17:16.000 Anyone who takes up arms and fights...
02:17:19.000 I didn't say take up arms.
02:17:20.000 Okay, so what are you talking about?
02:17:21.000 I said if they speak out and say, we do not want communism, and they preach against the state, they are out in the streets preaching against the state.
02:17:29.000 Does that mean they're telling people to rise up and overthrow it?
02:17:32.000 They're telling people that they don't want communism.
02:17:33.000 They're telling people that they need to say no to communism.
02:17:37.000 Well, I would hope that communists, you know, hope to change their mind.
02:17:41.000 I don't know what to tell you.
02:17:43.000 Because my understanding of Christianity is that it's about following the spirit of the law.
02:17:49.000 It's not the dead letter of the law.
02:17:51.000 Christianity is based on a specific tradition, which is about certain principles of justice and fairness and even social justice.
02:18:00.000 Yes, you can ask the Orthodox Church in Russia if they think that.
02:18:07.000 Because it's happened.
02:18:08.000 Unless the Christian church had become so corrupt that it's only a Christian church in name, I don't foresee that happening.
02:18:13.000 Yeah, but this has happened.
02:18:15.000 What do you mean it's happened already in communist nations?
02:18:18.000 Has there ever been cases?
02:18:19.000 They've been persecuted in communist nations.
02:18:20.000 They've also been persecuted under the Romanovs and under the Tsar.
02:18:23.000 He abolished the Patriarchate.
02:18:24.000 Yeah, so the thing is, that's a whataboutism.
02:18:28.000 No, it's not.
02:18:28.000 It's a real historical example.
02:18:30.000 Saying, saying, but wait, this other thing also happened is not answering to this question of communists.
02:18:35.000 No matter what the political system is, no matter what country it is, all religious authorities are going to be bound by the political circumstances.
02:18:43.000 Name me a single exception to this.
02:18:44.000 Whether or not that's true...
02:18:46.000 Name an exception.
02:18:48.000 Of what?
02:18:49.000 Of which thing?
02:18:50.000 Of religious authorities and establishments not being beholden to the political circumstances of where they were then.
02:18:57.000 I'm sure that all of them would be beholden to it.
02:19:00.000 Yes.
02:19:00.000 However, there's a different way of reacting to that by certain political ideologies, which does not include you're an enemy of the state because you say, I don't want communism.
02:19:11.000 That's what you just said they would be, an enemy of the state.
02:19:14.000 All right, look, look, look.
02:19:15.000 You can say you don't want communism, that's fine, but if people are struggling and giving their lives and shedding their blood to make their country sovereign and free and take back their factories and their land so they're not slaves anymore, nobody is going to get in the way of that.
02:19:29.000 Yeah, but if you are going to say that the martyrs who are orthodox, who are struggling against communist yoke of suppressing the spirit, are saying, no, we'll be martyred for this, you communists are not going to get in the way of that.
02:19:43.000 What do you mean?
02:20:02.000 Yeah, but I am here to deny communism.
02:20:05.000 I understand that.
02:20:05.000 And I believe for 100% that you just outed yourself and said they would be under my circumstances the enemy of the state if they spoke out against communism.
02:20:18.000 Alright, let me ask you a question.
02:20:21.000 I'm guilty as charged as far as that's concerned.
02:20:23.000 Let's say, since this is such a strange, abstract, hypothetical scenario, let me counterpose one to you as well.
02:20:29.000 What if we end up in a scenario where the Orthodox Church comes out and says they want child pornography legalized?
02:20:35.000 Are you with it?
02:20:36.000 That would be against the nature of the Church.
02:20:38.000 No, no, no, are you with it?
02:20:38.000 No, of course not, but that would be a demonic act.
02:20:42.000 Who are you to say that?
02:20:44.000 Well, so I believe that 100% the gates of hell will never succeed against the Orthodox Church.
02:20:50.000 If you do something which violates the nature, it would no longer be orthodoxy.
02:20:54.000 It would still be communism.
02:20:56.000 It's the same thing with me as far as communism.
02:20:59.000 No, it would still be communism.
02:21:00.000 I don't believe the gates of hell will prevail.
02:21:02.000 You just said it would be the enemy of the state.
02:21:03.000 They would be the enemy of the state and treated as such.
02:21:06.000 So you believe it's impossible that the Orthodox Church could ever make a mistake, so you believe they're infallible?
02:21:11.000 I didn't say that.
02:21:11.000 That's a literal contradiction of church doctrine.
02:21:14.000 They didn't say that they were infallible.
02:21:14.000 So is there any scenario in which the Orthodox Church, in your mind, could make a wrong decision that you would oppose?
02:21:19.000 Of course, but you're the one postulating that this decision, they would be treated as the enemy of the state for rejection of communism.
02:21:27.000 What does that entail?
02:21:28.000 Do they go to prison, Haas?
02:21:29.000 Do they get shot?
02:21:30.000 Would you put them up against the wall and put a bullet in their head, Haas?
02:21:32.000 What you don't understand is that you're talking about the Russian Civil War.
02:21:36.000 You're talking about a very extreme, different harsh time.
02:21:38.000 I'm asking you right now.
02:21:38.000 No!
02:21:39.000 The answer is no!
02:21:39.000 They wouldn't go to jail.
02:21:40.000 So what happens to them?
02:21:41.000 Nothing!
02:21:42.000 Nothing.
02:21:43.000 So, inside of your...
02:21:44.000 Why are you being so dramatic and acting like there's some urgency to the situation, like I'm about to seize power and kill all these clergymen?
02:21:50.000 Assuming that you were about to seize power...
02:21:52.000 No.
02:21:53.000 If the Russian...
02:21:54.000 No, I would be the best.
02:21:55.000 If Haas was about to seize power, he was about to be the new Stalin, you have the right mustache, and the Orthodox Church opposed you, did it get put to the sword, Haas?
02:22:05.000 No.
02:22:05.000 If they oppose me just peacefully, no.
02:22:07.000 Let them live.
02:22:08.000 What does that mean, peacefully?
02:22:09.000 Don't bomb my army.
02:22:12.000 Don't bomb my government.
02:22:14.000 Don't attack us with guns.
02:22:15.000 What if they just tell everybody, look, communism is bad and advocate against you?
02:22:18.000 Okay, I'm fine with that.
02:22:19.000 I'm fine with that.
02:22:20.000 Let them...
02:22:21.000 I don't understand that.
02:22:22.000 It's kind of ridiculous, though.
02:22:23.000 Like, what are you talking about?
02:22:24.000 We'll go to a quick break, and then we'll continue on here.
02:22:29.000 Go ahead, Mo.
02:22:29.000 You had some?
02:22:33.000 Actually, we got Jackson Hinkle in the house as well.
02:22:35.000 He sent in a chat that he wants me to read.
02:22:37.000 Go ahead, bathroom break, whatever you guys need.
02:22:40.000 This episode is sponsored by Noosefic.
02:22:44.000 We live in the most advanced era in human history.
02:22:47.000 So why are millions of Americans more unhealthy and overweight than ever before?
02:22:52.000 Believe me, I know.
02:22:54.000 According to the US Board Certified Physician, Dr.
02:22:58.000 Amy Lee, one of the main reasons is three harmful foods that are being passed off as healthy foods all over the country.
02:23:07.000 Because these foods can cause weight gain, clog your digestive tract, deplete your energy, and wreck your skin, they are banned in other countries.
02:23:17.000 Yet, shockingly, they're still legal in the US. And it's time someone shot a line of what they are.
02:23:26.000 Dr.
02:23:27.000 Amy Lee does just that.
02:23:29.000 The great news is, it's easy to help this damage by simply learning which foods to avoid and how to spot them.
02:23:36.000 And by doing so, you can experience easier weight loss, smooth digestion, and vibrant energy.
02:23:43.000 To find out these three fake health foods, go to 3harmfulfoods.com slash studio.
02:23:53.000 That is the number three.
02:23:56.000 3harmfulfoods.com slash studio.
02:24:00.000 Or, click the link in the description below.
02:24:04.000 And thank you, Noosafic, for sponsoring this episode.
02:24:08.000 Let's hit some of these chats real fast.
02:24:11.000 All right.
02:24:11.000 We got Patriarch Tacon revoked his anathema in 1923, and Patriarch Kirill blessed the KPRF today.
02:24:20.000 Honestly, I don't mean to butt in, but that's the crazy thing to me.
