Books to understand third position ideas? I want to refute capitalist and marxist faggots

not really. read Friedrich List, he never gets recommended here.

I think third positionism is diverse and pragmatic. I see Peron as one, but also NSDAP Germany and Fascist Italy.

It depends what position they are in. Major nations in geopolitical dilemmas obviously have to have more developed geopolitical views. Person's geopolitics could basically be "survive the Americans" and "the enemy of the Americans is my friend."

The most interesting third positionists current advocate a federated Europe, a Europe of nations.

it should be a combination of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian foreign policy, nothing less.

Yes fair enough

Bump

Attached: hitrev.jpg (474x710, 49.22K)

Fuck you, Angela Nagle

Attached: 513RCJBLu5L._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (325x499, 25.53K)

Strasserists wanted a european union with a common currency

Who is this Richard Tedor guy, you can't find anything about him.
In the end it's prob. Varufakis or someone lmao.

watch some cultured thug videos, there are many book recommendation in them.

Attached: cec582280a7ae0dee7d0625792f1e5df.png (501x337, 146.74K)

Gottfried Feder (The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation & Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest Slavery).
R.W. Darre (A New Nobility of Blood and Soil)
Alfred Rosenberg (The Myth of the Twentieth Century)
Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

You don’t need to read anything to do that user, no matter how many times a Marxist or Capitalist might seem reasonable they’ve almost always adopted at least one position the liberals have pushed on them. Just tell them trans women aren’t women or there’s no such thing as angels—no need to talk economics. Anyone watching will know you’ve destroyed them intellectually.

>I want to refute capitalist and marxist faggots
Read the Church Farthers or the Greeks

you should understand what capitalism is first. read Capital

Adolf HItler's campain was financed by I.G farben, property of rockefeller.
AEG, german company, was property of Warburg, the same guy who was behind the american fed in 1913.
General electrics controlled nazi germany communications.
Hitler killed Ernst Rohm, to please the german Capitalists, when Ersnt Rohm and the SA were the socialist wing of the NSDAP, and fought hard in the street for the party in the 1920s.
Quote from Ernst Rohm from the 18 april 1934:
""The fight of these long years until the German Revolution, the stage of the course that we cross at the moment taught us vigilance. A long and often bitter experience has taught us to recognize the declared enemies and the secret enemies of the new Germany under all the masks" and then cries out "Reactionaries, conformists, bourgeois... We feel like throwing up when we think of them "
Other quote from Ernst Rohm (28 february 1934):
"Adolf is despicable, he betrays us all. He only associates with reactionaries and takes those East Prussian generals for confidants! Adolf went to my school. From me he learns everything he knows about military matters. But Adolf is and remains a civilian, a dabbler, a dreamer."

Roman Patriarchy is basically it but we don't have Varro so you're SOL

Feder is a good choice too

No, fuck you random faggot

This. Reading and understanding Capital is important because it presents one side of the critique of capitalism that we build one. It's also good for understanding the marxist viewpoint and worldview, and where we diverge.

Yes you national "socialists" (RIP Ernst Rohm), want to built a "good" Capitalism. :s.
A "good" Capital accumulation.
A "good" Wage labor.
A "good" money.

If the jews are master of Capitalism, bad.
If some people called aryan nazis are in charge of Capitalism, good.
That's basically what national socialism is. Pretending to tame Capitalism, when in fact, in reality, during nazi germany, the Capitalists, owners of the means of production did pretty well.
In a nazi type of Capitalism, it is still the Capitalist class which got the better side of the bargain, instead of the proletariat.

Ah yes, assuming and strawmanning.

I'm not a natsoc you idiot.

>Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Hitler next explained precisely the foundations of the new economic and financial system:

>"If ever need makes humans see clearly it has made the German people do so. Under the compulsion of this need we have learned in the first place to take full account of the most essential capital of a nation, namely, its capacity to work. All thoughts of a gold reserves and foreign exchange fade before the industry and efficiency of well-planned national productive resources. We can smile today at an age when economists were seriously of the opinion that the value of currency was determined by the reserves of gold and foreign exchange lying in the vaults of the national banks and, above all, was guaranteed by them. Instead of that we have learned to realize that the value of a currency lies in a nation’s power of production, that an increasing volume of production sustains a currency, and could possibly raise its value, whereas a decreasing production must, sooner or later, lead to a compulsory devaluation."

The Nazi economy was somewhat exceptional but it was a planned socialist economy and has at the very least been called strongly Keynesian, most Fascist economies were corporatist/national syndicalist though. Remember that whenever a Marxist says socialism isn't real until "capitalism is abolished," what he really means is all states under a rolling Trotskyist or Stalinist revolution, because his definition of "capitalism is gone" is either "centrally planned statist empire administered from Moscow" or "entire world enters revolutionary utopia Marx says I can't describe until it happens." So he's either being dishonest or utopian.

Daily reminder to read Quigley so you know what you're up against. Hint: it's not some academic abstraction, it's a real network of real bankers and technocrats that solidified over the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Tragedy_Hope_excerpt.html

"Capitalism" isn't a free-floating abstraction, it is the decentralized financial empire of these people, whose modern form is the IMF and etc.

>planned socialist economy
Still enriching the american jewish shareholders of AEG, I.G Farben, General electrics, Standard oil, etc...
>Remember that whenever a Marxist says socialism isn't real until "capitalism is abolished," what he really means is all states under a rolling Trotskyist or Stalinist revolution, because his definition of "capitalism is gone" is either "centrally planned statist empire administered from Moscow"
No, that according to a classical marxist, is State Capitalism. Which was indeed soviet Russia.
>entire world enters revolutionary utopia Marx says I can't describe until it happens."
Try revolutionary Catalonia (1936), which approached this "utopia". Way more than the national "socialists" (RIP Ernst Rohm), or Bolsheviks (authoritarian State Capitalists).

/thread

John M. Cooper - The Works of Plato
Aristotle - Metaphysics
Fichte - The Destination of Man
Thomas Carlyle - Heroes and Hero Worship
Hegel - Outlines of The Philosophy of Right
Martin Heidegger - Discourse on Thinking
Benito Mussolini - The Doctrine of Fascism
Renzo de Felice - Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice
Mario Missiroli - What Italy Owes to Mussolini
Zeev Sternhell - The Birth of Fascist Ideology
Bertrand de Jouvenel - Sovereignty: An Inquiry Into The Political Good
Alasdair MacIntyre - Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
Robert Filmer - Patriarcha
Hegel - Science of Logic
René Girard - Violence and The Sacred
Hegel - The Phenomenology of Spirit
Giovanni Gentile - The Theory of Mind As Pure Act
Gabriele D'Annunzio - Collection Novels
Janet Biehl - Ecofascism Revisited: Lessons From The German Experience
Anthony Giddens - A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism
Charles R. Bambach - Heidegger's Roots: Nietzsche, National Socialism, and The Greeks
Shlomo Avineri - Hegel's Theory of The Modern State
E. M. Cioran - A Short History of Decay
Kant - Critique of Practical Reason
Ernst Nolte - Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, National Socialism
Derek Hastings - Catholicism and The Roots of Nazism: Religious Identity and National Socialism
Madison Grant - The Passing of The Great Race
Bernard Bosanquet - Philosophical Theory of The State
Carlos Videla - National Socialism Its Principles and Philosophy
Giovanni Gentile - Genesis and Structure of Society
Aline Lion - The Idealistic Conception of Religion: Vico, Hegel, Gentile
Heinrich von Treitschke - Politics
Guillaume Faye - Archeofuturism
Giovanni Gentile - The Philosophy of Art
Hegel - Lectures on The Philosophy of History
Julius Evola - Synthesis of The Doctrine of Race
F. H. Bradley - Ethical Studies
Alexander Raven Thomson - Civilization As Divine Superman
Bernardo Kastrup - Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to Life, The Universe, and Everything
Anthony Giddens - The Consequences of Modernity
Julius Evola - The Myth of The Blood: The Genesis of Racialism
Mario Palmieri - The Philosophy of Facism
Georges Sorel - Reflections on Violence
James Gregor - The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism

No true socialist is a retarded game to play because everybody starts from different premises and it descends into shit-flinging and alternate revisionisms. There is no dialogue, just two sides saying Germany either subordinated the German industrialists or was their lackey, with nothing in between. All the interesting aspects and nuances are lost because no one is really interested in uncovering those.

