Anglo Box - Revision history

Azad Singh: Category

2026-08-12T00:22:30Z

imported>Azadsingh: Add a little

2025-10-10T20:49:34Z

Add a little

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 10 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Anglo Box.png\|thumb]]		[[File:Anglo Box.png\|thumb]]
	The '''Anglo-Box''' refers to the mental cage inhabited by westerners who refuse to acknowledge the social, cultural, and psychological depth that underlies objects of '''sense'''.<ref>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Anglo-Box</ref> At root, the problem is a lack of dialectical thinking and an overemphasis on '''Formalism'''.		The '''Anglo-Box''' refers to the mental cage inhabited by westerners who refuse to acknowledge the social, cultural, and psychological depth that underlies objects of '''sense'''.<ref>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Anglo-Box</ref> At root, the problem is a lack of dialectical thinking and an overemphasis on '''Formalism'''.

	This formalistic way of thinking arises from the same alienation of man from his '''living being''' that is realized '''concretely''' in the '''division of labor'''. In his preface to ''The German Ideology'', ~~Marx writes about this alienation as a kind of totem that precipitates '''commodity fetishism''': "[Men] have arranged their relationships according~~ to ~~their ideas, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have gotten out of their hands. They,~~ the ~~creators~~, ~~have bowed before their creation~~ ... '''Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts.'''"<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf. ''Cf''. what Marx says about capital, from around the same time: "The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you ''save'' – the ''greater'' becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you ''have,'' i.e., the greater is your ''alienated'' life, the greater is the store of your estranged being." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm. In both cases, man's alienation is expressed in the investment of his mental or physical labors in an external form, a kind of '''golem''', which he is responsible for but which takes on a life of its own and exerts an independent existence vis-a-vis its own producers. In both cases, this external form--capital and thought--is treated as ''a priori'' to ~~its own real conditions of existence, which lay beyond the domain of any transcendental form. The word for this true ''a priori'' is, in~~ the ~~conception of~~ dialectical materialism, the ''material''. </ref> To put it simply, this formalism in thought is directly a product of the '''reification''' of the social antagonism and thus incompatible with '''proletarian class consciousness''', which does not recognize the ''a priori'' status of fixed, metaphysical '''Ideas''' but instead recognizes these '''Ideas''' as a '''reflection''' of the '''living being''' particular to peoples and civilizations. Contrary to the Anglo-Box, which recognizes the precedence and Absolute nature of the formal structure of the '''''cogito''''', Marxism-Leninism realizes that ~~"neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, [but]~~ are only manifestations of '''actual life'''."<ref>Full quote: "The philosophers would only have to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, to recognize it as the distorted language of the actual world, and ~~to realize that '''neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of~~ their ~~own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.'''" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology~~.~~pdf</ref>~~		Essentially, Western academics try to form definitions in the abstract void, without any particular context. This attempt to reduce all life to [[idealism\|ideals]] contradicts the dialectical materialist understanding that phenomena are constantly changing and interacting with their environment.

	In debates, inhabitants of the box '''definition-monger.''' They attempt to set up an air-tight, universal, and eternal definition, unaware that language is metonymic and does not refer to some '''transcendental form,''' and their endeavor is as meaningless as it is fruitless. Debaters like Vaush abuse this by forcing their opponents to formulate a definition which must then hold true in every case. ~~For instance,~~ Vaush ~~asks, "how~~ is China Communist? describe to me what communism is and then tell me how China is that.~~" Infrared responds~~:~~<blockquote>~~Do you see the way Vaush processes information and reasons? He first sets up an essence, and then superimposes that upon the reality. He doesn't derive his essence from the investigation of reality itself. You wanna see the differing perspectives of materialist and idealist view of language? Here it is: Vaush thinks you create prescriptive definitions that you then hold reality to the criterion of, rather than definitions deriving from and being created by things in reality itself. You see the difference?<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg</ref></blockquote>		This formalistic way of thinking arises from the same alienation of man from his '''living being''' that is realized '''concretely''' in the [[division of labor]]. In his preface to ''The German Ideology'', Marx writes about this alienation as a kind of totem that precipitates [[commodity fetishism]]:

