Kind: captions
Language: en
You've said a quote though that I think
is really powerful which is there's no
historic society that has looked like us
that didn't have a revolution and I want
to get a sense of what is it that we
look like.
>> The best example I've gotten recently
since we last spoke is that NZE had a
term called the age of the last men and
he was writing in the 1880s um and and
he said that no one would truly
understand his work until the year 2000
really
>> and Yeah. Yeah.
>> Whoa. And so the age of the last men is
in the 21st century and it's a society
where um he said the west would be dying
because it would push um envy and crabs
in the bucket and lack of ambition and
conformity to a point where there
wouldn't be space to live. People would
not be procreating. The west would not
be able to survive. It would be the most
dangerous period in our history because
it would be so complacent. And it's
really interesting when he frames the
age of the last men that all these
things which we see as moral are
actually profoundly immoral
because
there's lots of things where not doing
something is immoral. And we're a
society where we're not doing a lot of
things. And so I think we're a we're a
profoundly sick and um endangered
culture.
>> So what are the things that we're not
doing that we should be doing?
>> Traditional human societies and I want
to sort of set a frame for this where
our cultural frame as a society is like
30 years. We can pull music from the 80s
um and we're still running out of 80s
music and uh we can't go back further.
The furthest we can imagine is sort of
World War II, but at the same time, the
scale of human history is thousands of
years around the world. And if you're
only looking at us, you're going to
think we're less than we are less than
1% of the human race. And every other
society in history had vastly different
social norms than us on a variety of
things. So, um, we've gotten rid of
having a coherent culture, which is a
really big deal that no one thinks
about. When you pass on things through
generations, the nation is a
generational inheritance, and we've
thrown that away. And that includes um
the religion, the social structure,
codes of politeness,
um a national identity, uh a source, a
sense of honor, and there's a series of
beliefs that practically every
pre-industrial society has that we don't
and we sort of I mean, this is a huge
topic I'd be happy to unpack and we've
got several hours, but um we don't
realize that this is not the end point
of humanity. We're an insane aberration
of a bunch of variables thrown together.
>> I I think it's worth going in so that
people can have landmarks as to what
exactly is going on. So, um, writing
about the what a shared myth is is
something I've been focused on recently.
Getting people to understand that we all
live inside of a frame of reference that
we tell ourselves a story and that we
can't even agree anymore on what America
was founded on. like whether we are a
profoundly racist culture that is just
about colonialism and slavery or whether
we have created uh the most prosperous
nation that the world has ever known.
Like we we have both of those stories
being told at the same time and the fact
that we don't have anything to share I
think has profoundly problematic
consequences from a a divide the nation
up standpoint. Um so I'd love to hear
what are some of the landmarks that you
see? what are the things that like
specifically are dissolving
um that you think are problematic? And
the the line of questioning started with
what are we not doing? So what are the
things that we're not doing that are
problematic that have led to those
things?
>> You gave me a lot of interesting uh
conversational threads and so I'll pull
a few of them, but I don't think I'll to
get to all of them. One of them is
um so people know Jordan Peterson for
his pundit career which has gotten quite
popular but I think Peterson's most
important work is something no one
noticed which is maps of meaning.
>> Yeah. Fantastic book.
>> Yeah. I've it was such a hard read. It
took me like 2 years but I finally
completed it. And it's so intelligent
because he's looking at human neurology
and biology and all these different
things and saying, "How come countries
will die fighting over their religion?
How come uh two countries are willing to
go to nuclear war over something? How
could anything be important enough for
that?" And the thesis is that humans
have to sort of build frameworks of how
we interact with the world or maps of
meaning. And these exist inside our
neurology where we have to interface
with good, evil, higher, lower forms, a
variety of things just to function as an
actual human being. And that's very
important. And another threat I want to
pull at is there have been multiple
myths about what America is over its
history. The first one which came about
uh after the revolution, early 19th
century was uh America was a republic.
Then with the mid to late 19th century,
America was an Anglo-Saxon uh British
nation.
