Selected Quotations of Haz Al Din

Below are a list of direct excerpts from lectures and debates by Haz Al Din of Infrared, categorised into distinctive topics for ease of study. I hope that you find this page of use.

Haz on Biology

Mendelian metaphysics has been disproven time and time again and there is no valid argument for the existence of a discrete unit of hereditary whatsoever. Even National Geographic admits that Mendel’s data was plagued with systematic bias, and his Punnet squares are inapplicable to most complex organisms. However, it is important to understand that studying molecular biology is not the same as claiming the existence of the gene. Therefore the existence of DNA and RNA does not confirm Mendel’s theory to be true. The rise of epigenetics shows that DNA does not function in the way that Mendel proposed. In fact, there are methods of DNA selection which cannot be explained by the concept of the gene alone. DNA should not be viewed as a sub unit of hereditary, but instead as one part of many complex components within a cell that work interdependently and autonomously to fulfill a cell’s existence. All parts of the cell must work simultaneously in order to make hereditary possible. DNA would be functionally deficient in terms of hereditary if it was not allowed to interact with the cell environment.

DNA does not satisfy the criteria to support the concept of a gene. There is nothing genetic about DNA. DNA is mainly responsible for the encoding of proteins. However, proteins alone have a more direct function in organisms such as yeast and bacteria that are less complex, when compared to animals. DNA itself is part of the process of manufacturing proteins, but does not itself have any effect on how these proteins function. The RNA world theory to the origin of life should be viewed with skepticism, as we do not find any similar organisms to this existing today. It is inaccurate to view evolution as simply a linear line from lower to higher organisms, instead the process should be viewed as a branching tree of divergence. If this is the case, we should expect to see organisms existing today that are on a similar level of complexity of ancient species, but for the RNA world this is not the case. Instead of trying to understand how an arbitrary interaction between chemicals caused the emergence of life, we should be observing the anatomy of organisms that exist today, and use this knowledge to understand how organisms may have functioned in the past. We should be asking what life tells us about the nature of these chemicals, not the converse. DNA plays a role in hereditary, but not only DNA can be hereditable. The fact that DNA sequences can be rearranged and that dormant chains can be reactivated calls into question whether the existence of genes as static, atomistic units of hereditary can be justified. The proposal that incremental , random DNA mutations gradually cause changes to organisms over time is disproven, and in reality external pressures can induce rapid changes to morphology on the evolutionary timescale. It is not mathematically possible for complex organisms to emerge from random mutations. Organisms rely upon a complex arrangement of many compartments, so trying to isolate one component to explain its functioning as a whole seems incoherent. A gene is just one part of an organism, it is not responsible in isolation for how such an organism functions.

The reason that a parent and offspring share the same DNA is not because of the DNA itself, but due to the more complex process of epigenetics within the cell that makes this inheritance possible. Inheritance does not solely originate from DNA, but from the entire organism. DNA is not structured in the way for its own sake, there is an underlying cause. DNA has to be perceived as a single part of an entire organism. There is no fixed unit of hereditary at all, hereditary is the process of the reproduction of an organism. The sperm cell is a vessel of hereditary, but not a unit, as much of the DNA from sexual reproduction has to come from the ovum. This shows that organisms do not have a fixed essence, but one that has to be reproduced. The essence of DNA is the way it is because of the organism, not the converse. Fertilisation shows that inheritance relies upon more than DNA alone to take place, showing that it is too simplistic to describe the gene as a unit of hereditary. Although the shuffling of DNA plays an important role, inheritance would not even be able to take place if there was no mechanical interaction between the sperm and ovum under the appropriate conditions, providing that inheritance also relies on other cell components interacting with the genome and the environment, not just DNA alone. All components have equal importance. DNA mutations are not entirely random, and to a certain extent can be manipulated by external pressures. The gene is not the directly 1 to 1 determinant factor for the coding of proteins, as different strands of DNA, which are said to be degenerate, can code for the same amino acid. This why the phenotypes that arise from proteins do not scale linearly with genome size. It is undeniable that codons code for amino acids that build proteins, but how these proteins interact with their environment is not something that can be accounted by DNA alone. The gene is a metaphysical concept and Mendelian genetics has been disproven. Every biologist who studies living nature is struck by the fact that all interconnected organic life can be separated into qualitatively distinct forms. These separate distinctions, which cannot ordinarily breed to produce fertile offspring, lay out the solid boundaries between different species. Groups of species which share similar characteristics are abundant in nature, yet are distinctive and cannot interbreed under natural conditions, so these are qualitatively separate life forms that must instead share a common ancestor (allowing organisms to be grouped into genera).