>classical marxist
Marxist orthodoxy is a sham. "Classical" Marxism was the bourgeois scientism of Engels and Kautsky, which simply treated Capital as an economics textbook. "Orthodox" Marxism was a Stalinist Hegelian religion that ideologically collapsed faster than it coalesced. Gramsci freely admits that you can't ultimately justify Marxism as "science" (the standpoints of both classical and orthodox Marxism); so do Horkheimer and Adorno, who then retreat into critical theory, while Gramsci tacitly accepts Sorelian voluntarism. The most interesting Marxist was Lenin and he failed and opposed Stalin on the nationalities question anyway, and would have shot himself on the spot if he knew what he was creating.

Of all these failed and mutated descendants of Marx, national syndicalism and Mussolini's Marxism are the most interesting, and unlike the USSR, it can at least be argued that syndicalism and corporatism worked. After all, the capitalist powers chose to ally with the USSR against the corporatist/syndicalist powers, not the other way around.

(You)
(OP)
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
Hilaire Belloc - The jews
J. K. Bluntschli - The Theory of The State
Reńe Guénon - The Crisis of The Modern World
Julius Evola - Revolt Against The Modern World
Robert C. Scharff - Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition: An Anthology
Francis Yockey - Imperium
Yukio Mishima - Spring Snow
Jonathan Bowden - Why I Am Not A Liberal
Thomas Carlyle - The Present Time
Henry James Summer Maine - Ancient Law
Antonio Gramsci - Modern Prince and Other Writings
Josh Neal - Americana Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism
Dennis Bouvard - The Ancient City
Scott Howard - The Transgender Industrial Complex
James Drennan - B.U.F. Oswald Mosley and British Fascism
Muammar Gaddafi - Green Book
Carl Schmitt - Theory of The Partisan
Gaetano Mosca - The Ruling Class
Various - Readings on Fascism and National Socialism
Isaiah Berlin - Freedom and It’s Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty
Paul Stiles - Is The American Dream Killing You
Christopher Blum - Critics of the Enlightenment: Readings In The French Counter-Revolutionary Tradition
Darrin M. McMahon - Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and The Making of Modernity
Julius Evola - Fascism Viewed From The Right
Colin Jordan - National Socialism Vanguard of the Future
Yukio Mishima - The Sea of Fertility
Arthur Penty - The Restoration of The Gild System
Yukio Mishima - Hagakure: Samurai Ethic and Modern Japan
Kerry Bolton - Revolution From Above
Oswald Spengler - The Decline of The West
Warren H. Carroll - The Last Crusade: Spain 1936
Nick Kollerstrom - How Britain Initiated Both World Wars
Pasquale Romanelli - The Philosophy of Giovanni Gentile: An Inquiry Into Gentile's Conception of Experience
F. H. Bradley - Appearance and Reality
T. H. Green - Lectures on The Principles of Political Obligation.
Anna Bramwell - Blood and soil: Richard Walther Darré and Hitler's "Green Party"
Fascist Voices: Essays from the 'Fascist Quarterly
Emile Durkheim - The Division of Labor In Society
Gertrude M. Godden - Benito Mussolini: The Birth of the New Democracy
John Mynard Keynes -The End of Laissez- Faire
Roger Griffin - Fascism
Zeev Sternhell - The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition
F. H. Bradley - Appearance and Reality: A Metaphysical Essay
Roger Scruton - The Aesthetics of Architecture
Carl Schmitt - Legality and Legitimacy

Also, don't bother arguing with followers of modern flavours of communism/conservatism or whatever they call themselves. Best way is to just get fit and say 'So what?' to them whenever they screech, considering that their mental deformity is only matched by their physical deformity.