Early 20th century is America was a
frontier culture uh built off sort of
the shared uh challenge of entering a
new land. Then the theory from World War
II until the mid to late 20th century
was America was a nation built off sort
of diversity, mixing peoples together.
But back then it was seen more as like
Italians, Irish, Jews with the local
Angloac with the local Anglo-Saxon
population. And then the theory in the
21st century has been that uh America is
built off oppression and uh colonialism
and racism. Um and for all of those
questions, do you want me to unpack
which of those I believe? it'll be
helpful to understand what you believe
but with a specific eye towards why does
it matter like does it provide stability
>> um because when I look at your work one
of the things that I feel like you're
trying to do is understand the different
ingredients that have made this moment
dangerous and that gives me a sense of I
can follow cause and effect in your
thinking and so I'd love to hear those
narratives through the lens of well if
you believe this this is sort of the
knock-on effect and you can see it in
society today.
>> Yeah. Um
life without identity is very difficult
because
difficulty has no meaning without
identity and life has a lot of
difficulty. So if you have no framework
for who you are um and what you stand
for, you're kind of just going to float
around and the world's going to feel
empty. And I think that's a huge issue
that the entire society has today. And
every single attempt to build identity
has been destroyed. And this sounds this
is going to sound like it's a a
conservative talking point, but if this
was a murder, we have the gun. The guy
who did it claimed he committed the
murder. Um, you see the body. uh and I
don't know you have witnesses and that's
that the Marxists explicitly set out to
destroy the unified culture and that's
what thinkers like Marx and Gsky and non
sorry Gsky uh Marusa
um Yuri Bzmanov all these Marxist
thinkers had a legitimate process of
social disorientation which they planned
out each step and we've seen all the
steps happen in reality but the only
reason that worked because in a normal
society you just brushed that off is
that with the rate of change with the
industrial revolution and we talked
about mouse utopia last time there
wasn't that unified cultural anchoring.
>> Okay. So we've got a explicit attempt on
the part of the Marxist to go in to
leverage essentially the rapid rate of
change to know that people are going to
just try to make sense of that world.
And while they're doing that, we're
going to slip in all these confusing
conflicting notions. So it's going to be
hard for them. Now I'm using my
language, but it's going to be hard for
them to even leverage a huristic of just
mapping to somebody else's thinking to
say, "Oh, at least if I just follow
them, I have clarity." Now you're
following somebody who's very eloquent,
uh, very ariodite, and yet they
intentionally have woven in these
beliefs that are contradictory. And so
now you are paring something back, but
you don't necessarily understand it.
That speaks to a point I made in the
video I just recently wrote and I'm
about to record today. Um, and so the
issue we have is that modern thinkers
are pulling people from the last 200
years. They're very bad at big deal big
detail in context and sort of
understanding how the world works. Take
Markx as an example who's had an
enormous impact on the entire world
today. Even though people paper that
over, but even right-wing people are
hugely impacted by Marx. I mean, I am
I've done class analysis. I've looked at
I have my own sort of dialectic of
history. Um,
Markx built the idea of sort of
splitting history and society into
different principles and jostling them
together. Um, but Marxism is built off
all these assumptions like if everyone
is the same, which is not true. If
history has a direction, which is not
true, if the state can socially engineer
people, which are not true, if there has
to be a rebellion of the proletariat,
which doesn't actually have a government
system, which will result in utopia,
where you've added together 10 logical
assumptions, and if you do that in
coding, your code's going to crash. And
so that's what happened with society. So
last 200 years we're really bad at
understanding
how things interconnect where we can
understand things that we can prove with
science very easily sort of material
shifts um like how how the weather
occurs or uh genetics or whatever but
we're very bad at using sort of wisdom
to figure out what it actually means.