02:24:22.000 It's such a non-issue, because you look at Russia today, and the communists and the church are close.
02:24:26.000 So this is a non-issue you're bringing up, in my view.
02:24:29.000 Yeah, so I'll bring this up real quick for you, Andrew.
02:24:31.000 This is Jackson Hinkle in the house.
02:24:32.000 He goes, Patriarch Tikhon revoked his anathema in 1923, and Patriarch Kirill blessed the KPRF today.
02:24:39.000 Yeah, so what happens is, inside many of these countries, which would include Russia, by the way...
02:24:45.000 There's an old, old tradition of Russia itself.
02:24:50.000 Oh, and he has something else here, too, as well.
02:24:51.000 Do you want me to read that second one, too?
02:24:53.000 And it's up to you, Andrew, by the way, if you want to engage with this.
02:24:56.000 Your discussion is with Haas, so if you want to engage with Jackson, sure.
02:25:00.000 If you don't want to, I understand that, too.
02:25:02.000 Patriarch Tikhon...
02:25:03.000 Praise the USSR. In 1925, on his deathbed, Patriarch Sergius, Patriarch Alexei, and Patriarch Piment also supported the USSR. It was Trotskyites that created martyrs, not Marxists.
02:25:17.000 This is from Jackson.
02:25:18.000 Yeah, so let me respond directly to Jackson.
02:25:20.000 Are you okay with that, House?
02:25:21.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
02:25:22.000 So there's a long history, especially inside of communism with orthodoxy, of the orthodox making communist priests say and do different things in order for them to survive.
02:25:33.000 The church understood this, allowed for this to happen because they knew that it was under duress.
02:25:39.000 Now, I don't know what the exact position is here.
02:25:41.000 I would have to dig in and do a little bit of research.
02:25:44.000 To figure out what that position is, but my understanding currently, and I've asked every single patriarch that I can find about the anathemization, the fact that communism is anathematized, and the reason that it is,
02:26:00.000 is because they have persecuted traditionally Orthodox Christians non-stop.
02:26:06.000 That is why.
02:26:07.000 And this has happened all over Eastern Europe, by the way, and they fucking hate him.
02:26:13.000 They absolutely loathe him, Jackson.
02:26:15.000 And I think that you should talk to Jay Dyer about it, because Jay Dyer has absolutely taken the subject on many, many times about the destruction of orthodoxy by communists.
02:26:29.000 Look at China.
02:26:30.000 Good example.
02:26:32.000 I mean, you know, China, Christianity is one of the official religions it recognizes.
02:26:37.000 The church flourishes in China.
02:26:39.000 Okay.
02:26:40.000 Alright, so what else have we got here?
02:26:46.000 We got Luzu Pan.
02:26:48.000 Ten bucks.
02:26:49.000 Appreciate that.
02:26:49.000 From Castle Club.
02:26:50.000 And then the spirit of Marxism.
02:26:51.000 All of Marx's poems and writings were to the devil.
02:26:54.000 Okay.
02:26:55.000 Goddamn.
02:26:55.000 That's nonsense.
02:26:56.000 I don't know.
02:26:57.000 Do you have one response to that?
02:26:58.000 Yeah, it's schizophrenic nonsense.
02:27:00.000 I mean, at no point was Marx ever dedicating anything to the devil.
02:27:04.000 He's talking about the old poems when Marx was like 17 years old or something.
02:27:09.000 This is just a total...
02:27:11.000 First of all, it's a misinterpretation.
02:27:12.000 Second of all, he would laugh at these poems in his later life, so it's nonsense.
02:27:16.000 Okay.
02:27:17.000 What else do we got here?
02:27:19.000 E.G. A.K.A. Sauce.
02:27:20.000 Another 10.
02:27:20.000 Alright, thank you.
02:27:21.000 And then we got Capitalism is Christianity applied to money.
02:27:25.000 Communism is anti-Christian, no free will.
02:27:29.000 I think that that was demonstrated kind of over and over in this debate, that there would be an isolation.
02:27:34.000 So what happens with Haas is that he'll say a thing, and then I'll catch him on the thing, and then he'll kind of move it towards something different.
02:27:43.000 It's very frustrating.
02:27:44.000 It's just a misunderstanding.
02:27:46.000 It's like a tube of toothpaste.
02:27:47.000 I squeeze here, it moves here.
02:27:49.000 I'll clarify.
02:27:50.000 When you said they go out against communism, I'm thinking in my head, like, oh, they're going to, like...
02:27:56.000 Participate in the counter-revolution and take up arms.
02:27:59.000 If you're just talking about expressing speech, you know, I'm pro-free speech.
02:28:04.000 I don't want speech to be clamped down on.
02:28:07.000 Are you or are you pro-limiting free speech?
02:28:10.000 I mean, here's the toothpaste.
02:28:13.000 Look, it's a matter of good faith.
02:28:16.000 Yeah, here's the toothpaste.
02:28:17.000 Are you going to tell me, like, oh, so you support child pornography?
02:28:20.000 I'm like, no, wait, wait.
02:28:21.000 I mean, like, in good faith, what is meant by free speech?
02:28:24.000 Within reasonable limits, and I feel like that doesn't have to be...
02:28:27.000 I would think that a communist...
02:28:29.000 Because, look, in good faith, do I support the range of authentic political...
02:28:34.000 And no, I'm not saying authentic is going to be defined bureaucratically and formally.
02:28:38.000 Reasonably in a way that resonates with the actual people and the population.
02:28:42.000 Do I think that elements...
02:28:44.000 That speak out against a communist dictatorship should be, just for speaking, should be totally crushed and eliminated.
02:28:51.000 It's not my opinion.
02:28:52.000 I don't think in America that should be the type of communism we have here.
02:28:56.000 But I will defend the decisions made by the Chinese and the Russians in their context because their context was different.
02:29:05.000 They didn't have a kind of culture of free speech.
02:29:07.000 They had a culture where if you're talking, you're not just talking, you're standing on something.
02:29:12.000 It's an intent to act.
02:29:13.000 Well, then you're holding two different standards.
02:29:15.000 Yeah, I think America's a different country, a different civilization.
02:29:18.000 So you just think that all morality is going to come from your cultural standard?
02:29:21.000 I think it has a lot to do with it.
02:29:23.000 That's not what I'm asking.
02:29:25.000 I mean, how would you say, ah, it's inappropriate here in America, that would be immoral to curtail the Orthodox Church from speaking out, for instance, against communism.
02:29:33.000 But in China, fucking off with their heads, right, Haas?
02:29:38.000 You have to understand, Russia was in a civil war.
02:29:40.000 It wasn't just a peace time.
02:29:42.000 I'm talking about China.
02:29:43.000 What about it?
02:29:43.000 So I'm asking you, if in China they're like, hey, no, you're not going to speak out against a state, or you're going to go to fucking prison.
02:29:49.000 You don't have an actual objection to that, because in the cultural context, it's fine.
02:29:54.000 But why would the church speak out against the state?
02:29:56.000 That's not my question, Haas.
02:29:57.000 You're asking me a question.
02:29:58.000 Why do you have a double standard?
02:29:59.000 When I give you a hypothetical about a potential church act, you say, no, no, it's not possible or thinkable.
02:30:03.000 You can ask me the hypothetical after you answer the question.
02:30:05.000 Yeah, what?
02:30:06.000 So answer the question, then ask me the question.
02:30:08.000 I think that that's fair.
02:30:09.000 Inside of China, under what you consider your cultural relativism, morality, if China jails these people, speak out against the state, you would say that that is fine.
02:30:19.000 You just would say it's not fine in the United States, right?
02:30:22.000 Yeah.
02:30:23.000 So you're just a cultural relativist?
02:30:24.000 No, I'm not.
02:30:26.000 How is it not cultural relativism?
02:30:27.000 Because it's not a relativism of the absolute moral standards you hold to a culture, it's the actual state functioning in its capacity in a way that's receptive to the context and civilization it's in.
02:30:37.000 Which is based on the culture.
02:30:39.000 Not only the culture, but also the history.
02:30:42.000 Which is the culture?
02:30:43.000 It's part of it.
02:30:44.000 It's 100% the dictate of what the culture will be.
02:30:47.000 Culture is the product of history, I would argue, in part.
02:30:53.000 But it's not just...
02:30:56.000 History is not just culture, just because culture is a fundamental product of history.