			<blockquote>[Men] have arranged their relationships according to their ideas, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have gotten out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed before their creation ... '''Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts.'''"<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf The German Ideology] ''Cf''. what Marx says about capital, from around the same time: "The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you ''save'' – the ''greater'' becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you ''have,'' i.e., the greater is your ''alienated'' life, the greater is the store of your estranged being." [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm Human Needs and the Division of Labor under Private Property]. In both cases, man's alienation is expressed in the investment of his mental or physical labors in an external form, a kind of '''golem''', which he is responsible for but which takes on a life of its own and exerts an independent existence vis-a-vis its own producers. In both cases, this external form--capital and thought--is treated as '''a priori''' to its own real conditions of existence, which lay beyond the domain of any transcendental form. The word for this true '''a priori''' is, in the conception of dialectical materialism, the '''material'''. </ref>

			</blockquote>

			To put it simply, this formalism in thought is directly a product of the ''reification'' of the social antagonism and thus incompatible with '''proletarian class consciousness''', which does not recognize the ''a priori'' status of fixed, metaphysical '''Ideas''' but instead recognizes these '''Ideas''' as a '''reflection''' of the '''living being''' particular to peoples and civilizations. Contrary to the Anglo-Box, which recognizes the precedence and Absolute nature of the formal structure of the '''''cogito''''', Marxism-Leninism realizes that "neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, [but] are only manifestations of '''actual life'''."<ref>Full quote: "The philosophers would only have to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, to recognize it as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realize that '''neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.'''" [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf The German Ideology]</ref>

			In debates, inhabitants of the box '''definition-monger.''' They attempt to set up an air-tight, universal, and eternal definition, unaware that language is metonymic and does not refer to some '''transcendental form,''' and their endeavor is as meaningless as it is fruitless. Debaters like Vaush abuse this by forcing their opponents to formulate a definition which must then hold true in every case.

			<blockquote>

			Vaush: How is China Communist? describe to me what communism is and then tell me how China is that.

			Haz: Do you see the way Vaush processes information and reasons? He first sets up an essence, and then superimposes that upon the reality. He doesn't derive his essence from the investigation of reality itself. You wanna see the differing perspectives of materialist and idealist view of language? Here it is: Vaush thinks you create prescriptive definitions that you then hold reality to the criterion of, rather than definitions deriving from and being created by things in reality itself. You see the difference?<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg Haz Explains The Anglo Box View Of Language ft. Vaush \| Infrared Show]</ref>

			</blockquote>

	== External links ==		== External links ==

			Full videos:
			* [https://youtu.be/4UFzhFH8f50 More on Anglo pathology \| Infrared] (12 min)
			* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDAbYBOARBU Introduction to Dialectics (Remastered)] From 6:35 to 26:00

			Shorts:
			* [https://youtu.be/DRP2r8LqF-M The problem with definitions🤓 \| Infrared]
			* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg Haz Explains The Anglo Box View Of Language ft. Vaush \| Infrared Show]
	* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQuflaNss4 Explaining the Anglo Box w/ mode of production]		* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQuflaNss4 Explaining the Anglo Box w/ mode of production]
	* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTek2tnWYVY How Anglos vs. rest of humanity understand socialism \| Infrared]		* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTek2tnWYVY How Anglos vs. rest of humanity understand socialism \| Infrared]
	* [https://youtu.be/4UFzhFH8f50 More on Anglo pathology \| Infrared]
	* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg&pp=ygUJYW5nbG8gYm94 Haz Explains The Anglo Box View Of Language ft. Vaush \| Infrared Show]
	* [https://youtu.be/DRP2r8LqF-M The problem with definitions🤓 \| Infrared]

	[[Category:Anglo Box]]		[[Category:Anglo Box]]