Meanwhile, the thinkers before then from
like uh I don't know the ancient world
uh or the medieval world, they often
have pretty good sort of like total
world human experience wisdom. It's why
religions like Christianity still work
today or why people read still read
Marcus Aurelius. But the way their
wisdom works is often in such like a a
differently coded way than modern people
that modern people don't really
understand it or they just think of it
as a silly story. When you look at these
ancient myths, you have to compare what
part of this was a silly story and what
part of this is symbolic wisdom. And
that's a very thin line. Um, but so
we're stuck with this gap where we can't
find the ancients identifiable, but then
the moderns don't really know what
they're talking about in a lot of cases.
We'll get back to the show in just a
second, but [music] first, Paleo
Valley's bone broth protein is hands
down one of the cleanest, most
nutrient-dense proteins you can buy, and
it is [music] delicious. It's made from
real grass-fed beef bones, slow
simmerred to extract [music] all the
collagen, protein, and micronutrients
your body needs to [music] thrive. One
scoop gives you 13 g of high quality,
delicious, [music]
bioavailable protein with naturally
occurring collagen to support strong
[music] joints, radiant skin, and deep
hydration. This is the kind of whole
food nutrition that humans [music] have
thrived on for thousands of years. And
let me tell you, the chocolate flavor,
it is on another level. Not overly
sweet, not fake, [music] just real
decadent flavor that actually feels like
a treat. I love this thing. You've also
got vanilla, salted caramel, and
unflavored if you're keeping it simple.
[music] You can get up to 35% off all
Paleo Valley products, plus a free gift
with your purchase. This is their best
offer of the year, so don't sleep on it.
Fuel your body with real ingredients.
All right, [music] now let's get back to
the show. One thing that I want to see
if I can get to understand is I have a
really it's over overly simplified to be
sure, but it is so directionally
accurate that I repeat it often. Uh, and
it's my hypothesis about why exactly
society is broken right now. And then
that predicts exactly what we would need
to do to fix it. It goes like this. Uh,
all of the problems that we're facing as
a society right now are economically
uh they're born from bad economics. What
we've done is the uh in 1913 when we
went onto a fiat currency by
establishing the federal bank uh the
federal reserve we went into a system
where we could print money. By printing
money we were able to steal from people
through inflation. By being able to
steal from them uh via inflation we
created hyper inequality which I mean it
took 100 years to manifest but it's
manifesting pretty horrifically right
now. And so we had an American dream
where it was like there is a truth to be
faced that there's one asset class that
humans understand intuitively and that's
the house. The only way to protect
yourself from the devastation that is
inflation is an asset. And so now you
have the situation, this is a literal
statistic, 10% of Americans own 93% of
the assets. And people wonder why, you
know, we're getting just everinccreasing
inequality. Put that together with the
fact that we have an evolutionary
algorithm placed in our minds that makes
us absolutely go ballistic when we see
something as unfair. And so the jinny
coefficient which says basically if
somebody looks around and sees somebody
else has more than they have, they're
going to go bananas if it gets too big.
And so the Federal Reserve made it
possible for wealth inequality to just
spiral completely out of control. Once
houses become became unaffordable then
you get this hollowing out of the middle
class and so now the wealth inequality
is going like French revolution levels
because of all those things I think we
actually are headed towards a French
revolution but it's economic in nature
everything else that's manifesting is
simply because the economics broke and
if you fix the economics there's enough
prosperity that people sort of fall back
into comfortable patterns and they can
overlook book, all the schizophrenia
that something like a Marxist philosophy
might uh bring. And so that like
encapsulates my core thesis as to what
is going wrong and therefore what we
would have to do to fix it. Um as you
pull all these threads of history, do
you have a similar thesis that you can
lay out? Is it tied to Marxism? Is it
tied to leftists in general? uh or is it
something else completely? So we're in a
really awkward position um because
I have a joke that hundreds of years
from now for the population number
they'll have line go up line go down
where 20th century is line go up in
demographics 21st century is line go
down and we're at the point where line
go up is starting to go into line go
down and this would be very
psychologically disorienting for people
because I think
if you fixed the economic issue um you'd
put a band-aid in a lot of these
underlying things but I think we do have
a c a pretty severe cultural issue which
is sort of working with the economic one
and we didn't have the cultural issue
until recently because money could paper
it over
>> and can you define what the cultural
issue is? So
