I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻

I hear you. Now as I try to gain weight, it’s a whole new battle. Thanks for being so vulnerable ♥️

I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻

@@dallasgreen378 😂 this reminds me of a song I haven’t heard in years, kzbin.info/www/bejne/hnbalXt8bLWFa5Isi=SIQ8cm2Hw5l8pGty

I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻

I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻

I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻

thank you for the suggestion <3 will be trying it out

Thank you ♥️ so happy my work gave you something 🙏🏻 much love

Thank you ♥️

sorry the vid wasn't about alien-killing :/

@@andrewbltye lmao

learn to spell before criticizing dude

I’ll always love you ♥️

Thank you ♥️🙏🏻

@@eudaimonius I actually don’t advocate for global forms of governance. But thank you for thinking I’m young enough to still have professors! I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻

i love this reply, thank you for such a considerate contribution! in my opinion, global connection can take many different forms, not necessarily just in governance or technology. furthermore, transnational migration of bodies, ideas, technologies, natural disasters, etc. will only increase over the next century. establishing a more global sense of awareness will really help humanity in the coming years. and although i don't disagree that humanity got along just fine without globalism, that's an era of history i don't foresee us returning to. but who knows? what is "progressive" is often "regressive," though i get that you don't necessarily "mean" those terms

girl you clocked my tea

girl you make lego edits. begone!!!!!!

@ globalist shill lol

Ohhh okay ♥️🙏🏻

I’m actually glad you commented this, especially in conjunction with your other comment in my video about technofeudalism. Yes, I am contradicting myself. The “symbol” of “technofeudalism” fails for all the reasons I mentioned. So why is this “symbolic” act of murder not also a failure? For me, as an individual moral agent, yes, it’s a failure. But as part of the “bottom-up” structure of understanding humanity, the act is a success, if only because it is “representative.” People INTERACTING with their material world in these robust ways is a net positive, whereas TITLING our material world is a net negative. Thank you for engaging ♥️🙏🏻

Foul, bahahaha.

I’ll still always love you ♥️

And subscribe! ♥️🙏🏻

Interesting, thanks for engaging ♥️🙏🏻

@andrewbltye do you?

@@JamesBond-i6u well, I can appreciate the "neo-reactionary" "Dark Enlightenment" movement, of which I know little, for its REJECTION of certain ideas. i agree that new forms of political thought are necessary. i also agree that many of the conclusions reached in the 18th century should be reconsidered, such as definitions of liberty, freedom, and democracy. i like David Graeber's work on this issue. however, there's a generally conservative bent to this 'movement' that i usually do not share. i advocate for a greater degree of IMAGINATION, both in terms of political structure AND human depth/complexity. there are ways to preserve and honor the beauty of humanity through politics that don't involve a regression to older forms of administration, like cameralism. i do appreciate this urge to reconsider how well democracy and freedom can coexist. i just think that Yarvin's "gov-corp," based on my limited knowledge, is still too rooted in the language of our contemporary political/economic landscape to constitute a fundamentally positive change. if i could have everybody on earth do one thing, it would be read more literature. that's the best way to start this work of radical imagination. and have dialogue like this :) thank you for asking. i love hearing from people how they think about humanity and humans and how we can best organize ourselves. that's what good art can speak to, and i am at bottom an artist

Very interesting, Alexander. Once you are able to create a science based on purely material mechanics which is robust enough to reduce humanity to a set of values and laws, then I will concede we are nothing more than the sum of our parts. But until that time I suggest you read a novel or two. Start with Dostoevsky. Or perhaps Shakespeare. There is far more to the world than is dreamt of in your philosophy. I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻

I suspect your belief system is challenged by what I have to say. So you lash out. Just know: I’ll always love you. ♥️

@ I love you too ❤️

You’ve pinned so much hope and emotion on your belief system. Now that I’ve challenged it, you can’t help but lash out. Emotions don’t scare me! And I hope you get to a place where they don’t scare you. Perhaps your fear of emotion is what makes you rely on a reductive worldview. I will always love you ♥️

Validating to metaphysical abstract eternal principles? Good that Marx never aimed at that. Down with them!

Tautology is a no-no! But yes, I agree that Marxism, rooted as it is in its time and place, cannot sufficiently break free from capitalism, so to speak. 🙏🏻

Love ♥️

If Chucky were born in Louisiana

I’ll always love you ♥️🙏🏻 I hope you don’t reduce your own humanity

Thank you for sharing 🙏🏻

Well, perhaps they were too defined by their material conditions….

Appreciate it ♥️♥️♥️

Thank you very much ♥️♥️♥️

@@jindrichburian3946 🙏🏻🙏🏻

Truth, man 🙏🏻

Thank you for engaging ♥️🙏🏻