Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
One of the new authors I've been quite enamored with lately is the 19th century French thinker Gustave Lebon. And he likes to say that history is made by dreams and fantasies, not by fact or logic. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that he was right. When you look at the course of human history, you'll find that different worldviews are sort of projections for what fantasy people would most like to remake the imperfections of material reality in into. Examples include the Christian Kingdom of Heaven, the Marxist Utopia, the Platonic forms, or Viking Valhalla. For each of them, they were the ideal, the society aimed towards which animated every element of their life. This isn't bad, since the greatest acts in human history have always been powered off these illusions. According to the recent science on this topic, with the most preeminent thinker in this field being John Haidt, 90% of the population just rationalizes whatever their emotional state is. And the overwhelming majority of human thought is emotional. People like to imagine that reason is an all encompassing code which can be used for every element of human life, but instead, it's an incredibly powerful tool we use in order to attain our emotional ends. However, you cannot determine your own morality through reason or science, because those are based on your context. Whether you want peace, glory, love, equality or progress stems from your own human animal desires and your era of history or culture. What I just said here has been proven scientifically again and again. Modernity has caused people to become more irrational, not less, as the enormous wealth and power of that era allowed people to engage in insane delusions, which we will discuss later in this video. As a rule, if you don't see a mythology or illusion in a certain society, that means you're ensnared by its web. We can't see the mythology of modernity, since the vast majority of us still believe it. Our descendants will see us radically different than we do. Even though I really don't know what the future holds, I do know that modernity is such an anthropological outlier that I strongly suspect that our descendants centuries from now will share a lot more in common with our ancestors, centuries in the past, culturally than us today. As I've tried to see modernity with eyes that are not clouded by the webs of its illusions, I found that modernity was filled with two different sort of fantasies which propelled its own people. These fantasies are more powerful than real countries in that when a nation does not fulfill one of the expectations of these fantasies, its people will destroy it to force it to. You frequently find that people will be controlled by both of these at the same time. Let's figure out what they are and what it means for life today, the past and the future.
- [03:15]
B
Freedom begins with privacy. Zcash protects your freedom. The right technology reshapes politics and culture in favor of a freer, wealthier society. Zcash has been called the machinery of freedom because of this. Zcash is unstoppable private money that protects your freedom by using encryption. It's like bitcoin with its 21 million hard cap and fair token distribution, but offers privacy and soon planetary scale. Zcash has been said to be the last thousand x in crypto because unseen wealth is unseizable wealth. Try zcash out download Zashi Wallet. You can post your shielded address on X and tag at Gen ZCASH for encrypted welcome notes. To get started, follow enzycash to learn more.
- [03:56]
A
Modernity is on its last legs and anything could come after. Things are tense now and likely to get worse. So if you enjoy learning how things work, this might be the most fascinating book you'll ever own. It's called the Book and if the world ever hits reset, this is what you'd want by your side. Over 400 beautifully illustrated pages, a complete guide to rebuilding civilization from scratch. It walks you through the basics how to make fire, purify water, build a wheel, and then keeps going writing tools, printing presses, clean electricity, even how to make wine or jet engines. It's like holding a blueprint of human progress in your hands, and somehow it's not just informative, it's absorbing the kind of book you open for five minutes and suddenly you're half an hour deep into the history of soap or metallurgy. It's not light reading, but it's the kind of heavy you'll want to carry. Whether you're into survival science, philosophy, or just beautiful books that make you feel smarter, this is one worth keeping close. Click the link below or use the QR code right in front of you as well as you can use the code. What IF for a 10% off deal for the next month? Start protecting civilization today with the book the Masks of the Gods. A really interesting history of mythology is the Masks of the Gods by Joseph Campbell. Campbell is an absolutely terrible writer, where I felt pain reading it for a lot of the series, but it contains lots of very useful information which you won't find anywhere else. Although Campbell was a genius in many ways, my absolute favorite author in this field was Mircea Eliade Campbell uses this four part series to talk about how religion or mythology has evolved over human history, showing how each era make a sort of mask of the gods or the underlying archetypal principles which all human societies have had to interface with. And then they project the mask which fits their era of history or social structure. The best for an example of an advanced society which operated under completely different religious principles than ours. The social structure of the Roman Empire was built off the idea that each region would have its own local gods, which were representations of a broader archetypal God which could be shared across the entire world. For example, when someone sacrificed to the Roman God Mercury, they were also sacrificing to the Greek Hermes, the Norse Odin, Celtic Lug or Egyptian Thoth. Alternately, the Virgin Mary was confused at the time of the founding of Christianity for the cult of Isis, who was an analog to other fertility goddesses like Cybele, Freya or Hestia. What I'm trying to convey here is that humans have a natural need for religion, which when societies don't