02:31:01.000 History is an index of blood and struggle and actual experiences people have.
02:31:07.000 It is impossible for your current culture to exist without its history period.
02:31:09.000 By the way, guys, I don't mean to be too loud.
02:31:11.000 Am I too loud?
02:31:12.000 No, we're good.
02:31:13.000 Because I have these, I can't even hear.
02:31:15.000 Yeah, it's the same.
02:31:16.000 Oh, you can't hear yourself?
02:31:17.000 No, no, I can't.
02:31:18.000 I just can't parse how loud I am.
02:31:20.000 It's all good, Hoss.
02:31:22.000 But all of your current standard for society is based on your history.
02:31:29.000 It can't be based on anything else.
02:31:31.000 That's what it's based on.
02:31:33.000 I think societies are based on the actual record of that society's development and existence, yes.
02:31:39.000 History.
02:31:40.000 Yeah.
02:31:40.000 So the thing is, that is purely 100% a double standard based on cultural relativism, Haas?
02:31:48.000 No, because you're not giving history enough credit.
02:31:52.000 Because, for example, as a Hegelian, you say I'm a cult Kabbalist Hegelian.
02:31:57.000 No, no, I didn't say a Kabbalist.
02:31:59.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah, I understand.
02:32:01.000 But as a Hegelian, I would say that the divine itself reveals itself...
02:32:06.000 Through the development of history.
02:32:08.000 That's not what Hegel believed.
02:32:10.000 History, well, it's kind of what he believed.
02:32:13.000 History is not just like different zoo animals and different pens developing.
02:32:20.000 History is how truth itself comes into being.
02:32:23.000 History is how all of the truth of religion came to be realized.
02:32:27.000 Hegel believed...
02:32:28.000 The Bible is about...
02:32:30.000 I've got to correct something real quick.
02:32:31.000 Hegel did not believe that.
02:32:33.000 Hegel believed that the divine was revealed through man.
02:32:37.000 Through history.
02:32:39.000 No, through man.
02:32:40.000 In fact, I can give you the exact belief structure.
02:32:45.000 Hegel believed, his Trinitarian doctrine, was that God could only see himself through the vision of man.
02:32:55.000 That's it.
02:32:56.000 I can give you the exact term for it, even.
02:32:58.000 It's Hermeticism.
02:32:59.000 He was a big believer in Hermeticism, and so was the faith which he ascribed to at the time.
02:33:08.000 He believed that that...
02:33:09.000 He was a Protestant, Lutheran.
02:33:11.000 Yes, he was a Lutheran, and he was a theologian.
02:33:14.000 But he believed that mankind was its entire purpose, including his...
02:33:19.000 Was to show God God's reflection.
02:33:22.000 Through history.
02:33:23.000 No, through men.
02:33:25.000 Through people.
02:33:27.000 No, no, through history.
02:33:28.000 No, where does he say that?
02:33:29.000 Because for Hegel, your interpretation is one of the interpretations.
02:33:34.000 It's not the one I share.
02:33:35.000 Because it seems clear to me through Marx's criticism of Hegel and that of the young Hegelian humanists who did draw that interpretation, but Hegel did not himself openly avow it.
02:33:45.000 For Hegel...
02:33:46.000 All of history was the development of the mind, the divine mind.
02:33:50.000 This mind, this super-individual reason, rationality, that is being developed through history, he doesn't say that's of a man, that's of an individual.
02:34:02.000 He ascribes to it a metaphysical status.
02:34:04.000 In fact, I'll give you the exact quote.
02:34:06.000 It's a metaphysical status which we can deduce or presume to be God, you know, the mind of God.
02:34:11.000 After this Hegel thing, I was going to go bring it back to America.
02:34:14.000 God reflects me.
02:34:16.000 Says Hegel.
02:34:17.000 I am God's pen, says Hegel.
02:34:20.000 And the reflection of God could not exist without me, says Hegel.
02:34:25.000 How in the world could you say, then, that Hegel's not a believer that man reflects God when he himself believes he reflects God and God reflects him and God can only see his own image in man?
02:34:38.000 How could you even say that?
02:34:40.000 Totally...
02:34:41.000 You know, this is kind of like a Christianity itself.
02:34:44.000 Like, why did God need to assume the form of a man through Christ?
02:34:47.000 This is a distinct criticism that has nothing to do with what I just said.
02:34:50.000 That's Hegel's interpretation of Christianity, though.
02:34:52.000 So what?
02:34:53.000 That God has nothing to do with what Hegel assumed?
02:34:56.000 Okay.
02:34:57.000 With what Hegel assumed, which was that God can only see his own image in man itself.
02:35:02.000 Do you think that, as a Christian, do you think that the incarnation was necessary?
02:35:06.000 A necessary consequence of God's existence?
02:35:08.000 It's irrelevant to my point.
02:35:09.000 No, no, answer it, answer it.
02:35:09.000 Do you think the incarnation, Jesus Christ, was necessary as a consequence of God's own being, that he had to be incarnated as a man through Jesus Christ?
02:35:18.000 Was that necessary?
02:35:19.000 No, can you answer yes or no?
02:35:21.000 I can't answer yes or no, because I would have to go back and get the dictates of the terms from a theological perspective, what you mean by necessary.
02:35:29.000 What do you mean by necessary?
02:35:30.000 Like, as a necessary consequence of the very existence of God, like ontologically, he had to be incarnated as a man, as Christ, the Son.
02:35:41.000 I think, it depends on how you're phrasing this, from the position of, did Jesus Christ need to become incarnated based on the orthodox vision of theology from God's intention?
02:35:54.000 Yes.
02:35:55.000 But when you say necessary, this means that God could maybe not have had ulterior plans or something like this.
02:36:02.000 Necessary is a very direct word.
02:36:06.000 And I would need it clarified.
02:36:07.000 Like ontologically, like as a fact of God's being, that he self divides into the Trinity.
02:36:15.000 It is part of God's nature, his trinitarian nature, yes.
02:36:19.000 So why is Hegel so scandalous to you?
02:36:22.000 As a Muslim, if anything, I should be the one offended.
02:36:24.000 You're not a Muslim.
02:36:26.000 Yeah, well, you know, it's haram to say, well, you're not a Muslim, so it doesn't apply to you.
02:36:30.000 But if I say I'm a Muslim, I'm a Muslim.
02:36:32.000 That's Islam.
02:36:33.000 You can't say that someone's not a Muslim.
02:36:37.000 Why not?
02:36:38.000 Because it's a confessional faith.
02:36:40.000 All you have to do is recite the Shahada to be a Muslim in Islam.
02:36:45.000 You don't believe Allah is God or that there is a God, Haz.
02:36:50.000 You're a self-described agnostic.
02:36:53.000 Based on what?
02:36:54.000 You have self-described yourself in your most recent speech as an agnostic.
02:36:58.000 What are you talking about?
02:37:01.000 Why?
02:37:03.000 Why did you...
02:37:03.000 I don't know why you described yourself as an agnostic.
02:37:06.000 Where did I say I'm an agnostic?
02:37:07.000 How could you say you're an agnostic and also that you're a Muslim?
02:37:10.000 I'm a Muslim!
02:37:12.000 Are you an agnostic?
02:37:13.000 No.
02:37:14.000 So you do believe in Allah is God?
02:37:17.000 Yes.
02:37:19.000 Every night I say the fat.
02:37:21.000 Then why do you self-describe as an agnostic so often?
02:37:26.000 I think if I've in the past distanced myself toward religious identification, because I don't like religious hypocrisy.
02:37:33.000 I don't like people who use it as a cudgel over people's heads and LARP with it and use it as an identity.
02:37:38.000 I think it's more important to prove it by deed.
02:37:42.000 Like, I'm a communist because I believe...
02:37:44.000 If I believe in God and if I believe in the message of the prophets, it has to have a concrete and real living application.
02:37:51.000 I can't just identify with all these different rules and all these different superficial, you know, I can't just words, you know, and that makes me the religious.
02:38:00.000 No, you have to follow the spirit of the law.
02:38:02.000 You have to follow the spirit of their teachings.
02:38:03.000 I want to bring this back.
02:38:05.000 Finish your thought, and then I want to bring this back, because the conversation was, what led to the, you know, degradation of the United States, and we've kind of like...
02:38:12.000 Well, I told you it would go everywhere, right?
02:38:14.000 Yeah, we went into religion, we went into, obviously, Russia, the so-bullshipping revolution.