Until the scientific contribution of Darwin, common belief held that species were eternally fixed, platonic forms, which originated entirely independently from one another. However, Darwin’s creditable contribution to science was proposing that all biotic life on Earth shares a common ancestor, implying that a physical change in organism physiology amongst every species has must occurred over history (and will continue to do so in the future). However, the fundamental flaw of the Darwinist thought is the presumption that species is some form of soil or agar, which has been gradually and continuously morphed over time from the RNA world until present day, and this is still the general consensus amongst most European scientists in the 21st century. This theory gives rise to the presumption that species are not qualitatively distinct forms with clear, defined lines between individuals set out by prehistorical events, but are instead some sort of jelly that is constantly changing and developing. In other words, there are no discontinuities between species in nature. Such problem from this claim arises because how can we define what ‘species’ is if the goalposts that ground the very essence of this term are constantly shifting? Furthermore, it is highly unrealistic to claim that during the entirety of evolutionary history, spanning over 3.8 billion years, that physiological development has always been driven by a perfectly constant rate of randomly occurring genetic mutations. If such continuity was the case, then how can the birth of a new species ever be recognised, if there are no solid, rudimentary and sudden morphological changes that qualitatively outline an offspring as distinguishable in a fundamental sense from its parents? In reality, this issue does not exist, there are always boundaries present that species from each other as separately coexisting lifeforms, and every respectable naturalist knows for a fact that such boundaries exist. If Darwinism was correct, then today we should be able to see an array of intermediate forms between such discrete organisms. However, in the natural world these intermediate forms have not been observed, and to explain how such differences are apparent whilst preserving the respectability of ‘continuous evolution theory’ Darwinism was forced into proposing that such ‘gaps’ between species exist due to infraspecific competition. This embraces the Malthusian thought that was very prevalent during 19th century Britain, suggesting that ‘missing links’ between species were present, although dropped out of the evolutionary arms race to due their inability to survive in a competitive environment over deficient food resources. He suggested that separate species do not exist simultaneously due to solid, distinctive boundaries between organisms, but instead because a continuous line of organisms was disrupted by the selective dropping out of intermediate forms, which could not keep up with the pace of survival. Fundamentally, Darwin believed that humans only made distinctions between species for the convenience of making organisms easier to study, a categorisation forced upon nature by humanity.

DNA reflects upon something bigger that extends beyond its own existence. DNA does not replicate for the sake of DNA itself, and this paradigm should be abandoned. DNA exists within the organism, an organism which exists for a reason, and the theory of evolution does not contradict this. However, the issue with Neo-Darwinism (unlike original Darwinist thought) is that it is based purely in Mendelian genetics, and has a closed mindset towards discussing how the process of evolution in reality arises.

Haz on China

The claim of China as a recently created nation state is a Western abstraction imposed onto the reality of Asiatic history. For 70 years, Japanese and British historians have tried to paint China as an unwelcome occupier of Tibet, and allegations against China regarding supposed genocide in Xinjiang have emerged in the 21st century. However, this hypothesis is academically unfeasible. The main motive for politicians to develop claims of China as an aggressive expansionist is to question the legitimacy of modern China inheriting its historical territories. The answer to this is that China has 5000 years of continuous history involving inclusion towards ethnic minorities on an often unparalleled level when compared to other nations of the same time period. Therefore, some may ask how a country can expand its territory without aggressive colonialist treatment of surrounding ethnic groups, and how can land ruled by ancient Asiatic empires be connected to modern territorial extent? In the past, Chinese territorial expansion stemmed from swelling and joining. Swelling refers to expansion of the Han sphere due to population, which was not usually carried out with military support of the Han regime, but seemed to maintain the required geographical conditions required to allow for the ongoing development of agricultural civilisation. Joining refers to the fusion of civilisation between the Northern Steppe Nomads (including Mongol and Turkic traditions) and the Han culture. The Han had developed an agricultural basis sufficient enough to sustain secure population expansion, although the people of the steppe, who were geographically excluded from arable conditions, which they would gain through political alliance or conquest, establishing economic, military and cultural relations with the more arable plains towards the south of their territory.

As a result, the Qin and Han dynasties established interactive relations with the steppe nomads, many of whom migrated to the farmable Yellow River basin after the collapse of the Han dynasty, establishing their own confederations and pushing the Han south into the Yangtze River basin. The reunification of both basins under the Sui dynasty lead to a greater integration of nomadic cultures into the national identity of China, and this only continued during the expansion of the Tang dynasty into Central Asia. As early as the Yuan dynasty, the people of Tibet were integrated with the Turkic Muslims into Chinese civilisation, under the protection of Mongol leadership. This calls us to question how Mediaeval China was able to rule over a territory even larger than its current extent, without the modern benefits of transportation and communication. The answer is that the royal court would have large control over the centre of the nation, and extend indirect forms of power to more distant lands. However, repeated invasions from empires to the west forced China to strengthen its borders from the Yuan dynasty onwards, causing a gradual shift in power from local leaders to centralised rule. The Han culture no longer consists of a pure blooded ethnic race, due to the constant integration of the Han with surrounding Mongols, Tibetan and Turkic populations, yet geographical cultures have still been preserved, which would never be seen if China was imperialist.

During the 19th century, China suffered a series of invasions and abuses from foreign countries, further uniting all ethnics with the goal of ensuring that the reproduction of Chinese civilisation can continue to survive, formulating the concept of the Chinese nation in a modern sense, and it clear as a result that the modern Chinese state we see today directly tinherits the historical legitimacy of its past. Modern American historians attempt to tarnish the intentions of the Qing dynasty with the same brush as how Russia interacted with its surroundings after Germanisation and the installation of serfdom under Peter the Great. This involved initiating border conflicts as an excuse to occupy neighbouring territories for the sake of colonialistic expansion. They saw neighbouring countries as opportunities for economic exploitation, which was to be gained through relentlessly attacking weaker powers, with no intention of cultural integration. However, this description cannot be applied to the Qing dynasty. Applied in the historical context, many modern historians describe the Qing expansion into the Dzungar Khanate as a brutal invasion that threw consideration over morals out of the window. However, the reality of the situation was much more complicated, with the Dzungar posing a formidable threat to Qing legitimacy. Upon Russia becoming a major colonial power, western expansion into Russia no longer seemed possible for the Dzungar. During this time period, there were conflicts occurring between the Qing and Russia over the Mongol steppes in the East. The Dzungar took this an opportunity, forming an alliance with the Tzar and conducting several destructive raids against the Qing, at one point reaching within 300 miles of Beijing. Clearly the Dzungar were a threat to China, who were forced into fighting a costly war on two fronts. In order to repel Dzungar forcers, the Qing had to divert focus away from territorial clashes over the Mongol steppe, resulting in significant loss of land to Russia. Therefore, China was fighting for a right to survive, so to name their military defense against the Dzungar as an invasion seems unreasonable, and upon expansion into the West the Qing dynasty never sought to reap any economic benefits from the Dzungar. Contrastingly, they wanted to secure an era of peace between China and the western Mongols, as protected under indirect rule from the Chinese state. With full historical context provided, it becomes clear to see how much history has been distorted by Western colonial powers, who have intended to impose an artificial narrative onto the events that took place, and the intentions involved by different powers.