have it, as I explain in this video, they collapse either into tyranny or degeneracy, which kills the culture. Humans are looking for ideas and ideas are looking for human bodies. I like to imagine the division between the ideal and material is almost sexual, like a man and a woman, where men and women look for their duality to mate with. They could hypothetically not meet with another man or woman, then that would limit their potential for reproduction or in a lot of cases, happiness. Humans aren't aware of who wrote the software in their minds, but it controls every aspect of their life, every. And once an idea gets power, it will happily kill human bodies to grow, which is why ideological or religious wars are so common. Ideas exist in Darwinistic competition and are constantly at war with others. Tolerance is rare because once a shared idea takes over a society's operating system, it can't really tolerate other ideas because they will conflict with the society's shared functioning. Certain religions or ideas allow tolerance of other ideas, but then once those centralized ideas lose power, they lose the tolerance. Read this text Wall. What modernity brought to this equation was radical delusion. The greatest element of modernity was science, which brought about technological wizardry that utterly changed the world positively in nearly every way possible. Between the world's population increasing by a factor of 10, the unification of the global system, or the creation of states from the mid to late 20th century, which were practically utopias with no real povert disease, war, freedom and universal suffrage. However, the shadow of science Was that since science was able to do all of these things, it allowed modernity to believe utterly insane things. Seriously. Firstly, since science was capable of proving certain theses through the scientific testing method, that meant that humans could use reason to say anything they wanted and then make a scientific sounding rationalization for it that you're then not allowed to question. People confused the aesthetic of reason and sterility with the actual friggin testing method that is science. If you're not using the testing method or the iron law, it's just not science. Communists are some of the worst people for this in that they structure their ideology so that there is literally no structure that allows people to disprove it, which is the core of science. But then they claim to be totally scientific as an aesthetic. Secondly, that since science had done so many genuinely incredible things, humans started to believe that they could control reality and we never had to reference actual physical reality to reach a goal. The west had used science to do so many things which had been seen as totally impossible beforehand, that the current ruling ideologies of the world today literally believe that humans get to remake reality in their own image by changing definitions, which if you study postmodern, Marxist, French liberal or fascist philosophy, they will openly say. As Thomas Sowell has said, the blank slate or open view of humanity holds that humans are totally malleable and that we can remake any elements of reality that we don't like. This really is not going to end well. Societies that believe this lose everything. This means we end up proposing ideas which we never tested and then we punish anyone who questions them. I'm going to make a video going through these soon. But some of the easy examples are equality, the blank slate, the idea that humans don't need culture or religion which are irrelevant. Everyone is the same, only economic factors drive the world, that there is no ideal or divine, that people are motivated predominantly by sex before anything else, and that history has no lessons to teach us. When you add all of these up and keep in mind academia never questions them, you find that our entire reality is a lie. Most of the current worldview is utter irrational cope which even a single minute of honest discussion would destroy. It says a lot about our culture that it can't provide that single minute in any form. For example, the idea that humans don't need culture or politeness, that everyone is a totally rational individual, that everyone has the same abilities or we should never judge others for their actions. These ideas when added together will mean social collapse and civilizational suicide, which we are witnessing now. We have an idea in our society that we don't need a moral code or philosophy. All moral codes aren't valid and we shouldn't judge others at all. This is what the postmodernists who run society say they believe, but they are actually doing a sleight of hands deception in which they actually hold the moral code of relativity above others. The issue here is that this kills itself since if you can't make moral value judgments, then the idea that you can't make value judgments is itself irrelevant. That's just basic logic which should have been obvious at the first step here. @ the same time, they're totally okay with judging 99% of humans who have ever lived over history or around the world today who have a value code which they would call conservative. While it's funny, they tend to only really be okay with Marxism and its descendant philosophies, they utterly persecute anyone who disagrees, especially inside their own ranks, which shows them to be utter hypocrites. This creates enormous psychological tension inside the managerial leftist elite since their subconscious is constantly butting up against the contradictions of their own worldview where they use cognitive dissonance to avoid that. However, this is super useful for them as a movement. Through sacrificing their individual mental health, they displace the tension that they feel internally into destroying all the other ideologies who disagree with them and create said cognitive dissonance. In the last year, my favorite musician moved from Buddhist Mongol metal band Nine Treasures to the anonymous Gen Z Japanese singer Otto. I like how she makes music about hating the managerial regime. Gen Z getting f cked over the depersonalization of modernity and mysticism. One of the themes she keeps talking about is something she calls Dreamtime, or a special sort of dimension where people imagine things. Dreamtime, which I think is one