Don’t read Tedor, just go straight to the primary sources of Hitler, Goebbels, Feder, Darre, Rosenberg, Rudolf Jung, etc. His takes were so basic after reading those that I ended up not wasting my time by finishing the book.

>If the jews are master of Capitalism, bad.
>If some people called aryan nazis are in charge of Capitalism, good.
Yes retarded, that's exactly how it works.
If you have the capital under capitalism then you have the ability to direct society were you want.
Ends up that it is better for a society to direct itself than to allow an alien race of ruthless usurers that hate you to direct the course of your society.

Not him, but Marx is correct that capitalism will produce "Jews" in the long run even if you get rid of the actual Jews.
>The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew.
>The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
>Bourgeois society continuously brings forth the Jew from its own entrails.
Karl Marx

There have been other Jews, like the Phanariots in the Ottoman Empire and how the Chinese behave in Asian economies today. And the Jews have really been a hybrid of Anglo-Jewish finance - basically combine Werner Sombart's The Jews and Modern Capitalism with Quigley's Anglo-American Finance and you will have a good picture of it. Parisian bankers were also in on it, in the 19th century, but they eventually got pushed out and France was reduced to full vassal status.

>The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Darbyshire and defy New Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process.

>You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew. Your allies in your victimized holdings are the bunyah, you stand for NOTHING but usury. And above metal usury; you have built up bank usury, 60% against 30 and 40%, and by that you WILL NOT be saved. Corrupting the whole earth, you have lost yourselves to yourselves.
Ezra Pound

>In brief, the great migration from the countryside to the towns began. The age of mechanized man was approaching. The new plutocracy and those of the old Whigs who were naturally perverse began their final and terrible offensive against the old country gentlemen. It was all the more terrible because the old “county families” were not just uprooted and annihilated. They were subjected to numerous mercantile blood transfusions until they had to undergo the final humiliation of accepting Jewish sons-in-law to save the ground to which they pathetically clung.
William Joyce

It's not Judaism the religion, or Jews as such, although like the Phanariots, their endogamy and tribalism made them natural for the role they came to fill. But finance used the Anglo-American colonial and naval empires in the same way. I'm not saying don't criticize Jews, as they are an extremely important part of it, but don't think the problem is just a matter of shifting control of finance to non-Jews. Non-Jews were just as bad, they just got outcompeted by Jews because of sociological factors. Destroy usury itself, don't just root out usurers. Heidegger even says:
>The question of the role of world Jewry is not a racial question, but the metaphysical question about the kind of humanity that, without any restraints, can take over the uprooting of all beings from being as its world-historical 'task.'

Attached: 1619115969999.jpg (850x400, 83.12K)

>Of all these failed and mutated descendants of Marx, national syndicalism and are the most interesting
If you considere the murder of Ernst Rohm, the fact that I.G Farben was owned by Rockefeller, Warburg (American fed) was a main shareholder of AEG. General electric owned the german communications. Standard oil (Rockefeller), doing business with germany until 1945. If you consider this "socialism", then your expectations are low.
Maybe what differentiate us is that i have higher expectations, like wage labor abolition, class abolition. Huckstering and money abolition.
>After all, the capitalist powers chose to ally with the USSR against the corporatist/syndicalist powers, not the other way around.
That would be true if you consider that what mattered for the WWII alliance was ideology. Truth is what mattered was not who was "bolshevik" (State Capitalist for the bolsheviks), or "corporatist" (Germany). What mattered was the balance of power in the eurasian continent, and germany was a threat to the Anglos. So it had to go.
A world war 2 against gemany would have happened if germany was corporatist, State Capitalist (bolshevik), royalist, a republic, or whatever. Germany was a geopolitical threat for the Anglos, and it had to be destroyed. It had nothing to do with it's Capitalistic mode of production variant (socialist, national socialist, corporatist, state Capitalist, republican, royalist, or whatever).