Prior to the colonialist era, the idea of expanding territory purely for the economic benefit of exploiting native peoples seemed unfathomable, and this is an attitude that continued within Asiatic civilisation states such as the Qing and others. These empires did not view the economy and the reproduction of cultural civilisation as separately existing entities, the entire mode of production was oriented towards the recreation of civilisational ways of life, known as the Asiatic mode of production. The Qing dynasty was obligated to ensure military security for the Dzungar peoples, whilst in return the newly integrated tributary enjoyed economic benefits from the state. Contrastingly, the intentions of colonial Russia in Central Asia was expansion purely for economic exploitation, there was no beneficial two way relationship between the locals and the state in place. The intentions of Western European colonialists were very similar, which involved colonising local states by military force, to steal raw materials from and enforce their own cultures upon their colonies. This practise was frequent in colonialist powers including Britain, Japan and westernised Russia. However, the expansion of large, land based Asiatic Empires, including China, the Ottoman Empire, Persia and the Mughals in no way could be related to modern colonialism and its characteristics.

Russian expansion into Siberia from Peter the Great onwards was centred on economically exploiting gold and fur resources, which were highly valued across European markets at that time period. Unlike the Qing, colonialist Russia was not satisfied by nominal recognition from local tribes and Khanates, but instead desired total submission from local rulers to the Tzar, it set out to convert Khans into sources of taxation for the Russian treasury, as expressed by their intention to take large risks to often secure only minor economic benefits for the Empire. Such outlook simply never existed within Chinese empires. The western colonialists wanted to falsely impose an imperialistic narrative onto many historical civilisation states like China and Persia, in order to justify their own disgusting actions. China today continues a culture inherited from the Qing and previous historical dynasties of providing an income to local Turkic and Mongolic officials within the most distant regions of the state, without interfering with the local cultures and lives indigenous to the people native to those geographical regions.

Although the Qing conquered the Dzungar by military force, they did not rule with extreme brutality, maintaining the inclusive attitude towards Central Asian territory that China had practised for two millennia. In fact, after the integration of the Dzungars into China (allowing for the formation of Xinjiang) the tolerance of Qing rule was becoming increasingly attractive to other confederations that now neighboured China, with the Kazakhs and Afghans even making requests to submit to Qing authority. However, the state actually rejected these requests, and was only willing to recognise them as outer vassals, who were treated differently to inner vassals. Inner vassals were located within the borders of the Qing, and experienced indirect and formal rule. Outer vassals engaged as tributaries with the Qing, but were not governed by officials from China, and did not have to meet their political obligations.

Claiming that China as we see it today is a nation that has only existed in recent times is a European vulgarity superimposed onto Chinese history. The notion of China is one that was so advanced that Western Europeans did not even know how to objectively process this, so had to impose their own superficial paradigm onto China, causing an appreciation of its uniqueness in functioning to be lost within Western narratives. There is a fundamental difference between Eastern cultures and European ones. There is a tendency to claim that China as a state throughout history has functioned in a similar manner to late Tzarist Russia, although this clearly cannot be justified. This error stems from a failure to understand the concept of China a polarity, as well as a nation, whereby many ethnic minorities share a desire to develop under a single common identity. Polarity is not a concept that contradicts the nation state, but is one that is more fundamental than it. China, along with other Asiatic empires, developed under conditions very different to Western Europe at the time, hence the reason that many colonialists viewed it as alien. There is a fundamental failure to recognise that the entire world does not function in the same way as the Western polarity, but instead there are many polarities that exist across the world, which are each indigenous to their own geographic situation. This is in reality what the global community looks like. Even in ancient Han China existed tributaries, which were not simply trades enforced upon tribes by the Chinese state, but mutually beneficial interchanges between regional polarities. This was a multipolar interaction between states, one which was not reciprocated by colonial Empires, proving that China was never colonialist.

The Cultural Revolution allowed China to discover and reflect upon the meaningfulness of Communism beyond ideology. By taking the ideology to its extreme most possible conclusion, they were able to discover a more underlying consciousness behind it. The aftermath of this under Deng Xiaoping involved an exorcism of the last remnants of bourgeois civilisation from culture. After the Cultural Revolution, Marxism, whilst being heavily intertwined with culture, can no longer be affixed to a specific cultural or phenomenal form. Marxism in modern China represents a return to the understanding of a sacred cosmos, by understanding meaningfulness through studying the interrelations between phenomena. China discovered the urgency to return Marxism to a sacred revolutionary to maintain fidelity with the revolutionary tradition, for which many people sacrificed their lives.