of the best uses of fiction in society, is a way to think up new futures, to create new worlds. It fits very closely with an idea I call the Halls of Time. The Halls of Time are sort of imaginary symbolic place where ideas exist before they get manifested in material reality. Marxism, Christianity, Science or anything else existed in the Halls of Time or Dreamtime before humans made the work to allow them to manifest over actual material reality. An important point to make is that the way modernity is structured means that we struggle to think creatively for a variety of reasons. I explain in this text wall. This has meant that our technological and cultural innovation has collapsed precipitously in the last centuries. What's happened since is that we've cut off all access to Dreamtime or the Halls of Time. What functional religions do is that they create a framework that allows us to imagine things even apart from those religions where thinkers like Dante, the founders of Modern science, liberalism, and so many other ideas pulled from the Christian framework. If our civilization is to survive, we will need to reconnect to the imaginative realm to dream up new ideas to fix our issues. In the next video I will explain how I think we solve that. With all of these points out of the way, let's get started with these two mythologies. Science Fiction we already live in a science fiction reality. The entire lives of young people are determined by the Internet, a technology which existed in science fiction novels for decades before it became a reality. Artificial intelligence was also something that started in science fiction, which is how it entered physical reality through the collective unconscious. Science Fiction made AI Most of the issues of our current society only make sense in the context of a science fiction story between the west being too suicidal to stand upright, the birth rate collapsing towards zero, or the government using AI to monitor the population to keep dissent down in a totalitarian regime. I've wanted to make a video for a while saying that we currently live in a science fiction dystopia. It's been a long standing question intellectual circles, if this current dystopia is more so Brave new world or 1984, to which my answer is yes. We combine so many elements of 1984 between left wing governments maintaining a throttle on the population, doublethink thought crimes, perma wars, telescreens and so many other things. Read this text wall if you want to know more about what those things mean. At the same time in Brave New World you have the government using bread and circuses to keep the public down, an utterly watered down culture with no connection to reality, planned obsolescence, mood enhancing prescription drugs, the suppression of genuine humanity and spirituality, or free love and drugs normalized to keep the population sedated. Read this text while again if you want to know more. The single science fiction story which predicted the future best in my opinion was Stand on Zanzibar by John Brunner, which was written in the 60s but set in 2011 with the rise of ipods, video calls, gay marriage, genetic engineering, the European Union, the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China as America's top competitor. The slide of the average American into poverty on top of that, electric vehicles, legal weed, the Internet with rapid delivery, the rapid increase in the price of real estate, racial tensions getting worse with America having a Black president with a different president in Africa named Abomi. Something that sounds a lot like school shootings in an overpopulated, polluted world of 8 billion people. With authors like this, you wonder how they got so much right. I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I have seen a few episodes and it's really astonishing how many technologies there were in Star Trek that have become realities between the communicator, the tablet computer, voice activated computers, video conferencing, advanced diagnostics, and universal translators. The reason for this is that lots of technological inventors were influenced by Star Trek and tried to make those technologies real. Star Trek has probably had a bigger influence on the course of human history in those regards than almost any political philosophy written in the same time period. We already live in a sci fi world and there's no going back. It's funny and very telling that we say we live in sci fi since that means we subconsciously think the timeline stopped in the mid 20th century. Since the boomers still totally dominate society, our historic frame of reference is still stuck in the period between World War II in the 1980s, which is where we pull almost all of our references or creative thinking from. For the time periods before that, we're not literate enough to know about them and the time periods afterwards. We haven't figured out what narrative we can agree on. We can only perceive this reality in terms of science fiction since we haven't been able to update our underlying worldview to the new reality. Our material technologies have progressed faster than our cultural institutions, so that we haven't been able to emotionally process any of this. It's why people my age so frequently say that we live in a world that's some insane simulation. This is the schizo timeline and stuff like that. We can't believe that this reality is real and it's driving us crazy. I was reading something by Machio Kaku when I was a child that the technologies of the next few decades would make life unimaginably different from anything we knew. I started reading through all the potential technologies these brought up, like AI, the ability to scan brain networks, robotics and genetic engineering. And I was absolutely terrified. The reason for that was that since I grew up in the Rust Belt, which had been actively screwed over by the elites, and I also had a pretty difficult childhood where I saw a total failing of the court or school system. That made me cynical. It had me realize that this technology would be pretty directly used by the elites and to control the population and destroy the human soul. We Are now seeing that my childhood self was correct. We live in a science fiction story, but not an especially happy one. And I think that's indicated in that