>If you have the capital under capitalism then you have the ability to direct society were you want.
Perfect example of the natsoc who doesn't get that doing huckstering and money is not okay, even if you are not a jew, but are an aryan.
No more judaic values: huckstering and money. With, or without the jews. The social practice of exploitation doesn't magically gets good if it's done between aryans.
>Ends up that it is better for a society to direct itself than to allow an alien race of ruthless usurers that hate you to direct the course of your society.
So now you have aryans lending money for interests rates against other aryans. Genius! "We got rid of the jews, but now we act exactly like the jews ourselves, among us, isn't that wonderful?".
Oh by the way reminder that usury wasn't banned in germany between 1933 and 1945.

Attached: 718IKFUNUCL.jpg (778x1200, 189.14K)

>and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew
Exactly. I have a personal theory that jews, in 2022, are not even the worst profit makers on earth.
Chinese seem to have become worse, as i honestly would prefer to work in a factory in Tel-Aviv, than in Shenzhen or Pekin.
Singapore is a race of super usurers, and Hong-Kong is basically the asian Jew-york, but without the jews.
The social practice of huckstering and money have long become universal. Jews do not have a monopoly on it, and, as i said, are even backward on it. Reminder that Singapore has a GDP per Capita three times higher than Israel, and that it's main activity (Singapore), is banking and finance.

>That would be true if you consider that what mattered for the WWII alliance was ideology. Truth is...
Bingo. Well it was also about colonialism IMO and Germany sought and expanded colonial empire in Europe while British foreign policy strategy for a long time had been to prevent a single power from dominating Europe.

Also see the CPC-KMT alliance against Japan. Communists and nationalists putting aside their differences until Japan was defeated, while the KMT government was armed by Germany until Japan invaded in 1937. But nobody really says the Japanese system at the time provided some real alternative to "capitalism."

>So now you have aryans lending money for interests rates against other aryans. Genius!
Jews and anti-Semites are basically the same people

Attached: main-qimg-027bba44c3db767ae084677e9c2a2c85-lq.png (399x547, 188.34K)

>Jews and anti-Semites are basically the same people
Money worshippers both of them? Sure they are.

if you study the history and origin of fascist regimes, you will conclude that marxists are correct about the class-nature fascism
The state is not de-classed in fascist states, as their proponents will try to insist. Fascist movements are middle class in origin, but they rise to power through the patronage of capital (usually the industrial bourgeoise). Once in power, they crush working class organizations and act in the interests of capital.

However there is something interesting about Nazi Germany. In a way, they deviated from this model. Hitler of course rose to power through the patronage of German capital, and did their bidding by crushing the working class and purging Strasserists, all as Marxists would predict. However during the 40s when the war eventually became suicidal, hopeless, and retarded, the Nazi party lost the confidence of the German elites (as evidenced by the wide elite coalitions that were plotting to overthrow the regime). German capital understood the war was lost, and they wanted to negotiate surrender to preserve as much capital and sovereignty as possible. But the Nazi leadership wanted to fight to the bitter end. So in a way, during a brief period in 1944 and 1945 when the Red Army was closing in, Nazi Germany did sort of embody the third position ideal and break free from being the pawns of capital.

The real third position is Stalinism/Dengism. A bureaucracy wielding state power, and ruthlessly acting in their own best interests (the stability of their own bureaucracy).
However it's not a stable system, eventually they fall to capitalist counterrevolution.

>The most interesting Marxist was Lenin
What do you mean?

>Marxist orthodoxy is a sham.
ooga booga we are coming for your means of production

Attached: rate-profit.png (450x293, 46.27K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
The real third position is distributism. Do not centralize shit, just ensure that each and every one has their own 3d-printer.