China is no longer directly partaking in a revolutionary period, but is still part of a revolutionary cycle that still integrates and preserves the totality of revolutionary tradition. Mao understood that without a reinvigoration of revolutionary consciousness which acts as the very foundation upon which Socialism rests, then China would fall into corruption as the Soviets did, and this logic is still expressed in the decisions made by Xi Jinping today.

Haz on Nomadism

How did the Türks come to dominate the geography of the steppe environment in Central Asia for millennia? All a Türk means is someone who adopts the political, military and tribal dynamics of order and language, this concept became crucial for survival in the steppe. Unlike the case for sedentary settings, the people of the steppe could not simply survive by continuously reaping the rewards of any mode of production. They had to rely on tribal alliances formed through honour. Türks are people who initiate themselves into a collective existence based on loyalty and faith.

Nomadic peoples exhibit this deeper type of tribal cohesion, as in the absence of a sedentary economy the only true currency is law, which applies equally to all members regardless of their status. Sedentary civilisations degraded this prior form of solidarity leading to inequality, corruption and the decline of culture. However, this process of a steppe sedentary dialectic did not represent an endless cycle for Eurasia, and culminated into the final principle of world empire, brought forward by Genghis Khan. Under Timur, the notion of world empire transitioned into an imperial principal, which served as a foundation for the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires. All of these post-Timurid empires acted as universal civilisation states, which were expressed as distinct forms based upon their unique lineages of sacred history. These empires considered themselves as the very safeguards of world history until the end of time. The imperial principle of Tartaria signifies the immortality of this deeper revolutionary logic of world history. Tartaria does not simply represent a single empire or a geological area. Tartaria of both fundamental material substance and the weight of world history.

Why is it that a minority of nomadic conquerors throughout history have been able to overwhelm and absorb entire empires and civilisations? Many think that they were brutal savages that forcibly imposed their will on all other, but that is false. The true reason is that they remind people of a raw cultural purpose that is often diluted and forgotten over time by the corrupting effects of a sedentary lifestyle. For sedentary individuals eventually the regular patterns and rhythms of daily life become more fundamental than their own sense of humanity. Divisions of labour become more important than their own sense fundamental law that underpins human dignity and honour, and it is such blindness that prevented farmers across the globe from questioning their oppression for many years throughout history. It was only the invading nomadic hordes of Genghis Khan and Timur that reminded people of sedentary civilisation of their cultural roots, who otherwise would have been trapped in a cycle of institutions or regulations that do not reflect the reality of human loyalty that inspires us on the fundamental level.

In prehistoric times nomads were physically separated by the steppe from settled agrarian populations. However, in modern society we are accountable to a neo-nomadic reality that we occupy and inhabit, even if unknowably. All people belong to a human network of shared honour. Our obligations to friends, family and community are not defined by any single institution, but are represented by the fundamentality of our nomadic self. Although raw nomadism is no longer restricted to the wild steppes, this dimension of reality still exists as extralegal formations within society, which despite not breaking the national law, do not draw their legitimacy from it. These formations are what we refer to as tribes. Tribes cannot simply be defined as groups of people that share a common blood relation, but involve groups of people who are concretely united with each other by trust and dependency. The reason however why tribes often do involve members of a shared descent is that these laws also came to govern family life. However, all tribes have initiation ceremonies which do not require people to have a particular blood relation to join a tribe. In reality, pacts are fundamental to the nomadic dimension of our human existence, and the concept of ethnicity (being a measure of how separated lineages become over time) can only form around this.

So in modern times, how can nomads still exist if the whole premise of their lives (which involved geographical separation from sedentary civilisation) has been removed through industrialisation? Although in the post-industrial era we have distinct countries and territories, globalisation has created a smooth space that flows over borders and transcends the distinctions that define separation between nation states. The integration of global supply chains and the flows of information beyond national borders has enabled the nomadic steppe to become globalised. Although legal relations still develop between countries, more fundamentally the new smooth spaces that have formed as a consequence of how interconnected the world has come are analogous to how the steppe in premodern times used to allow for the flows of information and goods between nations, and although these flows did not contradict national law, they were not entirely constrained by it. So an informal economic space has arose as a consequence of globalisation.

However, over time as particular countries seek to form economic alliances or reduce dependency on one another, supply chains consolidate and economic integration is becoming tighter, meaning that an unconditionally universal global space is slowly transitioning into multipolarity. So in the present context where globalisation is becoming regionalised, where today is the nomadic smooth space? Although US unipolarity has not come to an end, we are entering a bipolar era whereby the multipolar forces of Eurasia are beginning to resist it, facilitating the reemergence of the central Asian steppe. As a result of China’s Belt and Road initiative, which is connecting Asia to Europe and Africa, Central Asia is once again returning to what it used to be in the premodern era, an intermediary zone that great powers are competing over, therefore increasing the significance of neo-nomadism in the context of today.

As globalisation subsides and multipolarity takes its place, the analogy of neo-nomadism is more likely to convert into a more concrete form of real nomadism, and as a result our neo-nomadic selves are going to become more obviously evident in the form of an actual extra-institutional formation. As a result, the world is entering a tribal era, which does not involve one of increased division and balkanisation, but rather a global reckoning of our human existence as part of history and civilisation. In the post-industrial era, nomadic tribal affiliation will not primarily be grounded by family lineage, but will be represented by a sense of belonging to a transcendent moral code that is not reducible to national law.

