A (7:30)
History is the story of states rising and falling. Empires collapse when their money collapses. Rome debased its silver, Weimar printed its mark into worthlessness, and today fiat currencies everywhere are inflated at the whim of bureaucrats. But history doesn't have to repeat itself. Zcash is unstoppable private money. It's like Bitcoin but encrypted, giving you the freedom to transact without surveillance, without debasement, and without permission. It's the machinery of freedom, money that lets builders build and dreamers dream even when states decay. I think this is incredibly important because we need to start building currency that is not dependent on the state because if they have it they can turn us into slaves through controlling all of our economics. If you want a future of infinite frontiers, if your soul craves freedom, you need money that resists control. You need Zcash. Some are saying privacy might be the last 1000x in crypto because seen wealth is seizable wealth. The best way to get started with zcash is by buying and storing unstoppable private money using Zashy Wallet. Download Zashi on your mobile phone today by going to the app store or clicking the link below. Peace Part Emotions really Matter Politics today is highly and in fact entirely vibe based. If you say something, you'll almost never receive the actual answer to the question you said, but rather the emotional gut level response they felt from it. We never talk about actual things with fact checking what people are saying, but rather fourth degree abstracted caricatures of topics which bear practically no relation to reality. In so many topics I find the Republican and Democrat narratives are just utterly wrong, but no one actually checked if it's true. Our entire discourse is propelled by the Internet which is powered off hysteria in the same manner a car is powered off gas. The problem here is that people have zero self awareness about this and are in fact entirely powered off emotion. The problem though is that in our culture you're not allowed to question others or say you're better and this means that people just have utterly insane opinions entirely motivated by emotion which they treat with utter certainty but are never checked. Getting answers right is very difficult in that when you're thinking a complex thought you have to check every single subtopic to see that the equation you added together is actually right. People create a string of rationalizations which others don't disprove, then since they believe they are innately rational, they can force themselves to believe the most insane things. This is the closed loop which is so dangerous that I talk about here. The Internet also makes this entire dynamic worse where people get stuck in these loops of verifying their worst fantasies which the Internet keeps feeding them because it means they spend more time in front of a screen. The other thing is that people try to use rationality for things where it doesn't work. Rationality is not an all consuming code which should be used for everything in human life. That was just an idea posited by the Enlightenment which no one really thought through. Keep in mind the human mind is complex and has lots of different mechanisms which it evolved for attaining different goals. The way people think is that if they add as many as if clauses or as if the world is rational, as if progress is real and naturally occurs, or as if we're all equal. And they seem to think that if they add more of these as if clauses, then they're just smarter. But in reality they're removing themselves from basal reality with each extrapolation. Things can just be true and you should just accept true things. If you are correct, nothing else matters. Congratulations. For example, courage and strength are necessary for many things in life distinct from reason. People have crippling anxiety since they're trying to engage their rational mind or in reality, their rationalizations for something it's just not designed for. You need the ability to tell your own mind to shut up. The way to do that is through strength and courage as well as mind mindfulness. But that's a different story. And you cultivate strength and courage through their own right, not as faculties of reason. Overthinking is a sign of weakness. It means you know what the correct answer is, but you're too weak to accept it. Alternately, since we think human nature is rational, then people feel bad for being human. However, that's what they always were. For example, people are shocked when they have emotions. When women act like women, when Asians act like Asians, which is awfully strange because shouldn't people act like whatever type of person they are? Given people think they are rational. They tend to take it very poorly when you say that they're emotional. But that's unreasonable since humans are always emotional. From studies and just from basic wisdom, and we found from those things that emotions make up 90% of human cognition. People have staggeringly poor emotional awareness, which is very dangerous since I think emotional awareness is a more important skill than reason for most people. That's since most people aren't smart enough for their reasoning abilities to really matter. Most people just work a fairly boring and monotonous job, have a moral value code to interact with others, and a mate. That means there's not that much legitimately rational thinking that needs to go on. However, literally everyone needs emotional intelligence, since we all have to have human relationships. From the studies on these topics, the most important thing to people's happiness is good relationships. Which means that if people know how to fix their relationships, that will radically increase their happiness. Keep in mind that for almost all of human history, religion