you look at the baby boomers, they got
rid of a unified culture where it's the
shared story we talk about. It's that
people have lots of things that people
don't think matter in fact do where um
one of the great things about living in
Texas is there's sort of like a fluid
degree of social trust that makes doing
things easier. you can trust that like
let's say I um I forgot my my debit card
at a restaurant yesterday. I just went
back and got it and they just noticed me
like, "Oh yeah, uh you you you can have
it. We know who you are." That's
possible in certain cultures. Um but
then not in others. Or if like you have
an employee, you if it's a high trust
society, you don't have to watch over
them every second. And I'm I if you you
you don't have to micromanage or always
check in where culture affects
absolutely everything. But what happened
was that we had centuries of increasing
wealth where we thought we could get rid
of culture. The boomers are at the peak
of that. Then the death of culture also
chicken and egg lot of variables. But uh
once you no longer have a culture with
things like the the federal government's
responsible to the public, you shouldn't
print infinite money because that's bad
form and it's going to hurt people. Now
they're just so greedy that they're
going to do it anyway. So would it be
wise to define culture as the way you
mean it, informal rules that are passed
on uh from parent to child, person to
person without necessarily being
documented?
>> Yes. So anthropologically culture is
sort of a net sum of how a society
operates. It includes uh the a
government system is dependent on
culture. Um the uh religion is the
manners,
the accent, uh how child raring occurs,
uh how they cook. Uh the culture is just
the tum the sum total of the human
interactions and
what happened is that modernity had lots
of implicit issues which we used money
to paper over. Um and then once most
people slid into misery uh money didn't
do that anymore. I mean as an example we
don't have
um we have lots of very sort of sloppy
social rules in our culture. Equality is
one. Equality is just not an accurate
depiction of reality. And you can
believe in it as long as your societyy's
wealthy enough that you don't deal with
these conflicts. But then once you get
to a place where one person gets to make
their bills and the other person
doesn't, all the pleasant notions sort
of
become very costly. For example,
globalization worked in a world where um
there was the pie was growing for
everyone. But in a world where that
isn't true, you then realize other
countries aren't on your side. Does that
make sense? Where
>> 100%. Okay. So, we are no longer
transmitting via culture ideas that keep
our society strong and stable. When that
happens at the same time that the
economic pie begins to shrink, suddenly
you see all of the issues. But your
hypothesis is that the issues that we
need to address the more foundational
issues are ones of culture.
>> No, I think both are foundational.
Economic is first because people are
really struggling economically and you
need to fix that in order to uh just
have a functioning society because so
many people are just barely paying bills
and living really miserable lives that
if you don't fix that variable, that
variable is going to tear everything
else down.
Okay. So, uh this moment brought to you
by economics problem number one and then
culture begins to be problem number two.
Now, if we start getting specific about
culture, um you were talking in the
beginning about Marx that Marx has had a
huge influence on the right and the left
whether they want to acknowledge it or
not. Um, so far what you've put forward
about Marxism is it offers these
conflicting ideas with the expressed
intent of destroying culture. Um, what I
want to know, assuming that I've gotten
all that correct, what is Marxism hoping
to accomplish by destroying culture and
why is it so influential?
>> Those who lack wisdom lack wisdom. You
don't know what you don't know. And a
lot of people don't know a lot. In fact,
we all don't. In fact, um, we're all
infinitely weighed down by the things we
don't know. Um, and Marxists have a
tendency to sort of see halftruuds. I
could talk about the neurology of that
because there is a neurological
scientific argument. Um, but
for I've read most of the Marxist
thinkers who did this, Yuri Besmanov,
uh, Solinski, uh, Graky, and none of
them see the world or society as a
living thing. So when you look at
Marxist economics, they're like, "This
is the pie. Uh, we can just divide up
the pie." What they don't see is that
this pie was in at least a fairly
significant portion brought to you by
the corporations and the rich people and
the kulocks that you want to kill. So if
you kill the revol if you kill off um
the most sort of economically productive
people, this isn't your pie. This is
your pie. And Marxists really have an
issue with that where um Yuri Beesmanov
and this just shows how deep and
insidious it was. The Soviets literally
had a a department built around this
where they had set procedures and
there's a certain degree of like um kind
of funny horror about it where you can
watch again you can read this stuff. You
can you can read what GSKI wrote for
free online uh rules for radicals you
get at the library if they still exist.