02:38:20.000 But Brian, if you don't mind, please, I do have to ask.
02:38:24.000 Yeah.
02:38:25.000 All right, and then we'll go back to the topic.
02:38:27.000 I thought you were atheists, bro.
02:38:29.000 Like, directly, directly, directly, give me the answer directly.
02:38:33.000 Yeah.
02:38:34.000 You understand that it is a contradiction to say that you're an agnostic and a Muslim.
02:38:39.000 That is a contradiction.
02:38:40.000 You understand that?
02:38:42.000 Yeah.
02:38:42.000 And you have stated multiple times you are an agnostic and you just told me you're a Muslim.
02:38:48.000 I've always said I'm a Muslim though.
02:38:50.000 Yeah, but how can you be an agnostic Muslim if it's a contradiction?
02:38:53.000 You're gonna have to play me the clip and give me the context, and I'll explain why I would have said that in that context.
02:38:59.000 Have you described yourself as an agnostic, yes or no?
02:39:01.000 It's definitely possible, but again, it's context.
02:39:03.000 What do you mean, punk?
02:39:03.000 Have you described yourself as an agnostic?
02:39:06.000 This is the thing.
02:39:07.000 I know I'm a Muslim.
02:39:09.000 I'm not strict about these terms in every possible context.
02:39:12.000 Muslims are.
02:39:13.000 Here's what I know for a fact I have said in the past.
02:39:15.000 I don't care.
02:39:17.000 I don't care if you think I'm not a Muslim or if I'm an atheist.
02:39:21.000 If you think I'm an atheist, let me be nailed to the cross of atheism.
02:39:24.000 I don't give a fuck what you think.
02:39:26.000 That's always been my position consistently.
02:39:28.000 Okay, but can you give me your position consistently now?
02:39:31.000 Are you ever going to identify yourself as being an agnostic again?
02:39:36.000 Because that would be saying that you're not sure if Allah exists.
02:39:39.000 That would be a heresy inside of Islam.
02:39:42.000 I believe in God.
02:39:44.000 Alright.
02:39:45.000 So you're not an agnostic?
02:39:46.000 No.
02:39:46.000 And you've never said that?
02:39:49.000 Don't hold me to that, because I may have in the past.
02:39:52.000 You have to show me the context.
02:39:56.000 That's fine.
02:39:56.000 Let's go back to...
02:39:59.000 What led to the degradation of the United States?
02:40:01.000 Let's go back to that, because that's what the main thing was.
02:40:03.000 Obviously, you believe enlightenment, communism, etc., Marxism, and egalitarianism is the problem.
02:40:11.000 You're saying it's debt.
02:40:12.000 Let's go back to that real quick.
02:40:13.000 Who wants to take this first?
02:40:15.000 I can let Haas open.
02:40:17.000 Back to the morality stuff?
02:40:18.000 No, no, no, no.
02:40:19.000 Back to the degradation of the United States.
02:40:21.000 You're saying it was debt.
02:40:22.000 That was the original argument.
02:40:23.000 Yeah, I think it's actually...
02:40:24.000 And communism solves this issue was your primary stance.
02:40:28.000 Yes, I think it's simple.
02:40:29.000 I think that, on the one hand, the United States was officially a Christian country.
02:40:33.000 The majority of people were confessional Christians, practicing Christians.
02:40:37.000 But they were just following the word.
02:40:39.000 They weren't following...
02:40:40.000 The spirit of it, right?
02:40:41.000 So as a consequence, we have a satanic economic system where everyone's being looted and robbed and enslaved, and it's purely for mammon, right?
02:40:50.000 You can't worship both money and God at the same time, that's what the Bible says.
02:40:54.000 So as a consequence of us deviating from the spirit of the gospel, Right?
02:40:58.000 Partially, at least, that's one of the causes.
02:41:00.000 We have a situation of hypocrisy, where the conservative religious kind of authorities are hypocrites.
02:41:08.000 They're preaching something, but in reality, look at the Republican Party.
02:41:12.000 Look at the evangelicals in the Republican Party.
02:41:14.000 They're preaching Jesus.
02:41:16.000 They're preaching the message of Christianity.
02:41:17.000 But what are they supporting in practice?
02:41:19.000 They're supporting Wall Street.
02:41:21.000 They're supporting mammon.
02:41:22.000 They're supporting Zionism.
02:41:23.000 They're supporting all manner of anti-human...
02:41:26.000 Real actions, not just things people say, but actual ways in which we become defined as a people as far as how we relate to each other and our existence.
02:41:36.000 How we feed ourselves, right?
02:41:38.000 If the way we feed ourselves is fundamentally rotten and unholy, I don't care what religious labels you're going to be throwing on yourself and how you're going to be identifying.
02:41:47.000 You are participating in a reality that is conducive to wickedness, to evil.
02:41:53.000 Well, then explain care.
02:41:55.000 Explain the Muslims doing the exact same thing.
02:41:58.000 Explain the Muslims voting 100% Democrat.
02:42:02.000 Okay.
02:42:03.000 Well, not 100%, but you get my gist.
02:42:06.000 Majority Democrat, right?
02:42:07.000 Yeah.
02:42:08.000 When you make these claims...
02:42:09.000 I didn't say Muslims are absolved from this.
02:42:11.000 But you made the claim that Christians are hypocrites.
02:42:13.000 Muslims are, too.
02:42:14.000 So is...
02:42:16.000 I'm sorry.
02:42:17.000 The Muslim faith is hypocritical?
02:42:20.000 There are hypocritical Muslims, just like there are hypocritical Christians.
02:42:24.000 Okay, so I just want to make sure...
02:42:25.000 Islam is not any more impervious.
02:42:27.000 The majority of the Muslim voters inside of the United States are hypocrites?
02:42:30.000 They are voting in a way that is hypocritical.
02:42:32.000 So they're hypocrites?
02:42:34.000 I mean, look, you...
02:42:35.000 No, no, no, no.
02:42:36.000 Are they hypocrites in every possible respect?
02:42:39.000 No.
02:42:39.000 That's not what I asked.
02:42:39.000 I asked if they're hypocrites.
02:42:41.000 What you're doing is bad faith.
02:42:42.000 It's not bad faith.
02:42:43.000 So there could be a Muslim guy who votes Democrat, but is like a saint in every other respect, and I have to nail him on the cross of hypocrisy just because he's doing one thing that I regard as bad.
02:42:52.000 It's in the core of your faith.
02:42:53.000 What?
02:42:54.000 So inside the core of your faith, are you allowed to denounce these different Muslim segments for being hypocrites?
02:43:02.000 Are you allowed to do that?
02:43:04.000 I don't know, but even if...
02:43:05.000 You don't know.
02:43:06.000 Yeah, I don't know.
02:43:06.000 I'm not...
02:43:07.000 Look, look.
02:43:08.000 You don't even know.
02:43:09.000 I don't know.
02:43:10.000 I'm not an expert on Islamic theology.
02:43:12.000 Just so I know that, Andrew, could come back, you're saying that the concept of capitalism in itself is wicked.
02:43:19.000 Promotes wickedness.
02:43:20.000 Promotes wickedness.
02:43:21.000 What's your response to that, Andrew?
02:43:23.000 No, I think that the ethics of an individual population promotes wickedness.
02:43:28.000 And I think that, I think this, and here's my bone I'll throw Hoss if he'll throw it back to me.
02:43:33.000 We'll see if he does.
02:43:35.000 I think that you could logically have a population of people who were very moral under a communist yoke.
02:43:43.000 It's logically possible.
02:43:45.000 Okay.
02:43:46.000 If you can at least say back to me that you could have a moral population under capitalism.
02:43:53.000 There has never been one in history.
02:43:56.000 That's not what I asked you.
02:43:57.000 So no.
02:43:58.000 No, there couldn't be?
02:43:59.000 No.
02:44:00.000 Can you explain logically how it's impossible for people to be moral under capitalism?
02:44:06.000 It's impossible because people are thrusted into situations in which they have to make impossible decisions.
02:44:11.000 If a woman has a child and the only way she feeds her child is by being a prostitute, should she let her child starve or should she be a prostitute?
02:44:19.000 Impossible decisions like these are what define the nature of capitalism.
02:44:23.000 You haven't expressed the impossibility of being moral under capitalism.
02:44:28.000 You have not shown this.
02:44:29.000 To be immoral.