was the most important thing in society, while reason has been incredibly rare over history. Since they understood this principle, they knew that for most people, maintaining emotional self awareness and the ability to interface with others in a mature way was the most important thing. This is what religion does really well, which is why every society in history made sure to inculcate religious values across the entire society, so that they could trust that people in said given society could control themselves as individuals as well as their interactions with others. Our society doesn't really think about human relationships or view them with any respect, which is stupid. Even in pure game theory terms where humans have to interface with others, we have these sort of fantasies of the singular individual totally rather removed from culture, context, community, and other humans. This is a descendant from Rousseau's state of Nature, which anthropologists have totally disproven. This is completely insane, given the person in the state of nature, totally removed from all context, has never ever existed, while humans for all of history have been totally reliant on their community, context and other people around them. That's more true today than it's been for most of history, in which in previous societies people tended to only rely on others in their village, while in huge industrial civilizations the scale of reliance is enormous and global. In our society, there are zero methods to regulate either how people are supposed to process their own emotions or how to deal with others. I guess therapy kind of performs that role. But therapy has universally failed at fixing the mental health crisis, in that the amount of therapists have skyrocketed at the exact same time as increases in mental health issues. Furthermore, therapy isn't even designed to fix people psychologically. This depends on context, where EMDR trauma therapy, which is highly specific, has saved my life, but that's not 95% of therapy that people do. Therapy, as it's understood today, is built to feed into women's cognitive biases, where women tend to like just being heard in conversations without you giving solutions immediately, which I get, since that's the way I am too. That's partly since 80% of Freud's clients were women and they reported positively at his style of therapy. However, if you look at the scientific track record, normal therapy doesn't fix people, even women. And there's literally no framework to integrate or understand human psychology. On a broader level. I've read like 50 psychology books in my life, and really only the Jungians, Trauma therapy a little bit, or evolutionary psychology actually have structures on how to understand how to heal humans or how psychology fits into the broader human condition. It's pretty insane that there's an entire institution called therapy which exists to heal people, but it doesn't. What normal therapy almost always ignores on top of this is that for all of human history, therapy was called religion. But for some reason that doesn't work for modern populations. What the complete inability to introspect on our own emotions and psychology has done is to create an intensely immature population. People are complete strangers to themselves and are in utter denial about who they really are. It's so funny to watch in that people will clearly perceive themselves in the opposite lens to how everyone else perceives them. At the same time, you can't blame them too much, since society offers them no tools on how to do this. In fact, it's likely that whenever they tried to or learn these skills, they've only faced attacks from society. Our real religion as a culture or our operating system is conformity, denial and immaturity. Anyone who pushes back against these gets discriminated against by society. The reason for this is that we are an evil and twisted society. Any degree of introspection would break most people and they'd realize how how evil others are. Another thing is that in our culture it's impossible to enforce standards on other people, which is just utter madness. Most of what we do, we do with others. I am significantly more introverted than most people. I've frequently gone months alone in isolation, and it is sort of lonely, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I hiked 600 miles on the Appalachian Trail alone when I was 18 for two months. When I moved to Texas, I had no friends for the first time. Summer I was there, and I've been in France or other countries by myself for months straight. I can see that lots of people really struggle with this, though, where they need other people in their lives to be happy and healthy. That's why digital isolation in this era is so cruel, since most people are not hermit philosophers, but rather members of the human herd who really need connection to maintain sanity and happiness. I find today that most people are just staggeringly lonely and they're not interesting enough to offset it with personal introspective interests and hobbies. When I was growing up, my mother was obsessed with teaching me politeness. She said that I was the representative of my entire ancestral line and nation, and so if I was impolite, I was bringing dishonor on them. I didn't get it at the time, but now I do. Politeness is the way to show others that you care about them by doing little acts of kindness to demonstrate their shared humanity subconsciously. Heinlein once said he worried more about the loss of politeness than major wars, since it showed a population which no longer cared about others, a population which would collapse. One of the interesting debates in anthropology which I've seen both sides of is that some historians think the shift from the 19th to the 20th centuries was that of collectivism to individualism, and