			==References==
	<references />		<references />

imported>All that is Solid: /* External links */

2024-02-17T18:20:27Z

External links

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 17 February 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:
	This formalistic way of thinking arises from the same alienation of man from his '''living being''' that is realized '''concretely''' in the '''division of labor'''. In his preface to ''The German Ideology'', Marx writes about this alienation as a kind of totem that precipitates '''commodity fetishism''': "[Men] have arranged their relationships according to their ideas, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have gotten out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed before their creation ... '''Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts.'''"<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf. ''Cf''. what Marx says about capital, from around the same time: "The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you ''save'' – the ''greater'' becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you ''have,'' i.e., the greater is your ''alienated'' life, the greater is the store of your estranged being." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm. In both cases, man's alienation is expressed in the investment of his mental or physical labors in an external form, a kind of '''golem''', which he is responsible for but which takes on a life of its own and exerts an independent existence vis-a-vis its own producers. In both cases, this external form--capital and thought--is treated as ''a priori'' to its own real conditions of existence, which lay beyond the domain of any transcendental form. The word for this true ''a priori'' is, in the conception of dialectical materialism, the ''material''. </ref> To put it simply, this formalism in thought is directly a product of the '''reification''' of the social antagonism and thus incompatible with '''proletarian class consciousness''', which does not recognize the ''a priori'' status of fixed, metaphysical '''Ideas''' but instead recognizes these '''Ideas''' as a '''reflection''' of the '''living being''' particular to peoples and civilizations. Contrary to the Anglo-Box, which recognizes the precedence and Absolute nature of the formal structure of the '''''cogito''''', Marxism-Leninism realizes that "neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, [but] are only manifestations of '''actual life'''."<ref>Full quote: "The philosophers would only have to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, to recognize it as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realize that '''neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.'''" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf</ref>		This formalistic way of thinking arises from the same alienation of man from his '''living being''' that is realized '''concretely''' in the '''division of labor'''. In his preface to ''The German Ideology'', Marx writes about this alienation as a kind of totem that precipitates '''commodity fetishism''': "[Men] have arranged their relationships according to their ideas, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have gotten out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed before their creation ... '''Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts.'''"<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf. ''Cf''. what Marx says about capital, from around the same time: "The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you ''save'' – the ''greater'' becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you ''have,'' i.e., the greater is your ''alienated'' life, the greater is the store of your estranged being." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm. In both cases, man's alienation is expressed in the investment of his mental or physical labors in an external form, a kind of '''golem''', which he is responsible for but which takes on a life of its own and exerts an independent existence vis-a-vis its own producers. In both cases, this external form--capital and thought--is treated as ''a priori'' to its own real conditions of existence, which lay beyond the domain of any transcendental form. The word for this true ''a priori'' is, in the conception of dialectical materialism, the ''material''. </ref> To put it simply, this formalism in thought is directly a product of the '''reification''' of the social antagonism and thus incompatible with '''proletarian class consciousness''', which does not recognize the ''a priori'' status of fixed, metaphysical '''Ideas''' but instead recognizes these '''Ideas''' as a '''reflection''' of the '''living being''' particular to peoples and civilizations. Contrary to the Anglo-Box, which recognizes the precedence and Absolute nature of the formal structure of the '''''cogito''''', Marxism-Leninism realizes that "neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, [but] are only manifestations of '''actual life'''."<ref>Full quote: "The philosophers would only have to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, to recognize it as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realize that '''neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.'''" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf</ref>

	In debates, inhabitants of the box '''definition-monger.''' They attempt to set up an air-tight, universal, and eternal definition, unaware that language is metonymic and does not refer to some '''transcendental form,''' and their endeavor is as meaningless as it is fruitless. Debaters like Vaush abuse this by forcing their opponents to formulate a definition which must then hold true in every case. For instance, Vaush asks, "how is China Communist? describe to me what communism is and then tell me how China is that."<blockquote>Do you see the way Vaush processes information and reasons? He first sets up an essence, and then superimposes that upon the reality. He doesn't derive his essence from the investigation of reality itself. You wanna see the differing perspectives of materialist and idealist view of language? Here it is: Vaush thinks you create prescriptive definitions that you then hold reality to the criterion of, rather than definitions deriving from and being created by things in reality itself. You see the difference?<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg</ref></blockquote>		In debates, inhabitants of the box '''definition-monger.''' They attempt to set up an air-tight, universal, and eternal definition, unaware that language is metonymic and does not refer to some '''transcendental form,''' and their endeavor is as meaningless as it is fruitless. Debaters like Vaush abuse this by forcing their opponents to formulate a definition which must then hold true in every case. For instance, Vaush asks, "how is China Communist? describe to me what communism is and then tell me how China is that." Infrared responds:<blockquote>Do you see the way Vaush processes information and reasons? He first sets up an essence, and then superimposes that upon the reality. He doesn't derive his essence from the investigation of reality itself. You wanna see the differing perspectives of materialist and idealist view of language? Here it is: Vaush thinks you create prescriptive definitions that you then hold reality to the criterion of, rather than definitions deriving from and being created by things in reality itself. You see the difference?<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg</ref></blockquote>