02:44:30.000 If people do not, if there is no economic sovereignty, and it's not even a factor systemically that accounts for people's real existence, the need for them to feed themselves, the need for them to have an economic existence, it is inevitable that they're going to be thrusted into impossible situations where you can't really say they're immoral.
02:44:50.000 You can't say they're moral.
02:44:51.000 Because the system itself is immoral and putting them in a fundamentally immoral position.
02:44:56.000 Yeah, but that could be the criticism of all governance.
02:45:00.000 Anytime the governmental body makes a bad decision, this criticism would apply to communism as well, that it could thrust the people into a situation.
02:45:10.000 My question specifically to you, Haas, was, and I'm going to repeat it, and I need an answer to it, please.
02:45:15.000 The answer is no.
02:45:16.000 You cannot have a moral population under capitalism, but you can under communism.
02:45:21.000 Yes.
02:45:21.000 Okay, and what is the distinct metric, the delineation, which would make the allowance such that you could under communism, but never under capitalism?
02:45:33.000 Because under communism, the way people feed themselves and the way that they account for their existence economically is not in a way that's contrary to their humanity.
02:45:47.000 You didn't say anything.
02:45:50.000 What do you want me to say?
02:45:51.000 What do you want me to say?
02:45:52.000 The historical record is clear.
02:45:56.000 The reason you can't be moral under communism is because communism does things in such a way Where it distorts their humanity.
02:46:05.000 Did I just say fucking anything?
02:46:07.000 No.
02:46:08.000 So I need, again, I'm going to ask you the question.
02:46:10.000 What is the delineation point?
02:46:11.000 I would ask you for examples.
02:46:12.000 Okay, I'm asking you the question.
02:46:14.000 If you said that, I'd ask for examples.
02:46:16.000 So, Haas, I'm going to ask you again.
02:46:17.000 Yeah.
02:46:18.000 What is the delineation point which would guarantee that the population under capitalism has to be immoral, but under communism can be moral?
02:46:27.000 What is that thing?
02:46:29.000 Because capitalism incentivizes people to sell out their neighbors for money, and communism doesn't.
02:46:35.000 It incentivizes people to sell out their neighbors to the state.
02:46:39.000 Maybe they're guilty of something.
02:46:40.000 Well, right!
02:46:41.000 So, I mean, what the fuck?
02:46:42.000 This is the same decision!
02:46:44.000 If I'm, if I'm, if I'm, if I'm, if I'm, no it's not!
02:46:46.000 Because if, uh, if I'm under attack by Germany and my neighbor's a collaborator, fuck him!
02:46:52.000 He is, he should be sold out!
02:46:53.000 Okay, well...
02:46:53.000 If my neighbor is a child molester, fuck him, he should be, he should be, uh, sold out to the state.
02:46:58.000 If he is making bombs in his basement and he's going to go do some crazy shit because he's been bribed by Britain or something to destroy my country, then I should sell him out.
02:47:07.000 And if he's just against the government, you should sell him out.
02:47:09.000 But Andrew, do you notice the distinction?
02:47:10.000 Do you notice the distinction, though?
02:47:11.000 As much as we want to be cynical about this point and it's funny...
02:47:14.000 You know, the distinction is, though, the scenario you described doesn't necessarily have to be an immoral one.
02:47:21.000 It's just that in capitalism it is necessarily immoral.
02:47:24.000 Why?
02:47:25.000 Because capitalism incentivizes people to sell out other human beings.
02:47:30.000 So does communism by your own admission five seconds ago.
02:47:33.000 No, no, no.
02:47:34.000 Because if I'm selling out my neighbors to the state, I can think of scenarios in which they would have deserved that.
02:47:42.000 I can't think of a scenario in which human beings can be priced to a dollar.
02:47:47.000 That it's worth it to sell out a human being for money in which that would be morally acceptable.
02:47:52.000 I can't think of that.
02:47:53.000 I can't think of exploitation being morally acceptable.
02:47:56.000 Wait a second.
02:47:57.000 You think that snitching, right?
02:47:59.000 You can make moral exceptions for that, but you can't put a price on the snitch.
02:48:03.000 You can't put a price on your neighbor, their humanity.
02:48:06.000 Oh, right.
02:48:07.000 So if you throw their ass in fucking prison, right, is that going to cost money?
02:48:12.000 You're not selling them for gain, for profit.
02:48:14.000 You're selling them to the state.
02:48:15.000 Andrew, let's narrow this down to what we're talking about concretely.
02:48:19.000 You have a neighbor under communism who is a child molester.
02:48:22.000 Are you calling the police?
02:48:23.000 Sure.
02:48:24.000 So that's not inherently immoral.
02:48:26.000 It's not inherently immoral.
02:48:28.000 I want you to remember my claim.
02:48:29.000 My claim is that I believe that you could have a moral population under communism if you'll concede that you could have a moral population under capitalism.
02:48:38.000 The distinction is, Haas says, under capitalism, no!
02:48:44.000 It's impossible.
02:48:45.000 Andrew says, it is possible under communism.
02:48:47.000 The demonstration then is on you to show me why it's impossible under capitalism.
02:48:51.000 By the way, you've still failed to do so.
02:48:54.000 Okay, so you want me to demonstrate an example of...
02:48:58.000 I want you to show why it's impossible for a population under capitalism to be a moral population.
02:49:05.000 Do you agree that capitalism means profit is the fundamental and primary goal?
02:49:09.000 I think that, um, no.
02:49:11.000 So you're defining capitalism differently than me.
02:49:13.000 So, do you understand?
02:49:15.000 What is capitalism to you then?
02:49:17.000 Stop, stop.
02:49:17.000 Even if I were to concede that it were true, that, hey, it's all about profit, do you think that moral men can make profit?
02:49:26.000 Yeah, in an isolated scenario, sure.
02:49:27.000 Why not?
02:49:29.000 Wait, wait, wait.
02:49:29.000 If moral men can make profit, and they can be responsible with profit, profit can't be inherently bad.
02:49:35.000 But this is what you're missing, I think.
02:49:37.000 This is the problem with capitalism, in my view.
02:49:40.000 Everyone can individually be moral, and not be saying, oh, you're an immoral individual.
02:49:45.000 Even if we assume that was true, they're producing inadvertently a fundamentally immoral outcome, where no individual will be held responsible.
02:49:52.000 What makes it immoral if all the people are moral?
02:49:54.000 If people are falling deeper and deeper into destitution and pauperization, if people are falling into desperation, if people are having their livelihoods robbed of them, having everything alienated from them in terms of their means of production, guess what?
02:50:09.000 It's going to lead to inadvertent outcomes that are not necessarily the result of one wicked individual will, but are the result of a wicked system.
02:50:18.000 Can a system exist without individuals?
02:50:20.000 No.
02:50:22.000 But individuals, by virtue of their interdependency, of course the individual, any given society, though it's composed of individuals, produce an outcome inadvertent and irreducible to the sum of its parts.
02:50:36.000 Is it the outcome that they wanted?
02:50:37.000 Are you like Margaret Thatcher and you think that society doesn't exist, only individuals?
02:50:41.000 Hang on, hang on.
02:50:42.000 I'm almost on the internal critique.
02:50:43.000 I'm happy if you give me one.
02:50:44.000 I'm fine with that.
02:50:45.000 Yeah.
02:50:45.000 But I need to ask you, if the population desires this, whatever it is you think is immoral, if you can consider the population to be moral, and then you still say, well, the results of the population are immoral.
02:50:57.000 It's hypocrisy.
02:50:58.000 What's the hypocrisy of saying that the population itself is moral?
02:51:04.000 Because they're producing an outcome that is contrary to the moral purport that they're exercising individually.
02:51:09.000 So how can every individual in a population be moral, but have an outcome which is immoral?
02:51:17.000 Like I said, because men and women make history, but not as they please.
02:51:22.000 Because history itself is the product of individuals producing outcomes that are not reducible, and even oftentimes contrary to their intentions individually.
02:51:31.000 Hegel calls this the cunning of reason, actually.
02:51:33.000 Yeah, no, let's move, we can even move back to Hegel.
02:51:37.000 Yeah.
02:51:37.000 How can every single individual in a population make nothing but moral decisions, and they all come to immoral outcomes?
02:51:48.000 Well, okay, so this is like a system, a closed system you're talking about.
02:51:53.000 They could start off as moral, and then produce an immoral outcome, which will then corrupt their morality, inevitably.