um or I mean Yuri Bessonov has videos on
YouTube you can watch and the Soviets
came to the conclusion if we kill the
religion we can kill the rest of the
culture. Um and they had like a I can go
through each step of the process but
they had a multi-step process on how to
kill a society. And they'll literally
say stuff like make sure neighbors don't
trust each other. Uh make sure parents
don't trust their children.
Put a bureaucrat into everything. And
then the end point they came to was that
the functioning of a healthy society was
dependent on religion. But the Soviet
Union itself was an atheist state. And
so Yori Bezmanov was studying India
because he was supposed to destroy
Indian society. And he thought, wait, I
actually like Hinduism. I'm going to
leave for America. And so it's it's a
very sort of when you see half of the
equation, it makes sense.
when you see half of the equation of
what destroying the society makes sense.
>> Um so
>> so the only way that I can make what
you're saying make sense is if they are
driven by envy and a desire for control.
>> That's true. Um the argument I'm making
is from Ian McGillchrist's the master
and his emissary which is a book on
neurobiology. And uh the thesis he has
is there's two halves of the brain uh
the left and the right. And the thing,
the parallel that I love so much from
the book or the example is the left
hemisphere can only draw half of an
image. If there's a human, it can only
draw half of it. And it can only see the
world through money and power and
measurable things. And the right
hemisphere can see the world through uh
context flowing over time, immeasurable
variables, all these different things.
And um modern ideologies really wire
people to the left hemisphere. Uh
Marxism is probably the most left
hemisphere worldview where from their
desire for just power and destruction.
Uh then it totally makes sense because
they're not thinking of all the stuff it
took to build that world. They just want
to take from it.
>> That honestly sounds like mental
illness. Are you saying that that is
mental illness? I mean, where's the line
between malice and and mental illness?
You can make that a t-shirt. Malice and
mental illness. Um, but uh well, I can
actually answer that. So, I'll be
interested to see if they still overlap
for you if they're separate. So, the
difference between uh malice and mental
illness for me is if you're mentally
ill, you are no longer mapped to what is
real. Whereas, you can have malice and
still be mapped to what is real. So,
Genghask Khan had malice, but he was
mapped to what is real. And so as much
as I would not have wanted to live uh
anywhere near Genghask Khan, uh he did
give us a silk road. He did unify
things. He was very shrewd at leading,
conquering, all of that. So he clearly
understood cause and effect quite
deeply. Uh but he had a lot of malice.
Uh then you take somebody who's mentally
ill and they may be legitimately
confused about how the world works. They
may hear voices. They may be unable to
process certain data points. And so to
your point, they literally can't see or
experience a fundamental piece of what's
actually happening and therefore are
always, even if they have good
intentions, they're always going to
misplay the world because they are
blinded to some of it or they hear
things that aren't there. Jordan
Peterson has this foursided sort of
matrix of you deal with a different
difficult situation. You can either fall
to hedonism, nihilism,
totalitarianism, or rise to heroism. And
the people closest to Marxists
in history are religious fanatics. Um,
you could make a pretty good argument
that Marxism is a descendant of sort of
like radical Christian sects in the
medieval or early modern or ancient
world where they like in Müster in
Germany, radical Protestants seized
control of a city, went crazy, started
practicing communism, forced sexual
communism. Uh, they had multiple leaders
who would murder each other claiming to
be prophets. Um, and so there is this
tradition here and the Marxists fit into
that and they're very deluded. Um, I
mean that's just kind of obvious if you
take off the ideological goggles. Um,
and modernity creates lots of mental
illnesses though. Um, I read this book
from World War the World War I era where
he was going through all of these
different things. It's interesting to
see an author even a century ago state
it because like when I was growing up,
lots of moms were scared to let their
kids play outside or they'd walk their
kids several blocks to school until the
end of high school. And that's not
something that we would process as
mental illness in our society. But you
look at that and you think you have an
anxiety issue.