	== External links ==		== External links ==

170.140.105.18: A lot

2024-02-08T20:24:05Z

A lot

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 8 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Anglo Box.png\|thumb]]		[[File:Anglo Box.png\|thumb]]
	The '''Anglo-Box''' refers to the mental cage inhabited by westerners who refuse to acknowledge the social, cultural, and psychological depth that underlies objects of sense.<ref>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Anglo-Box</ref> At root, the problem is a lack of ~~Dialectics~~.		The '''Anglo-Box''' refers to the mental cage inhabited by westerners who refuse to acknowledge the social, cultural, and psychological depth that underlies objects of '''sense'''.<ref>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Anglo-Box</ref> At root, the problem is a lack of dialectical thinking and an overemphasis on '''Formalism'''.

	In debates, inhabitants of the box '''definition-monger.''' They attempt to set up an air-tight, universal, and eternal definition, unaware that language is metonymic and their endeavor is as meaningless as it is fruitless. Debaters like Vaush abuse this by forcing their opponents to formulate a definition which must then hold true in every case. For instance, Vaush asks, "how is China Communist? describe to me what communism is and then tell me how China is that."<blockquote>Do you see the way Vaush processes information and reasons? He first sets up an essence, and then superimposes that upon the reality. He doesn't derive his essence from the investigation of reality itself. You wanna see the differing perspectives of materialist and idealist view of language? Here it is: Vaush thinks you create prescriptive definitions that you then hold reality to the criterion of, rather than definitions deriving from and being created by things in reality itself. You see the difference?<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg</ref></blockquote>		This formalistic way of thinking arises from the same alienation of man from his '''living being''' that is realized '''concretely''' in the '''division of labor'''. In his preface to ''The German Ideology'', Marx writes about this alienation as a kind of totem that precipitates '''commodity fetishism''': "[Men] have arranged their relationships according to their ideas, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have gotten out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed before their creation ... '''Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts.'''"<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf. ''Cf''. what Marx says about capital, from around the same time: "The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you ''save'' – the ''greater'' becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you ''have,'' i.e., the greater is your ''alienated'' life, the greater is the store of your estranged being." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm. In both cases, man's alienation is expressed in the investment of his mental or physical labors in an external form, a kind of '''golem''', which he is responsible for but which takes on a life of its own and exerts an independent existence vis-a-vis its own producers. In both cases, this external form--capital and thought--is treated as ''a priori'' to its own real conditions of existence, which lay beyond the domain of any transcendental form. The word for this true ''a priori'' is, in the conception of dialectical materialism, the ''material''. </ref> To put it simply, this formalism in thought is directly a product of the '''reification''' of the social antagonism and thus incompatible with '''proletarian class consciousness''', which does not recognize the ''a priori'' status of fixed, metaphysical '''Ideas''' but instead recognizes these '''Ideas''' as a '''reflection''' of the '''living being''' particular to peoples and civilizations. Contrary to the Anglo-Box, which recognizes the precedence and Absolute nature of the formal structure of the '''''cogito''''', Marxism-Leninism realizes that "neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, [but] are only manifestations of '''actual life'''."<ref>Full quote: "The philosophers would only have to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, to recognize it as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realize that '''neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.'''" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf</ref>

			In debates, inhabitants of the box '''definition-monger.''' They attempt to set up an air-tight, universal, and eternal definition, unaware that language is metonymic and does not refer to some '''transcendental form,''' and their endeavor is as meaningless as it is fruitless. Debaters like Vaush abuse this by forcing their opponents to formulate a definition which must then hold true in every case. For instance, Vaush asks, "how is China Communist? describe to me what communism is and then tell me how China is that."<blockquote>Do you see the way Vaush processes information and reasons? He first sets up an essence, and then superimposes that upon the reality. He doesn't derive his essence from the investigation of reality itself. You wanna see the differing perspectives of materialist and idealist view of language? Here it is: Vaush thinks you create prescriptive definitions that you then hold reality to the criterion of, rather than definitions deriving from and being created by things in reality itself. You see the difference?<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg</ref></blockquote>

	== External links ==		== External links ==
Line 13:		Line 15:

	[[Category:Anglo Box]]		[[Category:Anglo Box]]
			<references />

imported>All that is Solid: added links and instance

2024-01-23T06:10:30Z

added links and instance

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:10, 23 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''Anglo-Box''' is a ~~term used by~~ the ~~[[Infrared]] community~~ to ~~refer~~ to a ~~specific [[rhetorical technique]] used by [[leftists]]~~, ~~where defining words~~ is what ~~drives forth their arguments~~. ~~This technique was used in~~ the ~~[[Infrared-~~Vaush ~~debate]]~~ by ~~[[Vaush]]~~.		[[File:Anglo Box.png\|thumb]]
			The '''Anglo-Box''' refers to the mental cage inhabited by westerners who refuse to acknowledge the social, cultural, and psychological depth that underlies objects of sense.<ref>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Anglo-Box</ref> At root, the problem is a lack of Dialectics.