others think it's the opposite of individualism to collectivism. What the people who think that the 20th century was more collectivist than the 19th century point to is stuff like large government interventions or large mega corporations, a moral code based off popularity rather than being right with God or the mass mobilization of the individual into large organizations. And when you read books from the early 20th century, they refer to that era as the era of mass man, or the human whose identity was built around being part of a huge transcontinental network where everywhere in the world looks like everywhere else at the same time. The other side of the argument is that in the shift from the 19th to the 20th centuries, you saw the rise of the individual's ability to be irresponsible, where back in the 19th century, the individual was given more agency in a world in which government and large authorities and the bureaucracy was weaker, but the individual was also held responsible. Well, in the 20th century, you saw the removal of things like abstract standards or codes of politeness or rigid religions. And what you're seeing here is the shift from a masculine form of individualism based around taking responsibility for your self against the world, where 19th century liberalism was being protected against the state's overreach, while 20th century liberalism was the state protecting you from the consequences of your own actions through stuff like abortion or welfare. And that's feminine individualism. And in a lot of cultures, you saw the growth of individuality over the 20th century, with non western societies being one of the most prime examples. However, in my family, where I'm halfway half Irish, half what I'd call cowboy American, I saw my ancestors of the 20th century lose lots of concepts of freedom and individualism, which they had held for centuries beforehand. And this just shows the world's a complicated place. If you're in a society where you can't enforce standards, politeness, or basic human decency, people will just stop having relationships and will psychologically break down. People seem to see themselves as isolated, rational individuals, which most truly aren't. Through this Lens, the post 1960s culture of just saying that we shouldn't have any standards for others and never judge others just comes across as madness and social suicide. It's hard not to realize how much the baby boomers who still run society today actually got behind this. What that really translates to is that civilization will just collapse. That's since civilization is held together by countless little human ties of cooperation powered off love which add up to national greatness. If your society isn't emotionally intelligent, it will collapse. The Founders made America great since they understood that the nation is the aggregate of human individuals with their own wills which are pushing their own self interest. Thus they built America so that each individual human would operate out of their own self interest, which is just common sense if you know the human animal, and from there it would generate the most successful government in history. America is a far more humane and empathic government than communism or leftism, since the American liberal system thinks of the people involved as actual human beings with their own desires and dreams. What socialism really entails is the crushing of human aspirations under the managerial machine to turn them into cogs. Socialism is slavery to the state in a society where no human has the space to breathe or dream Empathy versus Sympathy there's an enormous disconnect on this topic every single time I cover it, and it stems from people not actually knowing what the word empathy even means. I find a lot of right wing people have a visceral negative reaction against the word empathy since they're confusing it with the word sympathy. I don't blame them since enough people misuse the word empathy in this way, while most people learn language from real world context and not from dictionaries so they can't differentiate between when most people misuse a term and its actual meaning. Ironically here the left actually has staggeringly low empathy, even though if you ask most right wingers they to the left to is powered off empathy. That sense empathy is the ability to mentally model others. Sympathy meanwhile is feeling sorry for someone, which the left does a lot for the groups they decide to well, not for others at all. For an example of the left having very poor empathy, they often horrifically model the minds of non leftists, with the easiest examples being minorities or foreigners. This is a big reason why the left has exerted so much effort to help black America, as I talked about in this recent video, which has utterly backfired in that black Americans are vastly poorer, are more unequal against whites, have vastly more crime, drug usage, antisocial behaviors and broken families, while having the highest fatherlessness rates ever in human history than black America did under Jim Crow 60 years ago. What that means is that when the south had a social code legally explicitly built to oppress blacks and keep them down, the effects were less disastrous than a system built to help the blacks. This means that the left has done a staggeringly poor job at modeling the minds and actions of genuine black people to have effective interventions. Keep in mind most leftists live in northern cities without many black people, where Africans have it hit a demographic tipping point, which you'd see in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Memphis or Compton. You can see this trend in other examples where the left clearly does see immigrants as endangered children who need the state's help to get going. In the First World, that's just not true where if you're