>> Yeah, I was going to say I would. Uh but
>> you're reasonable. Most are.
>> Yeah. [laughter] as as a feral Gen Xer,
I guess we definitely see the world very
differently. Okay. Uh I want to keep
putting these pieces together. So, uh we
have the starting my goal is to
understand what's wrong with society
because I for one find it incredibly
meaningful in my life to try to help
people write the ship. Um so we've got
culture transmits these incredibly
useful ideas. culture has ceased to
transmit these incredibly useful ideas
partly because there is uh modernity is
is uh helping people form certain types
of mental illness. The one that you
focused on so far and I obviously first
called it the mental illness. Don't mean
to put words into your mouth, but uh
Marxism where what's happening is
they're only seeing half the picture
because they are so leftbrain dominant
using McGill's
uh breakdown of that. And so they are
obsessed with envy, power, money. And so
their worldview naturally springs
forward from that. They exacerbated the
death of culture itself by intentionally
and documenting it. Shockingly enough,
intentionally going in and um creating
an ideology that is confusing,
leveraged the rate of change happening
at the industrial revolution to take
advantage of the fact that people would
be more or less distracted and having a
hard time categorizing things as a way
to slip that in. And so now you
accelerate the death of these
traditional things that were being
passed on that were in some ways um
holding society together by transmitting
these ideas. Now, this is now me totally
leaping forward with the prediction that
your statements have made so far would
be that now given the rapid state of
change due to um technology and
especially AI, we're going to go through
another revolution of sorts, third
industrial revolution, fourth
industrial, whatever you're going to
clock it as, but um AI is going to usher
in a rate of change that's absolutely
unparalleled. and already seeing people
like Mam Donni rise up um and see how
much energy is going over to that uh
that seems to fit in with what you're
predicting especially given that you
said economics is the most foundational.
You did a very good job articulating the
chain of logic there. Um,
besides that, to speak to your point, I
agree with that. I had a a failed
prediction that America that we'd have a
thousand politically motivated deaths uh
by last April. Uh, that turned out to be
incorrect. But uh, in the grand scheme
of things, I still think we're going to
have a revolution or a civil war. I just
don't think uh there's any sort of
causality here. Uh besides that, um and
>> you don't think there's any causality
between what we've been talking about in
the Civil War?
>> No, I I I said that incorrectly. What I
meant to say is this is where we are.
There's no trajectory where we don't
have one,
>> right?
>> Where this chain of causality doesn't
continue. Um and that's deeply
concerning, but uh I don't want to lie
to you. Um
it's interesting as well to see um
to see it just manifest on both the
right and the left uh and to see it also
around the entire world where uh I think
our our foreign news is really bad now.
I don't think Americans know what go on
in the rest of the world. But if you
look at Germany or France or Britain or
South Africa or Brazil or South Korea or
China or Malaysia, I have hobbies where
I like watch documentaries from
different countries or look at travel
guides different countries. In all the
issues we have in America are occurring
in all of those countries. It's really
remarkable to see how unstable so many
global governments are.
>> Do you see connective tissue? Of course,
it's um I mean I we spoke about this
last time on the podcast. Uh there's
various historic cycles that predict
that the world goes through these sort
of cyclical patterns um where the mid7th
century nearly every country on earth
was having a civil war and an external
war often with plague thrown in. Same
thing as the mid4th century. So these
things happen or like the the Roman the
Roman Empire fell at the same the Roman
Empire's crisis of the 3rd century
occurred at the same time as the fall of
the Han dynasty. So these global trends
are sort of synced up. Um and I I
predicted that it would be a global
crisis a few years ago because these
trends are
it's I mean it's the same causal
variables in each region of the world.