Haz on Religion

A distinction must be made between philosophy and religion. Philosophy is about proving if an idea is true through a standard measurement. Within the modern world, we are lead to believe that we know everything that there is to learn about reality, and religion plays a role in helping us to appreciate that this really is not the case. The spirit of religion is living. Religion is the future. Religion is an eternally suspended form constantly being confirmed and revealed to mankind with the advance of history itself. Religion presents a remarkable ability to hold onto the truth through all ages, and is unaffected by the passage of time. Religion demands the reading of scripture beyond the surface level. Religion is not the voice of some bearded scholar yelling at you, but remains a guiding hope for those in despair, a voice for the voiceless. When you find yourself in a position of absolute abandonment, religious scripture has an ability to speak to you. Religion obliges you to have a certain level of obligation in the world that you live in, to fight for humanity and to fight for your fellow neighbour, and it is a source of ancient wisdom that presents examples of inspirational models who have done so in the past. Religion calls for us to be responsible for the positions that we hold, and the situations which we face, and calls us to make a choice whether to side with the exploiters or the exploited.

The only way that man can know this world is through studying this world. There has to be something compelling about religion to you in the way that you perceive this world, before you become prepared to accept religion itself. And there must be something fundamentally engrained into the existence of humanity in order for religion to seem compelling to mankind in the first place. Through religion the devoted are able to understand the certain place in the world that they exist in, and how mankind should interact with others in society, and that is a fundamentally materialistic thing, even if not in the vulgar sense. All the conditions that enable man to embrace religion come from God, and if we are made in the image of God, then this extends beyond the individual level to represent our collective existence as a people, and it is the relations between that existence that facilitate the exertion of God’s will upon us. In religion there has to be a rational connection between the causes of belief and the content of belief itself, and that is also the essence of the dialectical method, when you uncover the deeper rational connections that underly apparently separate things, and the outcome of belief is going to be harmonious with its causes. Religion does not simply involve belief in some arbitrary or supernatural form, but it is a faith in something fundamentally materialistic, which has left an imprint upon us all following our creation.

Idealism is based on the philosophical pagan worship of thoughts and is incompatible with religion, which is materialist. Materialism does not presume that only content exists, but is the orientation of human intellect towards reality. Materialism is the orientation of human intellect towards the content of reality. When most people talk about materialism, they simply refer to the physical, hence there is a focus on atoms and substances. Dialectics focuses on the materiality of differences. There is a fundamental distinction that grounds the difference between beings. The ultimate and absolutely transcendent being is God. Our understanding of time and space is proof that an external reality exists, regardless of how we choose to perceive it, hence why there is room for faith. We can still have an understanding of time and space regardless of not having full knowledge of such, as they are not based in our knowledge. The preconditions for knowledge are based in God. God still exists, even though we do not fully understand Him. Fundamental faith is knowing that God must exist, even though we cannot appreciate the specifities of His existence. Being itself cannot be completely reduced to our thoughts. Matter cannot be described without human consciousness, yet is not a projection of and does not owe its existence to such.

The inability for humans to describe material does not mean that things do not exist beyond our consciousness. It is arrogant for one to suggest that he understands the essence of God. In the Bible, Jesus says “Before Abraham was born, I am” suggesting that God is an eternal material substance who has existed since the beginning, independent of human thought. There is so much beauty and truth to be found in religion that to me it is like oxygen, without it I am fundamentally lost. It makes everything come together and make sense. Religion should not be prescribed to specific nations, but should flourish as the superstructure of civilisation. The beauty of religion is that it is nationally amorphous, and can exist in the context of many civilisations, where there is a coexistence between a great wealth of differences between people of the world. As opposed to imposing ones cultural traditions onto others from the perspective of arrogant superiority, and religious unity is a way of finding unity through difference, rather than at its expense. There is something about matter that attests to a deeper truth at the heart material being itself, which can be identified as humanity. The human being cannot solely focus on Heaven and Earth, but is a dialectical unity of both. The essence of humanity comes from the creation of God, and this is something that we must discover through our devotion and duty to mankind. We cannot simply prescribe a predefined form to man. You can easily answer the question of what is the essence of man using the language of religion. The essence of man somehow originates from God. God is not some passing thought of the human mind, but refers to the existence of a fundamental metaphysical essence, and the religious view holds is that it is in serving our fellow man, which we have a duty to perform, that we can express devotion to God. Religion is the fundamental way of worshiping God and relating to Him, whereas philosophy is the expounding of this way into consciousness. Reducing religion to solely how it is expounded is isolating the fundamental essence of religion. Religion expresses that the beauty of God can be seen through studying all that is beautiful within this world, and His creation allows us to have a connection with Him.

Religion allows the believer to understand the fundamental order of different aspects of the cosmos. Similarly to religion, Marxism refinishes recognises various material principles that are not physically tangible, for example, class and modes of production. Such concepts cannot be defined through tangible measurements, but only by studying their relationships and how they reproduce themselves. Therefore, there is no conflict between materialism and religion. Marxism views that there are material laws that govern our Universe and the development of the Cosmos. So if there is a material integrity of the Cosmos and the Universe, then there has to be a fundamental principle of existence in reality, and religion recognises this as God. Specifically, the rejection of idolatry by monotheism is fundamentally materialistic by suggesting that the greatness of God is something that exists independently of human thought which can never be fully encapsulated by the mind, and thus rejects attempts to reduce His reality to empirical measurement. Therefore, if the reality of existence cannot be reduced to a single determination, then this is equivalent to dialectical materialism. Communism is the same as monotheism. Polytheism lacks the notion of a single shared reality which humans have in common before which all are equal. However, Marxist materialism is monotheist because it recognises one ultimate material reality, which is man. Our shared universal human reality is the fundamental point of reference against which all thinking must occur, including within Marxism.