Mexican or Algerian, you're probably psychologically a peasant who's used to living a pretty hard life, which in some ways makes you more mature than the average leftist, but at the same time not. And you're used to taking care of yourself. The left can't mentally model this sort of person, since they live in such a safe society that they can't imagine the mindset of a tough peasant who's built up grit and discipline from the hardship and cruelty. You know the left must be bad when I'm speaking more highly of third world peasants than them. I've read like 150 Books in anthropology by this point, and probably the biggest issue with that field is that it's written nearly entirely by secular, progressive, educated professionals in major coastal cities. This type of person exists metaphorically thousands of miles away from what a normal historic human being would look like, or even someone from another continent or around the world today. Anthropologists have literally invented the acronym weird in that most anthropological data sets come from Western populations which are statistically super different from other groups. On top of this, I'm an educated religious Briton from Pennsylvania, which is anthropologically very close to that type of professor, and I still feel totally underrepresented by their worldview. Less than 1% of humanity fits into what's considered anthropologically normal. I like to say that if your vision of humanity doesn't start with India or Africa first, and then treats the west as a bizarre, albeit very successful aberration, you've done something wrong. Once you zoom out, you realize that for almost all of humans in history or around the world today, things like religion, tradition, rituals, clan, tribe, history and hierarchy were literally the most important things in their lives. They were things they would sacrifice their actual human lives as an individual to preserve. However, the modern left doesn't think they exist at all, and anyone who uses them is mentally ill or repressed. Well, by any metric you'd use from a normal society, the modern left is the one who is mentally ill and repressed. They're committing civilizational suicide, which is mentally ill on top of repressing the entire human condition under social engineering. What social scientists do is treat even most Westerners as defective, which is literally true. In which the most important sociological text of the last century was the Authoritarian Personality, written by two Marxists who openly said they were very explicitly trying to take revenge for the Holocaust. Holocaust wrote to say that social conservatism and hierarchy causes fascism and authoritarianism. The reality is the exact opposite in that social traditions exist as a bulwark against totalitarianism which only emerges in the vacuums left by the collapse of traditional religions or communities. It also completely ignores leftist or Marxist tyranny which has killed twice as many people people as right wing tyranny. However, our entire society's model of the world is built off this false idea, which is why the left thinks killing tradition will stop fascism while in fact causing the opposite. When progressive anthropologists project this imaginary person which is a model for who they believe themselves to be, as a sort of shallow self image, it makes it impossible for them to understand anyone who thinks differently from them, which makes their efforts to change the world utterly backfire each time. When the Neo Khans invaded the Middle east to install democracy, they couldn't even consider that the Muslims would see this as an invasion rather than liberation, and that these populations neither wanted democracy nor were mature enough for it. You should extend this across the entire world, which is why the managerial class fails. I was once talking to a managerial class track girl from Washington D.C. about how I had such profound resentment about deindustrialization growing up in Pennsylvania, since it destroyed a lot of my prospects at social mobility and turned Philadelphia from one of the richest cities in the world to the poorest and most crime filled of America's 10 largest cities. She said that the managerial class types saw working class Americans as greedy for wanting to to keep their own property and society at the expense of progress. That struck me as so insane since we hadn't seen any progress ourselves, which was solely defined as the managerial elite's benefit. It's clear that the current elites best encapsulated by the WEF see the people of the west as cattle at best. This is what the consequences of what a staggering absence of empathy looks like. The absence of empathy has real world implications on our lives. I'm really surprised I haven't made a video about this yet, but humans have different tiers of consciousness and we've put a lot of work into studying this with spiral dynamics being the dominant system. With each tier of consciousness you can understand the world better and you can see humans progressing through These over human history in that it's obvious that our mental abilities have improved in most ways since the Middle Ages, even if we've lost wisdom or mindfulness in the process. Reality is complex and doesn't owe you simplicity. As an example of this, me and most of this show's audience probably exist at level seven, which is that of the Founding Fathers. Where you see morality can be influenced by context. Level 7 can integrate religion, science, philosophy, empathy in tradition, alternating between mental models for whichever one makes the most sense in that context. This is the level for strategic empathy or the topic of this video. One of my goals is to get the right as a whole to level seven, which is what the west needs to survive. The left is at level six where they think everything is