utopian science fiction has been practically dead as a genre for decades, ever since Soylent Green in the early 70s. I can't think of many happy science fiction stories, although in the 50s and 60s there were plenty, with Star Trek or the Jetsons being easy examples. I think this is symbolic for how starting in the early 70s, quality of life for the average American in a variety of metrics between economic, social, sexual, health and meaning declined precipitously. People looked into the future and saw bad things. Partly this is dangerous, since if we can't dream positively, it means we have no positive dream times to create better realities through. However, at the same time, I won't judge people for what they fantasize about, since for many people it's the only bit of freedom they get in their lives. We shouldn't judge the collective unconscious itself, but rather use it as a weather vane to heal the humans that it's pulling from. As dystopian sci fi became more popular, you saw the society turn more into a dystopian science fiction story, which is both causation and correlation at once. I think a big element here is that the death of religion, relationships, ethnic identities and deep values meant that there was no Dreamtime that was strong enough to offset the end of the post World War II era prosperity. And at the same time, as our technology grew more powerful, we needed to cultivate personal human strength to be able to wield it responsibly. At the same time, as our technology needed the greatest of men to master it, our populations grew too weak to live, mate or fight due to the wealth and comfort of the modern West. This is the greatest paradox of the Western world today. The only way that this science fiction reality will become utopian is if we can rise to the occasion. We know that we can already create a science fiction utopia, since the mid to late 20th century was already pretty close to 1. If we viewed our current reality from the perspective of the 19th century, which was still pretty science fiction by the standard of most historic societies. And when the genre itself emerged with authors like H.G. wells, Jules Verne and Mary Shelley, and even more so from earlier eras of history, they would see modern history as a series of science fiction societies which each had their own character. There was a certain science fiction consciousness which developed after the World wars, in which when you see the ugly dirty block buildings in modernist architecture, the reason super educated people wanted to build them is they thought they looked modern and science fiction. The baby boomers thought they were making a Star Trek society with all these insane delusional choices. Star Trek is the mixing of the mythology of socialism and science fiction as a sort of perfect synthesis. An interesting but very important element you see with this is that these people confuse the aesthetic of the machine with actual science. You see this a lot with the managerial class in which they will believe absolutely ridiculous things which would never pass the scrutiny of an honest scientific test. But almost like a magical ritual, they use a certain type of language and wording to come across as rational. In ancient Babylon or Egypt, where you'd hire a priest to do rituals on top of a new business project to bless it. In our society, our bureaucracy is the leftist rituals where it doesn't actually help, but it gives the leftist priest classes blessing. In my opinion, the era of history in which actual science had the biggest effect on Western civilization's trajectory was around World War I. The reason I say that is that lots of the things we believe today are in direct opposition to what all the scientific evidence says between us. Believing that men and women are the same, that biological race doesn't exist, that reality is purely material, and that central planning is the best economic or political system, which have all already been disproven. However, at the exact same time, starting around World War I as a Rough heuristic, when actual sciences impact on society decreased, the power of the aesthetic of science grew more powerful. Where modernity, or the idea that we're building society around science, became an all consuming religion and civilization, which I talk about in this video, what's going on here is people are confusing science, which is again just a testing method, with the biases of the neurological left hemisphere, which Ian McGilchrist talks about in his wonderful book the Master and His Emissary, the left hemisphere deals with machines and mechanical processes. So it likes control, simplicity and dead aesthetics. This means that we care more about appearing sleek and mechanical than actually practicing science. Another element here is that because we can throw away the aesthetic of appearing scientific and just actually practicing the scientific method, we can have so many better aesthetics because the aesthetic of modernity, of these square blocky buildings and people being terribly dressed with no sense of meaning, you can just get rid of it for something better. We can create cultures or aesthetics based around any distinct era of history and make our society as beautiful and natural as possible without having to placate the neurological biases of the left hemisphere. For another example, people Think science and religion are at odds, which they aren't in any way. Where almost all of the founders of science were religious and involved in the occult, the ideas which led to science pulled from Christianity, Aristotle and Hermeticism. Religion is why we live and science is how a majority of scientists are religious. Science is just a tool. I said before that. Our society started to take on the hallmarks of science fiction in the 19th century with the Industrial revolution. From that perspective, if someone were to write a science fiction novel of the last 200 years, these are the different phases of science fiction development the western world had. You would first see the high tech dystopia of the early 19th century in which the elites ruled overpopulated countries where most people lived in miserable poverty, working their entire lives in enormous megacities in these gargantuan shacks, practically chained to huge demonic machines. Then you would see