If there is an absolute material of being, then the history of the relationship with that being must precede us in some way. To say that we suddenly at one point gained full clarity with respect to what this is means that we have discovered it by means of philosophy and thought, which is an absurdity that presents itself as a mental proposition rather than an authentic relationship to material being by means of revelation. Religion calls upon us to question our relationship with the fundamental rationale behind all of the world’s traditions. Living Faith does not simply ask us to blindly follow preset rules, but allows us to explore our relationship with the absolute, in such context that laws and rules become necessary. So Shariah law is the foundation of dialectical materialism. The authority of religion must be proven by the living evidence that your actions align with what the masses know in their heart to be true, and the only way that this verification can be completed is through developing a personal relationship with God. The reason that many people are disillusioned with religion today is because it is often dressed up as superstition, which attempts to scientifically prove that future events were predicted in scripture, rather than referring to the authority of God. The authority of Faith is drawn from the struggle of the present of truth against falsehood, all that matters is a consistent fight in good against evil whilst holding onto genuine faith in the heart. At the end of time we will all be measured by our works. A desire to conform to other people’s cultures or habits is not a strong enough justification to engage in religion today.

When Marx described religion as “the opium of the people”, he did not view religion as a simplistic tool to pacify the poor as many have been lead to believe. In fact, he viewed religion as the most authentic reflection of man’s existence within this world. For Marx, religion has a more authentic status than philosophy and theory. Both Marx and Engles recognised the important role that religion had played in revolutions throughout history, including early Christianity. When Marx and Engles described the dissolution of religion, they did not view that religious practises overtime would be phased out and replaced by secularism. Instead, they believed that all of the content of religion, including respect for human life and a willingness to become martyred for a just cause, would become submerged into the real material conditions of the struggle and be reflected in it. I agree with the view of Marx that in a reality that reacquires a sacred and holy status, religion and political will no longer be held in separate regards, but shall be reintegrated into one reality. Marx and Engels saw a need for religion to be completely re-absorbed into the integral totality of man’s existence in history, where every aspect of the sacred is to be reflected into the sciences and arts of society. Marx was disillusioned with how religion was being used by the fouling class to cover the interests of the oppressors who themselves held little authentic faith at all. So rather than promoting atheism, Marxism argues that the division between religion and the living world, rather than religion itself, is what must be overcome.

There can be no distinction made between the sacred and the secular. We must accept that within this world, there cannot be a divide between the material and the spiritual, both occupy the same reality that we live in. This means that our obligations to our fellow men in this world should also be held sacred and spiritual. Our failure to recognise this is fundamentally responsible for the dysfunction of today’s civilisation.

Haz on Joseph Stalin

Stalin was a Libertarian. He seemed to directly take away political power from the official party bureaucrats and place it into the hands of the people. Stalin believed that the level of political literacy amongst the Party was low, and this infers why there was hostility towards Stalin from Khrushchev and others in the Party after his death. This consideration is fascinating, as in the West Stalin is often presented as an authoritarian control freak and political tyrant, whereas in reality. Contrastingly, his real interests were on combatting regional Soviet power holders, and restoring power to the ordinary people. Therefore, the implications of Kruschev’s Secret Speech had collateral impacts on Communist parties in the West, to the extent of seeding their subsequent decline. Kruschev’s criticism of Stalin evidently had an enormous demoralising effect on Communist movements worldwide, who had unquestionably viewed Stalin (now under slander by the Soviet Union) a hero. 30% of Communists outside of the Soviet Union and China abandoned their parties within two years of Kruschev’s Secret Speech, and the disinformation involved became uncontested viewpoints held by the Soviet leadership beyond Kruschev.

However, factual Soviet archives of documentation from when Stalin was still alive have a tendency to disprove all allegations made by Kruschev in his Secret Speech. One of the most frequently allegated claims of poor governance from Stalin often made regards his involvement in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and organisations such as the Polish government use this as a mechanism to claim that the Polish Jews were never liberated. However, in actual fact Stalin was not only the last major superpower in Europe to resort to appeasement after seeking a closer alliance with Britain and France, which was rejected, but the entire framework of the Soviet Union launching a cooperative invasion of Poland with Nazi Germany is a misrepresentation. Following the invasion by Nazi Germany on the 1st September 1939, the Polish government fled into exile without appointing a representative acting leadership, which under international law at the time meant that Poland had ceased to exist as a state. Furthermore, Soviet territorial gains in the East did not resemble pioneering expansion, but simply reclamation of lands that had been from the Soviet by military force in 1921, and brought an end to horrific mistreatment of Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians by the Polish government, whilst prolonging an even more horrific fate under the Naizs. After being rejected by Britain and France, Stalin had no choice but to bide time as he needed to raise the Soviet army from scratch, entering WW2 in 1939 would have resulted in an inevitable German victory. Nevertheless, anti-Stalinists throughout history have used this pact as an attempt to equate Stalin with Hitler as two sides of the same totalitarian coin, although material reality would suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, it can be argued that researchers funded by Gorbachev caused even more damage to Stalin’s reputation than under previous leadership, and this was greatly due to the fact that Gorbachev viewed Kruschev’s Secret Speech as the genuine truth. As a Kruschevite, Gorbachev funded the flourishing of articles and journals slamming Stalin with the same intensity of Kruschev before him, yet over a longer time period. For instance, he genuinely believed that the Holodomor famine was a genocide, and sponsored scholars to uproot any dirt possible that would point blame towards Stalin.