relative, where you can't judge others, while level five is trying to understand the world purely rational, rationally. And level four is the traditional world religions where reality is whatever the Holy book says. A huge issue the left has is level six is unable to understand how they enable level threes. Level three is a lot of the third world, where it can only see the world through their own self interest, which you can see with the behavior of a lot of predatory Indians, Nigerians or Russians online. Level six is so civilized and safe they simply can't imagine that there are bad faith actors which exist at level three, at least consciously, which don't understand the moral, albeit stupid, points that Level 6 is trying to make. Philosophically, the point I'm trying to make here is that the left has a lot of sympathy in that they feel sorry for a certain group, but they have very little empathy or the ability to actually understand how others think or perceive the world. The left has very little self awareness to an absolutely dangerous degree in that they make a mental projection of the world and can't check if it's accurate. This is why they're killing the west, since they're so self assured that this is the one correct course of action, no other course of action is moral and they have no no way to actually restabilize and check if their theory is even correct. This is a great flaw of modernity stemming from our overuse of the left hemisphere. One of my favorite books ever is by the neuroscientist Ian McGilchrist, called the Master in his emissary, which is the two neurological halves of the brain in which the left hemisphere can only see the world through money, control and power. It can't see change flow over time. Unstated things, implicit variables, context, meaning, or things like God. The left hemisphere has utter certainty in its answer while being incorrect, while the right hemisphere is humble. I love this symbol since it's so perfect. But the left hemisphere can literally only draw half of an image, while the right can draw the whole thing. The left hemisphere is the neurology used to control dead things and the right, right, living things. The Master and his emissary explains so many of the issues with modernity. As an example, the left hemisphere can't distinguish between symbolic representations of something and the real thing itself. This is the core of the left's problem where due to their feminine psychological bias, they see helping others as their core value. However, due to the fact that they're dominated by the left hemisphere neurologically, they create certain traits which they use as surrogates for helping people, like giving black people money. They never check if these surrogates actually help or they actually do work effectively at helping black people, where they keep pushing this, whether or not it actually succeeds. What empathy would entail, rather than sympathy here is talking to black people or looking at whether or not these policies worked, statistically determining what course of behavior would be best for the black community and then carrying it out. Heidegger spoke to a tradition we've seen in most world religions that there is a difference between doing and being. To be is to simply exist as your own soul and to live. To truly understand others, you need to be with them, which is empathy. You're not trying to exert control or force over them. In physics, we find that the way we perceive particles, through trying to exert control over them, actually changes their structure on an atomic basis. There's a huge difference when you're talking or dealing with someone, whether you are actually trying to understand others or if you're trying to manipulate them. You should try to exert force on others as little as possible, although sometimes it is necessary. What matters is that you perceive them as a person. Where this speaks to a Christian attitude. In war between just and unjust war, where it's just not feasible to not wage war. What pacifism does is it gives all the cards to the worst actors. I think war is just. If you've thought it through and realize that this is the best outcome, to treat others as humans. This is profoundly un PC, but I think it's true in that people like playing the game of life even when they lose, even if they don't want to admit it. People tend to respect you when you conquer them, but you still treat them as people. Nations which get conquered, like India, with the British, Mexico with the Spanish or Gaul with Rome still have a lot of respect for their conqueror, even if they're too bashful to admit it, since in each case the conqueror tailored that conquest to that region and eventually helped them improve. It's like how 70% of women at least have rape fantasies, where the difference for the woman is if the man raping them actually sees them as a person with profound desire. A lot of this stuff is just too un PC to state in public, so I'll stop there. My attitude is we often have to do brutal things, but people respect you if you treat them as a human being, while they really hate it when you don't. The worst tyrants like the Mongols, Nazis or Assyrians are remembered very poorly by history since they dehumanized the conquered Part 3 Empathy is a Weapon now that we've removed the incorrect connotations for empathy, let's look at the actual useful applications of empathy for things that my overwhelmingly young male audience would respect. Let's look at someone who had staggeringly high empathy, which you might not expect, that being the 19th century unifier of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, who was one of the greatest statesmen ever in European history. When you look at great leaders or statesmen, they always have a very good sense of psychology on both an individual or group level. Politics