the more utopian late 19th century which was the wealthiest society up to its era in history, with enormous growth in technology, cultural progress, growth in freedom, the end of slavery, and the west dominating the world through colonies while having enormous social trust. Afterwards came the horrors of the world wars and totalitarianism. This combines war on the scale of continents with evil futuristic ideologies and horrifying machines of death. This was followed by the near utopian conditions of the lifetime after World War II across the Western world which I spoke about before. Now you have the current dystopia of managerial screen addicted mouse utopia. If anyone wants to write a science fiction novel of the last 200 years, explaining it through fantasy or sci fi terms that would either make sense to someone in the medieval world or in the far future, it's a good idea. You could make some money doing that. The reason we have trouble accepting the science fiction nature of our reality is that we've been living in science fiction for a very long time, with our entire lives being held together by hyper advanced technologies which didn't exist a century or two ago. This is opposed to most of history where people lived off the land as farmers or hunter gatherers or herders. We held on to the mid 20th century as our frame of reference. Although it was utterly historically bizarre and held together by a series of historical coincidences. Since it was a comfortable era of history where we wanted that reality to be true. If you took someone from literally every pre industrial society, they would think that our current era was satanically possessed, utterly evil and in the process of total collapse. If you took someone from the mid 20th century and brought them to the west today. They would be horrified by how ill and weak the people of our society are. They would notice our misery, how poorly dressed we are, our loneliness, how we are so overweight, and our complete distrust of others. They would really be shocked that our society had not already snapped at the insanity and evil going on and done something about it. They'd be shocked the simulation is still going. They would be very impressed by our digital technology or the Internet, but would otherwise be very disappointed in our lack of progress in other fields where, if you go back to the 1950s, they assumed we would have loads of incredible discoveries, with space travel being one of the most anticipated. The Jetsons or Soviet cities on the moon are great examples of this. If you read science fiction books from that era, they'll always say, 2011 space colonies. You have the transmutation of matter, you have teleporting, whatever. The thing about us that people from the mid 20th century would immediately notice and would horrify them would be the extent of digital addiction, which they would see as the single thing that consumed most people's lives. We would come across as immature and childlike, which they would see through even adults dressed like children. Now with the movie Idiocracy, it's crazy when I try to have rational discussions online, they reply with Idiocracy's line of basically calling my voice and saying I sound like I'm pretentious, which is ignoring the total collapse of society, which means we've entered the idiocracy timeline already. And I think if the founding fathers saw life today, they would think we are in an idiocracy. The thing I blame most for the delays in technological progress, which did not happen, are government regulations and the rise of mass society. Almost all metrics of technological advance have decreased since the 19th century, where the peak was around 1870. That includes patents, breakthroughs to new scientific fields, economic growth, positive change for the life of the average person, and so many other things. The reason the digital revolution occurred was that it was such a new field that it was the only thing the government never thought to regulate. At the same time, as a downstream effect of the industrial revolution, is that all of our institutions, between school, academia, media and culture, promote conformity or envy, which destroys innovation. What a lot of the mid 20th century people would be surprised by upon seeing our current science fiction dystopia, is how their era's understanding of culture across history was so particular to their context. What I mean by that is that since due to how modernity works neurologically, as does our educational and political system, we have trouble seeing how culturally diverse the human condition is. People in the modern west don't understand how alien their way of life is to the vast majority of humans over history or even around the world today, whose lives are dictated by clan, community, religion, family and ethnic identity. The mid 20th century could be a sort of utopia, since it combined the wealth and institutions of a science fiction society with the remnants of social institutions from a historic society. Historic societies had used things like religion, nation, family or honor as ways to get humans to be as good as possible, which really matters since society is made up of living, breathing humans. Modernity, for some reason thinks that improvement can only come from technology or politics, utterly ignoring the human element, which is actually profoundly stupid and cruel. Science fiction projected the social norms of the mid 20th century forward like reason, science, feminism, hard work, sexual restraint and loose class structures, since those were the social norms they were so used to that they couldn't imagine their absence. As an easy example, the current insanity of modern feminism would be totally understandable to the ancient Greeks or medievals, but not people in the 20th century. They just assumed that progress would continue to happen and progress would be building up trends that they had already done, which were correct, but they had not realized that much of the foundations of their society were wrong. The real science fiction world we live in is as much like a historic society as a science fiction one that the 20th century would write. While it's becoming more and more distant from the 20th century itself, we have barbarians and tyranny, decadence, fanatical religions, civil wars, and all the