In actual fact, the Holodomor is a term that does not emerge until the 1950s, and is used to describe traitors to the Ukrainian SSR, such as Stephan Bandera, who sided with Nazi Germany during WW2. Here they sided militarily with the Nazis, were employed into overseeing horrific extermination camps and would continue to cause civil unrest in the Ukraine after the War. Furthermore, many of the war criminals fled to West Germany, Canada and the United States, and would be pampered by the associate governments there, promoted into ranks of responsibility. After the fall of the Soviet Union, remaining Ukrainian Fascists and their successors fled back into Ukraine, integrating themselves into educational and historian roles. This was one of the triggers allowing for a steady rise in Neo-Nazi sentiment, with streets and public spaces starting to be named after German collaborators from WW2.

Additionally, the theory of a so called genocide under Stalin of Ukrainians, which gained traction from Ukrainian war criminals abroad in the 1980s seeking to normalise the equation of Stalin with Hitler, became taught within the school curriculum as a fact, despite the sheer lack of evidence available. It is true that there was a famine in the 1930s, although this was not confined to Ukraine but impacted wider regions of the Soviet Union, with Kazakstan most severely affected. Therefore the claim of a targeted genocide against Ukraine under Stalin is one that cannot be supported. What Ukraine would like to see today is that the so called Holodomor becomes as widely accepted as a genocide as the Holocaust actually perpetrated by the Nazis under Hitler, yet no evidence from the time supports this.

Today we are in a situation where the credibility of many historical academics cannot be supported by the extent their methods of scientific research into real world events. However, with the world now entering an increasingly multipolar era (characterised by the rising powers of Russia and China amongst other) it is going to become increasingly difficult for Stalin to be held to a universal Western perspective, with evidential studies rather than ideological preconceptions becoming increasingly more welcome. In the words of Stalin himself “I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped upon my grave, but the winds of history will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy”.

Furthermore, the impact of Stalin’s revival of the Church is one that has a permanently enduring imprint on Russia even to this day, through ensuring the survival of a post Marxist-Leninist ideology. The underlying influence Marxism Leninism and the legacy of Stalin has failed to simply fade away from modern day Russia due to the collapse of the Soviet Union,. Communism has obviously caused the nation to be qualitatively different in essence today when contrasted with the nature of Russia under as it was under the Tzar. Many people in Russia who do not even claim to be Marxist Leninists, including Putin, hold world views and characteristics that are the result of an upbringing under the Soviet society, and this effect is irreversible. Stalin was responsible for the integration of Soviet Marxism Leninism into Russian Orthodoxy spiritually, and as a result modern Russian conservative ideology can no longer be simply viewed as a return to pre Soviet religiosity, but one that is post Soviet.It is due to Stalin’s revival of religion that the raw essence of Marxism Leninism can still be found in Russia today, even if not in an institutional sense.

This sentiment in particular is a crucial factor that separates Stalin from Hitler. Stalin was different from Fascism and unlike the case for Nazi Germany, he allowed Communism to flourish from the root origins of Soviet society, whereby the Russian peasant became the new subject of statehood to such an extent that it could reproduce itself independent of the state. For instance, this explains why even when the Soviet people West of enemy lines fall under Nazi tyranny, huge partisan movements are undertaken despite absence of direct command from the state. Stalin enabled the Soviet state to develop deep roots amongst the people.

Haz on The Russo-Ukrainian Conflict

Many people attempt to portray the conflict in Ukraine as an act of Russian imperialism, which has reciprocated itself throughout history. However, this is simply not the case, and Russia’s actions in fact represent their resistance to become hosts of the parasitical unipolar world order, which happened to many former Soviet states and Warsaw pact members after the fall of the USSR. If you want to talk about repeating history, the Ukrainian government has actively woven Neo-Nazi’s in to their national army, who have committed highly documented atrocities against Russian Slavs, like the World War 2 occupiers that they still view as heroes, whilst parading banners of the Hitlerite Stepan Bandera, who committed horrors against the Ukrainian Jews, through the streets. Similar intentions have been reciprocated in modern day, and events such as the Odessa massacre resemble a campaign of terror, intimidation and violence against the Russian speaking population of East Ukraine. Contrastingly, the Russian army does not show any sympathy towards executors of genocide.

Lenin founded Ukraine with the intention of creating a unified territory where there could be equal representation of both Russian and Ukrainian speakers. Fast forward through time, we find Yanukovich to be a representative of the Eastern Russian speakers, so his ousting also meant and eradication of their state sovereignty. You cannot justly suspend the constitution of a country at the cost of the very own people living there. It is not simply about defending the former constitution of Ukraine, but defending the sovereign right of all who live there to express sovereign power, which must include Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea. After the installation of the new government, oligarch all families were appointed to have feudal control over the resources of East Ukraine, and it was these who were overthrown by the peoples of Donetsk and Lugansk. These people were no longer being democratically represented, violating the founding intentions of Ukraine, so had a right to split.Countries have a right to self determination and sovereignty, yet they must still recognise the historical and civilisational realities in which their existence is situated.