is an art and a highly messy thing, not like a science equation, and so it involves antifragile thinking and understanding things in edge cases. Since the entirety of reality is an edge case case. Every great historic statesman you respect needed to understand themselves enough to self regulate in dangerous situations, how to motivate their own men, and how to deal with potential allies or enemies. The thing is that once you're a male beyond a certain level of status, you need to have empathy for your job because you're going to be managing people. And whenever you are dealing with or leading with people, you have to understand how they work frequently better than they do because you are ultimately responsible for their fate and it's just their job to follow orders. This is why men in leadership positions require having empathy, and if they don't, it's a failing. When we look to Bismarck to see different examples of this, you can see several points in his career in which he demonstrated incredibly high empathy. For one, he was highly persistent, persuasive, often devolving into highly unorthodox tactics like bursting into tears and planting fits of rage, threatening to resign to move the opinion of the Kaiser, the German legislatures and other power brokers. He was a well known womanizer, much like Kissinger, where they used their knowledge of psychology to get laid. He guided Germany towards becoming potentially the greatest power on earth over the course of the second half of the 19 19th century. When Bismarck took power, Germany had been disunified for 600 years, in which Prussia had spent centuries already fighting countless brutal wars to secure a sort of dominance over northern Germany. Even with a dozen other independent German states which had Austria, not Prussia, as their suzerain. Europe at this point was tightly tied together by a complex web of elite alliances by powers vastly greater than Prussia, which had stopped earlier attempts to unify Germany, since that would create an enormous continental power. What Bismarck did so well was use this complex web for his own benefit while taking each of the great powers striking at their weakest point while using group or individual psychology to defeat his opponents. For example, he understood the yearning of the German people for unity and their fear of outsiders, which stemmed from centuries of being Europe's chessboard. He used the south German fear of France to unify Germany in the Franco Prussian wars while using the Emperor of France, Napoleon III's ego and desire for empire against him to crush his enemies in a single masterstroke. He also started his career by using the Danish control of ethnic Germans in Schleswig Holstein at a PR move to unify Germans and seize control of the strategic Kiel Canal, which gave Germany the connection between the Baltic to North Sea from Denmark. Carlyle said that the marker of a wise man is he who can see the innate character of things rather than their external trappings. This is profoundly valuable since only those who can see the inner character of things are capable of actually relating to them on a day deep level. I'm always shocked when I see people who lack wisdom and discernment and I wonder how they're capable of living as functional adults where how they make just basic choices in their life between choosing a mate, choosing their job, choosing how to live and the other things you have to do as a functioning member of society. A life without wisdom is a life in a dark room with no light and instead of teaching wisdom out, society actively punishes it. What Bismarck was able to do was he could see the innate character of the thing he was dealing with or he had very high empathy. As an example, when he beat the Austrian Empire, which had many advantages over Prussia in a lot of different ways, where it wasn't widely known that Prussia would win that war. Firstly, he isolated Austria from a lot of its European allies which had protected it in earlier wars, and then had used the Transition from the Prussian war with Denmark as a way to attack Austria. He realized that Austria was not a country which could mobilize men very quickly or fight quickly, thus ending the war in about a month. What he did with all of this was to secure the loyalty of the various German states under Prussia, not Austria, like they had earlier. The point I'm trying to illustrate here is that empathy in our society is very feminine coded, but it's actually a profoundly masculine skill. One in which if you have an advantage, you can utterly crush your opponents in all facets of life. Since most interactions involve multiple humans where this is a very valuable skill in a wide variety of industries, if you're an effective man, you really need to learn empathy in order to win. This doesn't even illustrate all the archetypes for how empathy can be effective as a man, where sales is a super easy example to show, or anything that's based around selling or understanding the market that you're trying to produce products for. For a more grandiose example, the founders of religions or leaders of political movements succeed, as Carlisle said, since they have a profound inner sincerity which allows them to see a deeper aspect of the human condition than most. Most people live very peripheral lives, but depth allows you to connect with others on a more profound level. If you pull it off well, tapping into something truly meaningful and profound, either in your era, culture or broader humanity, you can become one of the greatest men who has ever lived, such as Buddha, Lenin, Plato or Muhammad, just to name a few. It used to be there was a stable archetype of the sort of man society would cultivate to have wisdom. Until pretty recently, there was an ideal of the man of culture who was respected since he knew