02:51:59.000 So I don't believe that they could...
02:52:00.000 Well, then they're not moral.
02:52:01.000 I don't believe they could remain moral, no.
02:52:03.000 But I think they could start out as moral and produce an immoral outcome, which could then corrupt their morality.
02:52:07.000 So let's move back to communism, then.
02:52:09.000 So when we're talking about communism itself, what is the thing about communism which inherently is going to make the population moral?
02:52:19.000 The thing about communism is that it's going to make it so that the means by which people exist are not inevitably immoral.
02:52:27.000 So you're opening up the opportunity for society to be moral.
02:52:30.000 There's no guarantee that it will, but at least it's possible.
02:52:33.000 Yeah, but you still haven't actually demonstrated why it would be impossible in our capitalism.
02:52:38.000 Okay.
02:52:38.000 All you've done is claim that there's a possibility that an entire society could be moral, adopt capitalism, and then somehow it could be corrupted.
02:52:48.000 You haven't demonstrated that it's necessary.
02:52:51.000 Okay, so...
02:52:53.000 Okay, okay.
02:52:53.000 We agree that capitalism is about the pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else, correct or no?
02:53:01.000 At the expense of everything else?
02:53:03.000 No.
02:53:03.000 What is an example of a capitalist society that doesn't fall under that qualification?
02:53:07.000 Because I think people can make moral decisions with profit.
02:53:10.000 Okay.
02:53:11.000 I'm talking about societies.
02:53:13.000 I'm talking about societies.
02:53:14.000 Okay.
02:53:14.000 Societies are individuals.
02:53:16.000 No, they're not.
02:53:17.000 Yes, they are.
02:53:18.000 No, they're not.
02:53:18.000 What else are they?
02:53:20.000 Societies are a common reality shared by individuals, which is irreducible to all of them.
02:53:26.000 Are you different than him?
02:53:28.000 Sure.
02:53:29.000 And is he different than him?
02:53:30.000 Sure.
02:53:31.000 Okay, so then, is it you and you and you that makes a society?
02:53:36.000 No, it's the inadvertent outcome of our relationships that produce the society.
02:53:41.000 Which would not exist without you being you, and him being him, and him being him.
02:53:45.000 Which we give recognition in super individual ways.
02:53:49.000 We, in our language, recognize these things.
02:53:52.000 We recognize such a thing as society, and the state, and history, and nations, and groups.
02:53:56.000 Yes, because the underlying etymology of these things is promoting individualism.
02:54:02.000 No.
02:54:02.000 Okay, can society exist without?
02:54:04.000 Individualism.
02:54:04.000 Hang on.
02:54:05.000 If zero people existed, could society exist?
02:54:09.000 Individualism is not just the reality of individuals.
02:54:11.000 Individualism is the view according to which...
02:54:13.000 You're not answering my question.
02:54:14.000 If zero individuals existed, could society exist?
02:54:16.000 Of course not.
02:54:17.000 Of course not.
02:54:17.000 Of course not.
02:54:18.000 What if three individuals existed?
02:54:20.000 Couldn't be a society, probably.
02:54:22.000 What is a society, then?
02:54:23.000 I would probably define society as an ability to reproduce a people.
02:54:28.000 So three individuals could definitely do that.
02:54:31.000 No, no, no.
02:54:31.000 Because what I mean, a people, you reproduce a specific mode of reproduction.
02:54:38.000 Like, for example, you're passing down moors and norms between different peoples, and these moors, these norms, these relationships themselves could viably be reproduced across generations.
02:54:51.000 I think that's probably how...
02:54:52.000 Well, one family couldn't do that by itself.
02:54:55.000 Why not?
02:54:56.000 Well, okay, if you started out with Adam and Eve, it could eventually lead to a society.
02:55:00.000 So then yes, one family could do it.
02:55:01.000 One family could not constitute a society.
02:55:04.000 Why not?
02:55:05.000 Because a society isn't just made up Of an arbitrary number of individuals.
02:55:13.000 A society is the inadvertent result of different individuals coming into relation with one another.
02:55:21.000 In the case of a family, a single family unit, you couldn't really call that a society.
02:55:26.000 Because in the very nature of what a society is, it already implies there's multiple different families who are mediating their relationships with one another in a specific way.
02:55:35.000 If there's no individuals who exist on planet Earth other than one family, is that society?
02:55:40.000 Honestly, it's just kind of like a retarded question.
02:55:42.000 I don't think it's a retarded question.
02:55:44.000 Saying it's retarded isn't an argument.
02:55:46.000 If there's one family on planet Earth...
02:55:48.000 It's not a society.
02:55:48.000 It's not a society.
02:55:49.000 What is it?
02:55:50.000 It's a family.
02:55:51.000 Which exists absent a society?
02:55:54.000 Um, well, could it exist absent the context of one?
02:55:59.000 No.
02:55:59.000 No.
02:56:00.000 No.
02:56:00.000 That's it!
02:56:01.000 It would have had to have descended from some society then.
02:56:05.000 Nobody's saying anything...
02:56:06.000 Well, no.
02:56:07.000 Why would it have had to, actually?
02:56:09.000 Because there is no specific...
02:56:11.000 There is no way for human beings to exist outside of a society.
02:56:17.000 Why?
02:56:17.000 Why?
02:56:18.000 This is the nature of human beings.
02:56:20.000 They're social beings.
02:56:21.000 Could you exist on a desert island by yourself?
02:56:24.000 But you would have borne the artifacts of some society you came from.
02:56:30.000 So you would be imprinted by some society still.
02:56:33.000 So then your society?
02:56:35.000 Sorry?
02:56:35.000 Your society on the island?
02:56:37.000 No, you came from somewhere.
02:56:39.000 Could a baby...
02:56:39.000 This is the question.
02:56:40.000 Could a baby on an island raise itself and grow up by itself, just totally absent from the influence of any society?
02:56:48.000 No.
02:56:49.000 Impossible.
02:56:49.000 It's an absurd question.
02:56:51.000 No, it's not an absurd question, because it's getting into the idea of what you consider a society to be.
02:56:57.000 And I think that that is important.
02:56:58.000 I'm not trying to be tricky or debate burly.
02:57:01.000 Yeah.
02:57:02.000 I just want to make sure that we're clear on what it is that we're talking about.
02:57:06.000 I think most people understand very clearly what we're talking about when we use words like society.
02:57:12.000 I don't think we need to create invariable parameters that are relevant only for abstract cases like propositional logic or math.
02:57:22.000 You know what?
02:57:23.000 When we're using words like society.
02:57:24.000 Okay.
02:57:25.000 When we use words, we're relying on people's intuitions and sensibilities.
02:57:29.000 If we had to qualify every single word that we use in the most invariable, precise manner and never deviate from that, language itself would be impossible.
02:57:37.000 There would be no way to communicate anything except math.
02:57:40.000 Okay, so...
02:57:41.000 Agreed.
02:57:41.000 But here's the thing.
02:57:42.000 So, maybe we can find common ground again.
02:57:46.000 I agree that almost all of society, when I say the word thief, is going to agree on what that means.
02:57:51.000 It means I stole shit that ain't mine.
02:57:54.000 You would agree with it?
02:57:55.000 You would agree with it?
02:57:56.000 He would agree with it?
02:57:56.000 I would agree with it?
02:57:57.000 I agree.
02:57:58.000 I'm not sure that we would hold a shared definition or idea of society and what that is.
02:58:04.000 And so, I think it is necessary...
02:58:08.000 When we're talking about a distinct concept, when you say, ah, you know, we can't define every single word or human language would become obsolete, I agree.
02:58:17.000 So you think in order for me to use the word society, I have to establish absolute invariable definition?
02:58:23.000 No, I just need a general idea.
02:58:25.000 That's it.
02:58:27.000 So what is so wrong with the general idea of a society as the inadvertent outcome of many individuals in their interrelations?
02:58:35.000 Because I have a different general idea of that than you do.
02:58:36.000 Okay, that's my best shot at from scratch, off the top of my head, trying to define that word.
02:58:42.000 I think that that's fair.
02:58:43.000 I'm just saying to you that if we're talking about...
02:58:46.000 Societies in general.
02:58:48.000 Yeah.
02:58:49.000 We're talking about their morals, right?
02:58:51.000 The idea of morality under communism.
02:58:54.000 Okay.