other things which people until recently mistakenly thought had ended with the end of history. The end of history will end up being one of the most disastrous beliefs ever, which I explain in this text wall. This science fiction story is going to end in a really ugly way if we don't start incorporating elements from earlier eras in human history than the 20th century century. The 20th century was an absurd Plato's cave of lies and comfortable illusions, totally removed from the reality of almost all of human history. As of now, we're barreling towards a future in which incredibly evil actors like the Chinese Communist Party, the woke Putin, Sam Altman amongst others, will have the power of gods which they will use to crush their opposition in the human spirit. If we're going to avoid a future of the boot of tyranny crushing the human face forever, we're really going to have to man up now. That's going to involve living like our ancestors a thousand years ago. Who thought heroism was the ultimate aim of man. The things needed to win in this era, one with the potential for both utopia and dystopia is found among the Spartans, Knights and Founding Fathers. The stakes could not be higher, but I have complete faith that we will rise to the occasion and win. You know, I think this is a better science fiction novel than any of the ones that were written. Reality is better and yet stranger than fiction in general. I have a pretty positive attitude towards science fiction, but in order to broaden our future, we have to broaden our humanity and the scope of our science fiction writing to pull better futures out of Dreamtime Part 2 Socialism the line that got me to write this video was from Gustave Le Bon, who wrote in the 19th century that the two core trends of the modern world were and would continue to be the rise of incredible technology powered off science, and also the rise of socialism stemming ultimately from universal suffrage. That seemed incredibly prescient, and it's remarkable that even more than a century later, I would say the exact same thing. It also fits very closely with my thesis that modernity is divided between the autistic masculine and the hysterical feminine. Lavon was another incredibly prophetic writer where you can read this text wall for everything he got right. But he said that socialism stemmed from the enormous wealth brought about by science, while at the same time, since it destroyed any incentives for growth, that once it would seize power, it would cause a decline in science, which also happened. Le Bon said that scientific and cultural and political innovation came from very small groups of highly intelligent people positioned in the right places, and what socialism did was destroy these outliers. He said the endpoint of this would be is that America would outpace Europe in innovation or global power, since America's more individualistic culture would mean that socialism would not be able to rise in the same way as in Europe. He also predicted the void caused by Europe's decline would cause the rise of Asia to be an industrial powerhouse. When I'm talking about socialism in the context of this one video, I mean the Spenglerian definition, or the idea that the state should provide for the lives of its subjects from cradle to grave. In Spengler's worldview, socialism was founded as a rejection of the West's core values of heroism in individual responsibility alongside the West's core religion of Christianity. He, alongside Le Bon, and practically every writer in the science of history, saw the rise of socialism as a harbinger of the West's civilizational decline. Socialism emerged over the last few centuries with the French Revolution being the most obvious historic example. Modern democratic socialists, fascists and Marxists all stem from the same left wing social clubs in 19th century Europe with Fire in the Minds of Men by Billington being the best book on the topic. I've already made multiple videos on the history and psychology behind either the Western left or Marxism, so I'll keep this segment shorter than usual. One of the points I've made repeatedly is that socialism is a religion. This should be obvious given socialism fulfills all three of Durkheim's definitions for a religion between rituals, community and metaphysics. My video on communism talks about this more so, but another thing to keep in mind is that religions don't need God, which you can see see most easily with Buddhism or Confucianism in the Orient. The main three tenets of the socialist religion are the blank slate. Equality and progress will just always happen. Keep in mind that socialist and communist started out as synonyms, but now the definitions are muddled due to leftist word games. The way the socialists set up their word games is that once you get stuck in their definitions, you're in their worldview and then they'll keep using them to lure you into their mental trap. Socialists start with a single nice sounding thing like we shouldn't mistreat workers or minorities and then use this to salami slice towards slavery to the state or civilizational suicide. Socialism posits a fairly totalizing worldview in which socialists like to pretend that their beliefs are pretty simple and rational, but much like some insane anime fandom, once you dig, you realize there's an enormous amount of lore beneath the surface and the other fans will definitely penalize you for not knowing all of it immediately. Socialists have fairly standardized views on history, physics, human nature, religion, sex and other topics. The next distinction is between different factions of socialists where like any other religion, the socialists have gone through loads of ideological internal wars between Social Democrats, Marxists, Wokies, Weft types, Stalinists, Maoists, Titoists, Nasserites, Kemalists, and like 30 others. I remember as a teenager thinking that it was a huge weakness that fascism or communism had enormous mythological worldviews in which pushing your political views was part of a global process towards attaining goodness. I noticed that classical liberals didn't have this and I viewed this as a huge negative for them. At the time I saw this sort of political, ideological, mythical view as a positive, but as I've grown wiser I've come to realize and become highly cynical