history, literature, philosophy or art. We got rid of this type of man in our society and as a result the west collapsed since we lost all wisdom. This is the archetype for the original meaning of the word gentleman. Where an old style European culture, cultures, classical or Chinese civilization, to name a few. There was a type of man whose hands were gentle since he had the leisure to cultivate wisdom through learning and living the right life. It was supposed to be that his life itself was a reflection of his philosophy. Pulling from the Greek tradition as one of the most obvious sources. In many cultures this was seen as the highest form of masculinity. Without these, a society has no wisdom or discernment which will then cause its extinction. We also removed the priest class who formed the same role in a different way. The role of priests in a society is to explain and help guide people on how to live. We tend to see the world in a very literalistic way. But the human condition has its own symbolic framework for how we live, which matters as much much as literal material reality does for our actual real lives. Good and evil, higher and lower forms, or foolish and more brilliant are all real things which we have to interact with. Good and evil doesn't exist until you have an evil government on top of you. The priest class were trained to help guide the population through wisdom towards good ends. Removing the priest class in religion always caused causes civilization to die over history. As we can see with the fall of our society, 20th century Europe and Greece or Rome. In 19th century philosophy, the higher man was one who could anticipate the end point of a chain of events and change the outcome through self awareness. As the godlike power of our technology increases, we desperately need higher men while at the same time our society utterly demonizes this. I hate how our society's concept of masculinity utterly demonizes male sensitivity. That since male sensitivity and empathy is the foundation of all religion, philosophy and the vast majority of art, it all stems from some man who's normally in his twenties which noticed something others didn't by being curious about how someone else perceived the world. All good art requires at least one one layer of empathy, where you have to read the collective zeitgeist well enough to figure out what your audience would want. We hate sensitive men more than any other demographic in our society. Toxic femininity lashes out at anything that exists beyond its level of depth, which isn't hard since it has no depth in this age which glorifies nihilism, mediocrity and shallowness. There's no place for a priest class, men of culture, genuine artists, gentlemen, real leadership and anything like that in our evil society. Any degree of wisdom or self awareness would show how evil and twisted things are. Our concept of masculinity is so broken that we've practically made being a man illegal in much of the west while at the same time making a culture which openly demonizes and flagellates men. We think being a man either means being a stupid lout who watches sports while eating unhealthy foods, or some gym bro who hasn't cultivated any other aspect of himself. The culture of viewing masculinity purely through the gym or attractiveness to women would come across as profoundly low class and disgusting to every other society in history ever. Manhood is the ability to crush your enemies and take what you want, which becomes a lot easier when you have empathy. A point which I think a lot of people imply but isn't actually true, is that people like to think that as your empathy increases at the same time you lose your competitive effectiveness and you're not going to be willing to do difficult things that you might need to in order to survive. But what I found is that as I increased my empathy and my sensitivity in my environment and I became more self aware of others needs, I found that just being nice to everyone all the time wasn't actually good for people and wasn't actually the moral way to act. Where the idea that you should be nice to everyone is a moral thing is actually a profoundly immature and weak idea. Because there's lots of bad people where it's good for them if you defeat them. There's lots of inefficient organizations where you out competing them will force them to innovate and people need to be given space and they need to be given a certain overton window to live their own lives. So you shouldn't constantly intervene into their lives to fix them. We need a new concept of masculinity and I accept empathy as at least one pillar of it. This isn't to say that traditional masculine virtues like aggression and dominance aren't necessary. In fact, they're even more so if you're intelligent. The intelligent often use their brains to enable the their own weakness. Where the intelligence of a man must be matched by his strength in manhood, you must be strong enough to master your own mind, which can often become your greatest enemy. If you're intelligent, the mind must always come second to your soul and your strength. Nature leaves no excuses for weakness. She crushes those who fall short. And this is an era of history where we will all be tested. However, there's also no further fun and boring times. You get the fun times. You get to live in some insane dystopian fantasy sci fi novel. A lot of it sucks, so be careful to take the positives when they come. Part four Being I have a rule called the law of chill vibes. It states that unless you're forced to, you should maintain chill vibes. I made it. Since so much of society was trying to force me to care about things, I have no incentive to. I'm supposed to care about your politics, your products, some tragedy or whatever. Whenever the media tries to whip me into a hysteria, however, I