>refute

“Anti Marxist” effort posters always write with this kind of matter-of-factness which always exposes their pseudo-intellectual “critiques” as the limp-wristed posturing typical of those not in employment, education, and training - if something about this “style” reeks of plagiarized opinionettes, it’s because in fact no thought lies behind it - thoughtless regurgitation of YouTube summaries and Wikipedia articles. They would do best to halt their malingering in complex, overdetermined fields like economics and start with basic philosophy, particularly that of early Wittgenstein: “whereof thou canst not speak, thereof thou shalt remain silent.”

This is the kind of shit you say when you're incapable of viewing history in any other way than through a marxist/class warfare lens. A simple reality of life is that any aspiring political movement must secure some form of funding, and at least make peace with established industries of the time. Nobody lives in a vacuum; and even if you refuse to make alliances with those of money, who is really going to deny help if it is offered to them by the wealthy?

You look hard enough into anything you'll invariably find some way to tie it back into rich people; effectively dismissing it because it's "corrupted by capitalists", and an effort to once again subjugate muh working class. It's the marxist equivalent to the way individuals on /pol/ poison the well of anything they don't want to like by finding some inevitable jew who is somehow, in someway, related to the whole thing, and somehow the great mastermind of it all.

All that your post does is show once again, that many a marxist can only seperate ideologies into the basic camps of "movements that empower the working class", and "movements that crush and take advantage of the working class"

GUESS WHAT THE WESTERN "WORKING CLASS" IS DEAD. WE DON'T MAKE THINGS ANYMORE ONLY CHINA AND THE INORDINATE MASSES OF ASIAN SWEATED LABOUR DO. WHAT NOW? MUH GLORIOUS STARBUCKS EMPLOYEE? MUH OFFICE CLASS? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: 1629498124691.gif (342x316, 1.36M)

>A simple reality of life is that any aspiring political movement must secure some form of funding, and at least make peace with established industries of the time. Nobody lives in a vacuum; and even if you refuse to make alliances with those of money, who is really going to deny help if it is offered to them by the wealthy?
Here goes the natsoc again. In order to beat the jew, according to the natsoc, one must become the jew.
>who is really going to deny help if it is offered to them by the wealthy?
Revolutionary Catalonia (1936). They weren't little bitches to the Capital like Hitler was.
>a marxist can only seperate ideologies into the basic camps of "movements that empower the working class", and "movements that crush and take advantage of the working class"
Yes, because it basically is this. The owners of the Capital will do anything to increase profit, on the expense of the proletariat. Even if it means causing harm to the proletariat.
>GUESS WHAT THE WESTERN "WORKING CLASS" IS DEAD. WE DON'T MAKE THINGS ANYMORE ONLY CHINA AND THE INORDINATE MASSES OF ASIAN SWEATED LABOUR DO. WHAT NOW? MUH GLORIOUS STARBUCKS EMPLOYEE? MUH OFFICE CLASS?
Proletariat is not only factory workers. Proletariat is wage labor working force. You can have an office employee who is a proletarian.
By the way, when you say "WE DON'T MAKE THINGS ANYMORE" it's false. There are still many factories in the west. But you might live in a megacity so you don't see them.

It's a discord tranny who is scrolling through the thread ignoring substantive rebukes and trying to start shallow greentext fights so he never has to put effort into his responses. There's one in every thread like this.

I hope people ignore him. He just wants to spew talking points.

Speak of the devil.

Attached: 71ZJPjz7DiL.jpg (907x1360, 254.79K)

Attached: 717GBoq8syL.jpg (855x1360, 135.38K)

>So in a way, during a brief period in 1944 and 1945 when the Red Army was closing in, Nazi Germany did sort of embody the third position ideal and break free from being the pawns of capital.
I think you could make a good case for that. It just so happens this isn't satisfying to the regime's admirers because it basically went full-on death drive during that period. It was also incredible they were spending lavishly on decadent films like this at the same time Army Group Center was being destroyed:

youtu.be/cbt7rcTAIvg