about political ideologies that since they valorize and glorify things that they shouldn't, since all earthly things become corrupt. What's happening here is that politics are being used as a surrogate for normal traditional religions and fail at both being religions and political views. Firstly, unlike better designed religions, socialism doesn't provide a moral code to handle the difficulties of life, a sense of spiritual transcendence, a cool spiritual cosmology, or unify people into strong communities which allow them to start families, be happy or have strong nations. The major world religions statistically are all pro social in that people who follow them statistically have better outcomes. For socialism, it's the opposite. When I talk about the two mythologies, I do not put the other two humanist ideologies which I talk about in my video on the humanist wars of religion, such as classical liberalism and fascism. Because fascism's mythology has been totally dead for nearly a century. Fascism does not connect us to Dreamtime. At the same point, classical liberalism's mythology has also totally deteriorated. And I think the big reason that the left has gained total control of society, where people say, Rudyard, why aren't you balancing the right and the left? And the reason is that the left has total domination over the Western world, where even the conservatives who are left or the Boomer cons are totally controlled inside a leftist frame. And the Zoomer Khans claim to be fascist or racist or whatever because they're trying to oppose the left. They don't seem to realize that these things are at total odds with traditional conservative values or those of Western civilization. So the left has been the only political philosophy capable of developing mythology or a connection to Dreamtime. What I think has occurred though, is that no one actually believes in socialism. Any war where people might say they do. But leftists have been totally controlled by nihilism. They want civilization to end and they very rarely appeal to their actual values or the groups they're claiming to help. At the same time, if you look at academic disciplines in almost any given field, even at the top of the Ivy Leagues, the academics believe things that are in direct opposition to socialism, which I explained in this text wall. Socialism has already died as a belief structure. We just haven't realized it yet. A second point for why socialism fails at politics is since governance requires a nimble strategic mind which can cynically see behind its own illusions. This is why over 90% of societies in history were monarchies, since it's easier to assess quality control for a single individual who was trained for that task from birth with already proven genetics. Democracies only work in highly educated property owning Armed and moral populations, which aren't the vast majority of societies over history. Socialism is as much of an aesthetic as it is a religion. In that you never see socialists take up certain attitudes like they would never use a natural aesthetic. They're utterly opposed to warrior values, traditional structures of beauty, pulling from historic societies for inspiration. Or explaining the world through human animal motivations. This has mixed with science fiction mythology in order to create a society in which our mythology is totally separated from humanity or the human soul, both of which we totally deny the existence of today. This is the exact opposite of what mythology should do, or connecting us with our own humanity. It's funny that socialism pretends to be futuristic, seeing itself as a sort of science fiction ideology of the future, which is why they call themselves progressives. However, at the same time, they're also profoundly primitive in that they propound a worldview in society which they believe to be the closest to the noble savage or tribal and native peoples. However, since they did their anthropology incorrectly, they had not yet realized that these peoples are actually hierarchical, warlike, sexist practice, human sacrifice and slavery. At its core, socialism is the desire to return to the Garden of Eden, which will not work since we already ate the f cking apple. At the same time, the left is profoundly de accelerationist since whenever they seize power, they create incentives to limit growth. Once the socialists seized power in Europe, technological advance collapsed and it decreased in proportion to the rise of socialism in America. Russia's intellectual advancement decreased with the rise of the Soviet Union. Today, the left is very clearly against technology, in which left wing powers like the European Union are actively pushing against new technologies like AI, genetic engineering or these sorts of things. In America, the people most against new technologies are the left, which is an amazing card for the right if we know how to play it. Socialism emerged 200 years ago, as Marx correctly predicted, partly due to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization, which collected dissatisfied working classes together in large groups. Marx was able to accurately assess at the time that the next age would belong to the worker, or more truly, those who falsely claimed to be their representatives and equality. But he failed to predict this would be the bloodiest event in history, killing 150 million people, or easily more so than every other ideology and religion combined in history. Keep in mind, the Nazis also claimed to be socialists. Evil can only see the world in half truths. Marx pulled his ideology out of his own dreamtime, and a century later it controlled a third of the world's population. Truly inspirational. The second variable that caused the rise of socialism was the Development of enormous total war militaries which had democratized violence. And with the gun technology, it meant that people were genuinely equal in their ability to kill, which is the true foundation of power. The state cannot provide education, justice or wealth, but the one thing it can never fail at is militarily crushing its enemies. As Balaji likes to say. The Left developed since it's good at war, where you can see with either the French Revolution or world wars dragging the Western world radically to the left. Since governments that needed all of their