just chose not to. You can just choose to not care about any of this. Do your own thing and not the stupid and the cringe. This Retarded system is only powered by us caring about it. If we don't, it falls apart. And so I won't. One of the things I've found is that in that I've lived a quite interesting life, but when all is said and done, I'm just vibing. What I mean by that is that even if you do a lot of cool stuff, you're just stuck living with yourself. At the end of the day, you could be super rich, handsome or attractive, but do you like being with yourself? Do you like the passive task of waking up, making coffee and going to your job? You could have a really nice vacation and have a good car. But if the answer is no, then that's a real issue. In fact, it's your biggest issue. You if you don't like being with yourself, then no matter where you are, you won't be happy. As a society, we have so many things, but we're clearly miserable since we're committing suicide as a civilization, and that's just not okay. Clearly we have to change, but it's clear that the loathing is internal, where we don't feel okay with being ourselves. This is a multifaceted problem with many causes that I don't have the time to get into here. But we need to learn to be human with other humans. That can only stem from empathy, where we need to start having empathy for ourselves and we also need to have empathy for others. I'm careful about giving blanket prescriptions since I find that the advice that works for people varies a lot by their context, whether their personality, age, sex, ethnicity or social class. For example, with something that's very obvious, men and women are motivated by very different things. However, this is a huge issue in this culture where the one thing the industrial world can't offer people is humanity or the personal. I think a massive reason we have these issues as a culture is that for all of human history and what we evolved for, we lived in small communities with people that we knew. This meant that everything was tailored to us as an individual or our context with the industrial world that utterly died, where we could have everything we wanted, but not humanity. Everything had to be mass produced and commodified. The entire world became the same. Where I love my story, where I was on an island in the Indian Ocean in Thailand, which looked exactly like Florida. From studies we found the most important thing for human happiness is connection. And I don't mean that in a parent peripheral sense, like going to the club with lots of hot people or posting nice stuff on Instagram, where you have a lot of followers, but rather being connected or understood. As humans, we crave others seeing us for who we truly are and being loved. This is why Christianity, a religion built off love, became the most successful religion in history, in which love is life's bonding particle, holding families, people, communities or nations together. This is a whole process, but in order to be comfortable with being, we'll have to be comfortable with existing and being with others. This process might be very painful, but not fixing it will be vastly worse and we'll die as a society since the birth rate is a function of this. Modernity is dying of a quiet nihilism and loneliness that's eating away at our soul, but we're too too scared to admit it. Our entire society is dying since no one has the courage to not appear cool. It's so stupid. Trying to be cool isn't how you become cool, it's just cringe. It's so cringe that all the movies are about approval from others and not about goodness, glory or honor in which self respect is infinitely higher or better than popularity. Self awareness requires slowing your mind down. I meditate, go on long walks and pray every day, for example. To do this for other people, this might be attending church or reading out deeper topics. My life exists to serve God and yours doesn't have to. But you should at least be able to trust yourself, which most people can't. I will warn you, once you look inside yourself, you will find a person so different from who you thought you were that it will scare you, which is good. If you can scare yourself, then you're still strong and strength is the foundation of all virtues, since the weak man cannot have other morals. As you gain higher levels of self awareness, your entire life will change. You will start to notice things you hadn't seen before. And what you will see will disturb you at first, but it will later become a total superpower. It will change your life in a very profound and positive way. Secondly, as you do this, you will start to notice details about others you hadn't before. This might result in you shedding relationships, but that's okay in that suffering is the burning away of weakness. As you face suffering, you need to remember that you can always trust yourself. Lots of people struggle with boundaries, but once you can return to yourself and know that you're always safe, whenever you're alone, you will learn to not overly rely on others. You might want love or affection, but you have to return the energy others give you and not project what you want to see onto them, follow the process, which is the best thing you can do. At the core of you is your soul and will, descending ultimately from the divine, whether or not you can believe it. Yet your identity isn't what you've done for work, how much money you make, what you watch on tv, what you wear, or anything like that. It's the little iron bar that already resides in your soul. When you've given up on it, you've given up on life, even if you're still walking. I carry a little iron bar to remind myself of everything I've lived through, to say that I'm trying my best and that's okay. If I fail, hey, it's okay. It's a work of progress. But aren't we all?