			In debates, inhabitants of the box '''definition-monger.''' They attempt to set up an air-tight, universal, and eternal definition, unaware that language is metonymic and their endeavor is as meaningless as it is fruitless. Debaters like Vaush abuse this by forcing their opponents to formulate a definition which must then hold true in every case. For instance, Vaush asks, "how is China Communist? describe to me what communism is and then tell me how China is that."<blockquote>Do you see the way Vaush processes information and reasons? He first sets up an essence, and then superimposes that upon the reality. He doesn't derive his essence from the investigation of reality itself. You wanna see the differing perspectives of materialist and idealist view of language? Here it is: Vaush thinks you create prescriptive definitions that you then hold reality to the criterion of, rather than definitions deriving from and being created by things in reality itself. You see the difference?<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg</ref></blockquote>

	== External links ==		== External links ==

	* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQuflaNss4 Explaining the Anglo Box w/ mode of production]		* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQuflaNss4 Explaining the Anglo Box w/ mode of production]
			* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTek2tnWYVY How Anglos vs. rest of humanity understand socialism \| Infrared]
			* [https://youtu.be/4UFzhFH8f50 More on Anglo pathology \| Infrared]
			* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm7HfxKZ-Eg&pp=ygUJYW5nbG8gYm94 Haz Explains The Anglo Box View Of Language ft. Vaush \| Infrared Show]
			* [https://youtu.be/DRP2r8LqF-M The problem with definitions🤓 \| Infrared]

	[[Category:Anglo Box]]		[[Category:Anglo Box]]

imported>Darg at 03:18, 21 January 2024

2024-01-21T03:18:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:18, 21 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''Anglo-Box''' is a term used by the [[Infrared]] community to refer to a specific [[rhetorical technique]] used by [[leftists]], where defining words is what drives forth their arguments. This technique was used in the [[Infrared-Vaush debate]] by [[Vaush]].		The '''Anglo-Box''' is a term used by the [[Infrared]] community to refer to a specific [[rhetorical technique]] used by [[leftists]], where defining words is what drives forth their arguments. This technique was used in the [[Infrared-Vaush debate]] by [[Vaush]].

	== ~~Western Metaphysics~~ ==		== External links ==
	...
			* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQuflaNss4 Explaining the Anglo Box w/ mode of production]

	~~== Definitions and Marx ==~~
	~~...~~
	[[Category:Anglo Box]]		[[Category:Anglo Box]]

imported>WikiSysop at 00:27, 20 January 2023

2023-01-20T00:27:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:27, 20 January 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:
	== Definitions and Marx ==		== Definitions and Marx ==
	...		...
			[[Category:Anglo Box]]

imported>WikiSysop at 17:36, 6 January 2023

2023-01-06T17:36:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 6 January 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{HXG}}~~		The '''Anglo-Box''' is a term used by the [[Infrared]] community to refer to a specific [[rhetorical technique]] used by [[leftists]], where defining words is what drives forth their arguments. This technique was used in the [[Infrared-Vaush debate]] by [[Vaush]].

			== Western Metaphysics ==
			...

			== Definitions and Marx ==
			...

imported>WikiSysop: WikiSysop moved page File talk:Anglo Box to Anglo Box

2023-01-06T17:36:44Z

WikiSysop moved page File talk:Anglo Box to Anglo Box

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:36, 6 January 2023
(No difference)

imported>Neostalinistprop: Neostalinistprop moved page Anglo Box to File talk:Anglo Box

2023-01-06T05:48:22Z

Neostalinistprop moved page Anglo Box to File talk:Anglo Box

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:48, 6 January 2023
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 12 August 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:

	[[Category:Anglo Box]]		[[Category:Anglo Box]]
			[[Category:Infrared]]

	==References==		==References==
	<references />		<references />