Additionally, it is false to claim that Neo-Nazis do not exist within the Ukrainian army, simply because persecution has been directed towards Russian speakers, rather than Jews, as although Anti-Semitism was a tool taken advantage upon by the Nazis in the 1930s, this was not the cause. The real reason why the Jews were slaughtered is because the Nazis considered them foreign to Europe, in the same way that the newly imposed Euromaidan government perceived Eastern Ukranians as Asiatic and ethnically impure. This is why public monuments were raised in honour of Stephan Bandera after the Euromaidan, and Zelenskyy particularly as a man with Jewish heritage should be ashamed of himself for permitting such evil to be rejoiced. And this is why the Azov Batalion, who had dominating presence over Eastern Ukraine used to bomb schools full of children, flatten churches to the ground on a Sunday and commit acts of torture so vile that they cannot be spoken of without my words being censored for gore. This is why they continue to shell civilian infrastructure in terrorises that they have lost. Their intent shown is not simply political, but genocidal.

It is also important to understand that even when Yanokovich was in power, who eventually turned to seeking investment from Russia after being rejected by the European Union, there were still some spheres of government representing Western Ukraine who saw the EU as some kind of potential saviour to all their problems.

Haz on Veganism

Veganism in most cases does not view humans as objectively being on the same hierarchical layer as animals, but it does propose that the only difference between both beings is level of intelligence. Placing humans and animals on the same plane of being, with distinctions only being made due to levels of evolutionary complexity, is extremely dangerous. Veganism places humans on the same spectrum of consciousness as other animals, even if not at the same point on that spectrum. In reality, animals are so distinctively different to humans that it is extremely difficult for a man to relate with an animal emotionally, we cannot make predictions of how animals may perceive the world due to this. Ultimately, we are dealing with two entities that are so radically different that empathy cannot be possible between both. It is impossible for us to understand animal experience. Consciousness refers to a fundamental awareness whereby there is a recognition of the existence of something more fundamental in the world that simply visually perceptible objects. For example, religion give description towards the existence of the Divine. To extend beyond identifying the differences between objects requires a stream of thought that exceeds what animals are capable of. The difference between humans and animals is being aware of the existence of something fundamental that surpasses our immediate being. It is not that humans are biologically more complex than animals, but that there is a certain appreciation of the world which we can hold, that cannot be replicated by animals. Subjectivity refers to how humans can identify our being in relation to one another, and this cannot be possessed by animals. It is also clear animals should not be viewed as idle objects, and humans do have a level of biological commonality with animals. However, we hold a unique sense of being that makes humanity qualitatively different from them. For instance, animals can experience the negativity physiological response of pain, which is a subjective interpretation. However, only humans can relate this response to our own fundamental awareness. Human trauma is not simply a biomechanical response, but comes from the fact that pain is disrupting a former state of psychological harmony. This is why varying levels of pain tolerance can exist across human individuals. Animals cannot experience trauma, but exhibit a response caused by distresses in the surrounding environment. Unlike animals, humans can experience pain without needing any physiological input, external stimuli is not always needed, Only humans can feel anxiety due to failing to serve purpose in life.

Animals are entirely different beings which we will never be able to fully comprehend. Although there is a qualitative difference between humans and animals, although it is important to remain humble as all life is given by God, so the extent to which we use animals should not be wasteful. There is a boundary between humans and animals, but this distinction is not infinitely thick. For this reason, humans can have no problem with consuming animals, whilst strongly condemning the torture of animals. We should derive our respect for animals not just because of what we know about them, but based off what we can never understand about them. The issue with veganism is that it seeks to overly familiarise the animal world, although there is a clear distinction present that cannot be bridged. The fundamental form of humanity can only be understood through studying the differences between cultures and civilisations. If we look at human abuses of mankind, atrocities towards fellow men such as slavery throughout history have initiated responses that have caused such practise to cease. However, the human consumption of meat since the dawn of history has never triggered such response. In a relationship between a slave and his master, both opposing parties can have an independent input, it is not only the master that defines this relationship. This analogy cannot be applied to the relationship between humanity and animals. Animals cannot independently engage in a dialectic with humanity that has the power to change the history of entire cultures and civilisations. Human being is not defined by individuals, but collectivism, culminating in culture, society and civilisation. Every human being naturally belongs to a society, which does not exist at the level of animals. The way in which other humans are born into this world and develop is much closely related to one’s self, compared to how animals develop, the origin of human life is shared amongst mankind in a way that is not reflected by animals. This explains how practises such as slavery (which can only exist between humans) causes such a fundamental disturbance in the soul that has the power to cause unprecedented effects on the perpetrator, humans have a shared origin which in a way brings humility towards each other that cannot be felt for animals. Humans are not simply the expressions of DNA strands, but have the potential to leave an impactful legacy on world history, through making conscious decisions.

Haz on Zionism

To criticise Zionism is not the same as criticising Judaism outright. It is important to understand that there is a war in every faith, just as there is a war within the Jewish faith. Obviously not all Jews are Zionists, and there are many mystical traditions within Judaism that encourage respect for other religions. As Judaism has its own struggle due to Zionism, there are also many destructive factions that exist in Islam as well, such as Wahhabism. After all, the Muslim world has failed Gaza. Those who form a negative obsession with the Jews are in fact aiding the Zionists, who as a result have been extremely successful over the past century. It was only due to the Nazis that the Zionists were able to establish the state of ‘Israel’, which could not have been created without the Holocaust.