02:58:54.000 I just want to know, Haas, what is the thing that makes communism moral and capitalism immoral?
02:59:02.000 The thing, the delineation point here.
02:59:04.000 And I feel like we haven't really gotten that.
02:59:06.000 All I have said is that communism makes morality possible.
02:59:12.000 Capitalism makes it impossible.
02:59:13.000 Yeah, you haven't shown me how, though.
02:59:15.000 What do you want me...
02:59:16.000 What precise answer are you looking for?
02:59:19.000 Because I tried to...
02:59:20.000 I'll show you.
02:59:21.000 I'll explain.
02:59:22.000 I tried to begin from a shared premise of capitalism.
02:59:25.000 Like, we're talking about the same thing.
02:59:27.000 A system, not an individual, but a system in which profit is in command and is supreme.
02:59:33.000 You said no, because there can be moral capitalists.
02:59:35.000 I don't give a fuck that there can be moral capitalists.
02:59:38.000 But you said there couldn't be.
02:59:40.000 I said the system itself...
02:59:43.000 It would inevitably lead to widespread wickedness and immorality.
02:59:47.000 Yeah, but you never demonstrated that, Oz.
02:59:48.000 Okay, okay, because I'm trying to begin from somewhere with you.
02:59:51.000 If we agree that capitalism as a system means profits are in command, even if there are some moral capitalists and some moral people, and I don't deny that they exist under capitalism, even the majority may be moral.
03:00:04.000 But we will see the rise of widespread immorality and wickedness, not because of the shortcomings of individuals, but because of the nature of the system itself.
03:00:13.000 Despite the fact that there are some capitalists that are moral, that doesn't change the fact that we're all participating in a fucking system that's producing immoral outcomes.
03:00:21.000 For example, all of our tax dollars right now are going to Israel.
03:00:26.000 Does that make me immoral, that I support personally immoral?
03:00:29.000 Does that make you personally immoral?
03:00:30.000 Yeah, but that's not a concept.
03:00:32.000 Our tax dollars are going to genocide right now.
03:00:34.000 Are we both immoral?
03:00:35.000 Can you agree with me that you can have a capitalist society where they send no money to Israel?
03:00:41.000 Show me.
03:00:42.000 Can you agree that you can have a capitalist society where they send no money to Israel?
03:00:46.000 I don't like hypotheticals because I like to talk about reality.
03:00:48.000 You ask plenty of them, but now you suddenly don't like them.
03:00:51.000 I've only brought up hypotheticals in response to yours to demonstrate their absurdity.
03:00:55.000 Can you have a capitalist society where they don't send fucking money to Israel or not, Haas?
03:00:59.000 Apparently fucking not!
03:01:01.000 No?
03:01:02.000 Apparently fucking not.
03:01:03.000 Well, I don't know what to say about that, bro.
03:01:04.000 Based on actual fucking reality, no.
03:01:06.000 No.
03:01:07.000 All right.
03:01:07.000 Based on the actual world we live in and not the fairytale castle we construct in our minds and our heads, fuck no, we can't.
03:01:13.000 Your example of this is that the reason capitalism is immoral because they're sending fucking money to genocidal Israeli...
03:01:20.000 I'm giving...
03:01:20.000 No, no, I'm giving...
03:01:21.000 Can you, though, have capitalism where they don't do that?
03:01:25.000 I'm using honor.
03:01:26.000 Alright, let's calm down a little bit.
03:01:28.000 I'm going to calm down.
03:01:29.000 All I'm trying to tell you, I'm trying to use this as an example of how you and I can be moral individuals, but as an inadvertent consequence of the circumstances we find ourselves in, we are participating in producing an outcome we will agree as immoral.
03:01:47.000 I don't know if you agree or disagree.
03:01:50.000 But I think that the Zionist genocide is immoral.
03:01:53.000 I pay taxes.
03:01:54.000 Those tax dollars go to funding that genocide.
03:01:57.000 Now, I could be within my limits a moral person.
03:02:00.000 After all, it's not my problem.
03:02:02.000 I'm not directly personally responsible for this, right?
03:02:05.000 So I could still be considered moral.
03:02:07.000 But I'm involved inadvertently in producing an immoral outcome.
03:02:12.000 So it's the same for the nature of capitalism.
03:02:15.000 And that's why I wanted to use it as an example.
03:02:17.000 I'm going to have to give you some major pushback here.
03:02:20.000 It doesn't seem to me that it would be necessary under capitalism to support a Zionist regime.
03:02:26.000 Your failure here is to demonstrate why it would be that because capitalism exists, Zionism regime support must also exist with capitalism.
03:02:35.000 What if I say, if it's not the Zionist regime, it would be something equivalent to the immorality of the Zionist regime.
03:02:42.000 Show me!
03:02:43.000 Show me why that would be a necessary entailment.
03:02:46.000 Because...
03:02:46.000 You want me to explain it to you?
03:02:47.000 Can you not interrupt me?
03:02:50.000 Do you think I've been ridiculous here?
03:02:52.000 No, I just want to be able to, uninterrupted, give an explanation.
03:02:56.000 So, the origins of capitalism itself, in order for everything to be pledged purely for the pursuit of profit and completely alienated from the tangible kind of concrete existence of traditions and relationships and societies people have, requires something that...
03:03:13.000 I don't want to get into terminology and phrases you don't like, but it's called primitive accumulation, where, for example, through colonialism, you have You have capitalists come and separate people from what they call their natural means of production.
03:03:30.000 So, for example, if a given group depends on this land to subsist and survive, and it's the bedrock of their society, their culture, and their traditions, you separate them from their means of survival.
03:03:40.000 So in England, for example, they had the enclosure movement.
03:03:42.000 You had a traditional rural life of peasant farmers.
03:03:45.000 And they lived on farms, and this was the...
03:03:47.000 I think?
03:04:03.000 Separating them from their means of production.
03:04:05.000 And it's on this basis, on the basis of this violence and this theft, which happened on a world scale in the history of capitalism through colonialism, that the capitalist mode of production, that's what we call it, was able to be possible.
03:04:17.000 Only when we violently uproot people from their traditional kind of normal ways of life and means of production is it even possible...
03:04:26.000 For what they call general commodity production, where everything is subordinated and gobbled up purely for their pursuit of profit.
03:04:32.000 For the only way for that to be possible is through the violence.
03:04:36.000 Okay?
03:04:36.000 The same violence that's going on in Gaza with the Zionist genocide.
03:04:39.000 I'll just let you go.
03:04:41.000 Can you show me where communism was implemented without violence?
03:04:46.000 No.
03:04:48.000 But violence in and of itself.
03:04:50.000 I don't regard violence in and of itself as the problem.
03:04:54.000 What's the problem?
03:04:56.000 So saying to me, Andrew, in order for these means of production to exist, there must have been violence and therefore it's evil.
03:05:03.000 No, no, no.
03:05:04.000 There must have not...
03:05:05.000 My turn, my turn.
03:05:05.000 Sorry.
03:05:06.000 I'll let you speak completely on the bridge.
03:05:08.000 Go ahead, go ahead.
03:05:08.000 In order for these means of production to exist, there had to have been violence.
03:05:14.000 Okay, fair enough.
03:05:16.000 Counter.
03:05:16.000 Haas, can you show me where communism was ever implemented without there being violence?
03:05:21.000 Haas, no.
03:05:22.000 You have not demonstrated the immorality of capitalism with this argument, Haas.
03:05:28.000 But you're being presumptuous when you isolate violence alone from what I'm...
03:05:32.000 Violence is a constant of all human history.
03:05:34.000 But what I'm talking about is a fundamental extermination of people's history, traditions, and way of life.
03:05:40.000 It's a fundamental genocide.
03:05:42.000 It's a destruction of peoples.
03:05:44.000 It's not just acts of violence.
03:05:46.000 Violence can be righteous.
03:05:47.000 That's the purpose of the violence that you're arguing, right?
03:05:49.000 Precisely.
03:05:50.000 Okay.
03:05:52.000 So, I don't understand.
03:05:54.000 What would make...
03:05:56.000 I have to kill all opposition or half opposition.
03:06:00.000 What makes one more moral than the other?
03:06:04.000 Because the opposition under communism was not coming from the people.
03:06:10.000 It was coming from antisocial elements that had benefited for a very long time from the immiseration and destruction and the same extermination process being committed in China and in Russia.
03:06:23.000 That same process of primitive accumulation was ongoing.