men to fight in the trenches also needed ideologies which at least pretended to pander to the common man. What this means is that socialism exists to pander to what the largest amount of people want to believe, but not reality. This was the natural tyrannical endpoint of democracy, which Aristotle, Polybius and the Founding Fathers feared. A majority of wolves voting to eat a superior minority. As I've said in other videos, this is partly due to to the enormous scale of industrial civilization where societies have an incentive to believe things that are super agreeable. Since competing smoothly on a transcontinental basis was a huge strategic advantage in the 20th century. However, the Internet has already destroyed this principle by allowing easy asynchronous communication around the world at once. At the same time, as the Unabomber said, the dehumanization of people caused by the Industrial Revolution, which makes us live like cogs, creates resentment which powers the socialists, which the socialists in a very clever mental trap use to push social policies, which in turn increase the dehumanization that creates more psychological resentment which pushes the process faster. Socialism is totally dependent on the closed loop where you use a definition to say you are correct by definition. This is how the left rationalizes all of their incorrect points. They rationalize all the information in the world through their three faith based starting points of the blank slate, progress and equality. Socialism has created an entirely false worldview which since they dominate academia or the new priest class in the media, they've been able to sort of paint a mirror version of reality warped in their favor. And since it's been so long since the French Revolution, everyone has forgotten what the normal baseline for human societies looked like. I believe that the reality of the world is closest to what the Bible, Plato and Aristotle believed, or the Western canon which created the most successful civilization in history. The reason we know that the socialists made this false reality is that these delusional beliefs gained currency at the exact same time as the Left's rise to power at the time of the Founding Fathers. We had a worldview pretty attached to the actual reality of the human condition. The founding Fathers had pretty objective understandings of a variety of topics, since in an aristocratic society, facts were not needed to prove why someone should be in power. So the intellectual foundations of their society were honest, while at the same time all educated people were highly steep in the biblical or classical tradition, meaning they were not controlled by the same chronological snobbery as us. However, first with the French Revolution and then followed by the Industrial Revolution, finished by the World Wars in the 1960s, you saw the rise of a delusional mirror image of the world made by the socialists. As of now, almost the entire world has been conquered by one variety of socialism or another. Between Marxism, Social democracy, wokeness or third world socialism. The 20th century was the age of socialism, but the 21st will see its death partly since it provides none of the spiritual tools necessary to deal with a collapsing birth rate, loneliness, civilizational decline, the meaning crisis and other very human problems. At the same time, all the macro social incentives that caused the rise of socialism, like enormous conscripted militaries, factory work, or the need for bureaucrats to coordinate, are dead now due to technological advancement. Keep in mind that the reason that ancient Greco Roman thinkers, or the Founding Fathers who lived before the rise of modern socialism were so scared of the rise of socialism was that it also existed in the ancient world between Greece and Rome, China and Babylon. In each case, socialism arose during a period of wealth instability and then degenerated that society, ultimately destroying it before religion gained power again to increase that society's human social capital. Again, this is why socialism will die. Final Thoughts I hope I've given you a pretty good summary of modernity's mythologies and it helps you see how our society works. There's a few things to note here. The first of which is that both of these mythologies have no attachment to reality. For science fiction, that since it's literally fiction, and for socialism, that since they don't fact check anything they say, which means they can just make up anything and immediately implement it, since they have no standards but have enough internal consistency that they can pretend to be rational. Secondly, neither has any connection to history or human nature. This means that they don't understand how humans actually work and end up profoundly dehumanized. Both push highly sterile dead worldviews. None of them have any theory of mind about how the human condition works or have any way to invalidate or test their own worldview. This makes both limited by their own design. If you want to look at the attempt to connect these two ideologies, which is somewhat contradictory in the WEF in which you see the attempt of socialist elites to use new technologies to enslave the public in a sci fi dystopian way. Again, this combines the very worst elements of socialism with the very worst elements of science fiction, that being the relentless slavery to the state of socialism with the sci fi dystopia. This duality is moving towards dystopia since you need some part of this coalition to understand human nature to create a better world. I think science fiction is a perfectly valid worldview for our society today since it is just a representation of the world we live in. We do live in a science fiction reality today, and we have to acknowledge that reality for what it is. Science fiction also allows us to think abstractly and creatively, which is the most fun and effective way to think. Fiction is really good at getting us to understand complex intuitive points and then spreading them to the public. However, at the same time, you have to replace socialism with another ideology more rooted in the past and reality. This is the topic for the next video in which I think the new ruling ideology of our society isn't what you think. I'm excited to see what y' all think about this. Peace.