03:06:26.000 And a small minority of people were benefiting from that.
03:06:29.000 So these are the ones that had the incentive to take up arms and rise against communism.
03:06:34.000 They represented the forces of Satan.
03:06:37.000 They represented the forces, not only enemies of their people, but all humanity.
03:06:41.000 These are excellent assertions, but Haas, why is killing half of a population somehow more moral than killing the entire population?
03:06:53.000 Where did they kill half the population?
03:06:55.000 No, no, no.
03:06:56.000 There are circumstances in which killing is justified.
03:06:59.000 The reason I ask this question is because you are making the kind of really bold claim.
03:07:04.000 Under communism, the killing is justified to the ideology.
03:07:08.000 Under capitalism, it is not.
03:07:10.000 And you say the reason, the distinction, is because one is genocidal and the other is not.
03:07:15.000 And yet, I don't know where the delineation point for white genocide itself, the wiping out of an entire...
03:07:22.000 You don't understand it.
03:07:23.000 ...the entire versus just half, which is your opposition, is more moral than the opposition.
03:07:29.000 Because, first of all, it's not just half.
03:07:30.000 And second of all, basically what it boils down to is you don't understand why it's worse for...
03:07:36.000 The wholesale extermination and destruction of entire civilizations and histories and peoples versus the suppression of counter-revolutionaries.
03:07:46.000 You don't see a material distinction.
03:07:47.000 I would basically claim that they're both immoral, would you?
03:07:49.000 No.
03:07:50.000 No.
03:07:50.000 And that's the distinction between Christianity and you Islamic communists.
03:07:55.000 No, it's not.
03:07:56.000 Every Christian state in history ruthlessly persecuted all opposition.
03:08:00.000 Ruthlessly.
03:08:01.000 There's not a single Christian state in history that wasn't chasing the heretics violently and destroying them and crushing them.
03:08:07.000 Not a single one.
03:08:08.000 Name one.
03:08:09.000 Well, what do you consider a heretic?
03:08:11.000 People who had contrary belief systems that weren't even necessarily engaging in violence at all were ruthlessly suppressed and uprooted and killed on a mass scale.
03:08:20.000 That's fair.
03:08:20.000 Now what do you consider a Christian state to be?
03:08:23.000 The Byzantine Empire.
03:08:25.000 So that's it?
03:08:27.000 Well, I understand you're an Orthodox Christian, so I'm going off of what you would regard probably as a Christian state.
03:08:34.000 I would agree that the Byzantine Empire definitely had a synergy.
03:08:37.000 What other Christian states can you name?
03:08:40.000 The Tsardom of Muscovy, under Ivan the Terrible.
03:08:43.000 And what made that Christian?
03:08:45.000 You tell me.
03:08:46.000 You don't believe it was Christian?
03:08:47.000 I'm asking if it's your claim.
03:08:50.000 You ask me, name a Christian state, I'm giving you examples of Christian states.
03:08:55.000 What made it a Christian state?
03:08:57.000 What is the thing that makes it a Christian state?
03:08:59.000 According to the meaning of what we agree Christianity is, like the historically accepted conventional meaning, those were Christian states where the Orthodox Church was placed at the center of political supremacy and power.
03:09:13.000 So what makes it a Christian state?
03:09:14.000 It got its legitimacy from the church itself.
03:09:18.000 That's where its mandate came from.
03:09:20.000 Real quick, guys, real quick, because we're going into Christianity here.
03:09:23.000 This is a whole other conversation.
03:09:25.000 I guess we're not going to continue on with the communism versus capitalism morality?
03:09:29.000 You guys are done with that topic?
03:09:30.000 Yeah, we can move on from there.
03:09:32.000 That's fine.
03:09:32.000 Because I think he's not saying that there isn't violence on both ends.
03:09:35.000 He's saying the violence that's perpetuated on the capitalistic side has a more nefarious intention.
03:09:40.000 Is that what you would say?
03:09:42.000 Yeah, I would say it's based in wickedness.
03:09:44.000 You haven't demonstrated it.
03:09:46.000 Yeah, you're saying it's all violence regardless is immoral, which is your counter to that.
03:09:51.000 And also that it just was not ever demonstrated that under capitalism is somehow worse, or what the criteria for what worse even would be.
03:10:00.000 The problem with debating you is that I'm not allowed to actually refer to the real world.
03:10:06.000 I just have to dwell in this hypothetical fairytale kingdom.
03:10:09.000 And I struggle doing that because I don't have the same understanding of what...
03:10:15.000 Maybe you could tell me the reason why.
03:10:17.000 Because you demonstrated that you're uprooting an entire civilization to push this capitalistic ideal world.
03:10:23.000 Profit is the main thing.
03:10:25.000 Maybe you could tell them why that is more immoral than, let's say, a communist who kills a million people because we need to push communism.
03:10:34.000 His stance is, well, communists kill people too.
03:10:36.000 I would like, okay, okay, I'll tell you this.
03:10:39.000 How about this?
03:10:39.000 You think about it?
03:10:42.000 That's what I'm interpreting from listening to both of you.
03:10:44.000 Let me real quick read these chats while you think of it.
03:10:46.000 I think that's Andrew's main contention.
03:10:48.000 He's not debating the violence part.
03:10:50.000 He's saying, like, why is one party's violence more nefarious than the others?
03:10:55.000 Yeah, I could definitely.
03:10:56.000 Perfect.
03:10:57.000 I think that's the distinction.
03:10:59.000 What else did we get here?
03:11:00.000 Hey guys, we're going to be moving over to Castle Club.
03:11:03.000 And then we're going to finish up over there and then also have a Zoom call with some of you guys as well.
03:11:07.000 Let's drop the link in there now.
03:11:08.000 By the way, over at the Crucible, who is watching right now live, join the Castle Club.
03:11:14.000 How do they do that, Myron?
03:11:15.000 CastleClub.tv.
03:11:16.000 And then they get in with a subscription, and that's, you know, it's a monthly thing, and then we do Zoom calls, and we answer questions, et cetera, have people interact with the, you know, creators that we have in, or we do Zoom calls on how to make money, how to get girls, how to improve yourself, or special guests that we have in that have certain skill sets.
03:11:33.000 But go ahead, Mo.
03:11:34.000 Mo got something, and then we'll, yeah, we're from a sponsor, and then...
03:11:37.000 Yes, we do.
03:11:42.000 This episode is sponsored by...
03:11:45.000 Our favorite, Rumble 1775 Coffee.
03:11:50.000 Have you ever heard of a recent advertisement scandal?
03:11:53.000 Let me break it down.
03:11:55.000 The CEO of Rumble, Chris Pavlosky, My guy.
03:12:00.000 Recently released an email from an Inspired Brands and Dunkin' Donuts.
03:12:06.000 The email explicitly states that right-wing culture of rumble is too polarizing.
03:12:13.000 In other words, Dunkin' Donuts has had a problem with right-wing culture and wants nothing to do with it, nor rumble.
03:12:22.000 So here's the solution.
03:12:24.000 Stop buying those products that don't support you and start supporting brands that do support you.
03:12:32.000 The competing coffee brand that all we need to get behind is Rumble 1775's Coffee.
03:12:40.000 For a limited of time, Rumble is offering to buy two bags of coffee and you get one free.
03:12:47.000 That's right.
03:12:48.000 You buy two bags and you're going to get one free.
03:12:51.000 So go to 1775coffee.com and enter the promo code Duncan.
03:12:58.000 That is 1775coffee.com.
03:13:01.000 Enter the promo code DUNCAN to get this limited time deal.
03:13:06.000 And thank you, 1775 Coffee, for sponsoring this episode.
03:13:11.000 And actually, Andrew and I have a drink at all times.
03:13:14.000 Bye.
03:13:15.000 This episode is literally fueled by 17.75 coffee.
03:13:20.000 It is pretty good, huh?
03:13:21.000 It's fire, right?
03:13:22.000 It's good stuff, man.
03:13:24.000 So guys, come on over to Castle Club, guys.
03:13:26.000 We're going to finish off the debate there and then answer questions, have a Q&A with you guys.
03:13:29.000 As you guys can see, the debate's winding down, so we're going to start interacting with some of you guys over there.
03:13:33.000 You guys will be able to talk to Haas, talk to Andrew, ask questions, whatever it may be.
03:13:36.000 And we'll go for a little bit longer over there, so come on over, guys.