>> Okay. So, I'll give you the breakdown
that I think is happening right now.
I'll tell you why I think that it's
connected to the other places. Let me
know if you see something I don't. To
me, this is this is purely about the
economy. And whenever a currency is
debased, whether the Roman daenarius and
you're just chipping away at the silver
or whether the US dollar and you're
money printing at infant item, uh what
you end up doing is the average person
cannot save. And I think it's an immoral
decision that people make because the
people that are doing it know the
average person doesn't understand
investing. They don't understand how to
escape this. And uh it puts them into a
mechanistic situation where they will
get poorer over time. And so anytime
that you put people in a position where
they cannot save their way to success,
they cannot pass their wealth on to
their children, you break a unspoken uh
promise that hey work hard, uh be
disciplined, res don't eat the
marshmallow now, put it off till
tomorrow. All the things that basically
religions have been telling us forever.
This is how you win in this survival
crafting game that we call life. And
it's like once you uh mess with the
underlying economics and you can no
longer go uh mine the ore, find the
gold, whatever, and build your stable
society, pass things on and feel like
you have been justly rewarded for your
efforts, you stop putting forward
effort. And once you stop putting
forward effort, then things begin to
break back down. And so if you have,
like we do right now, where people are
like, "Oh, Tom, what are you talking
about? It's no big deal that we're money
printing. All the countries are money
printing." Yes, [ __ ] And that's
why we have problems in all the
countries because you are breaking the
physics of the way that this game works.
And the second you break the physics,
like people are not being honest about
the fact that we have algorithms that
run in our brain and they are
evolutionarily placed and when you build
the game, you have to build the game
around the algorithms that are going to
run in the human mind. And so we get
into these delusional periods largely on
the back of success. And I would be very
interested to see if most of these
repeating cycles happen just on the back
of big debt. And big debt is the answer
to, hey, things are going great, print a
little bit more money. And then you just
get caught in this needing to print to
keep it going. All of your economy
becomes a Ponzi scheme. And then finally
it hits a tipping point. It breaks. And
to your point, line go up turns into
line go down. And that's why you're
going to see this stuff happening in a
whole bunch of places all at the same
time. Because if you are in a globally
connected world in the way that we are
now, in the way that we were in the
moments that you're talking about, once
that debt gets out of control, like it's
going to spread like wildfire. Hang
tight because if you run a business,
this could be the most important 60
seconds of your week. Here is [music]
the reality. By the time you hear about
a supply chain issue, a tariff change,
or a cash flow crunch, it's already cost
you. Revenue's gone, time's wasted,
[music] and momentum is shattered. You
cannot afford to run your company in the
dark. That's why over 41,000
businesses trust Netswuite by Oracle,
the AI powered business management suite
built to give you real time visibility
across [music] everything that matters.
Accounting, inventory, HR, financials,
all in one platform.
>> [music]
>> One dashboard, one truth. Netswuite does
not just help you track problems.
[music] It helps you see them coming.
With AIdriven forecasting, automation,
and global visibility, you get the power
to pivot fast. Right now, get your free
business guide, demystifying AI, at
netswuite.com/
theory. The guide is free. Just go to
netswuite.com/theory.
[music] And now back to the show. or or
the best history of economics books I've
ever read is The Great Wave by David
Hackett Fischer. Uh you should read it.
It's like a 100 pages. Um and it goes
through correlating the history of
inflation over western history with the
history of uh political
crisis. Um it's really good and uh it
says exactly what you say where over
these rhythmic uh polit periods of
political crises in western and the
churchin data says global history
inflation's correlated with political
disturbances and you don't see
this kind of inflation not have
political issues.
We talked about last time uh French
Revolution
uh 30 years war, black death. Um I would
connect uh the cultural issue with mouse
utopia. I think uh the political and uh
revolutionary whatever crisis is of
economic origin. I think mouse utopia is
of cultural origin.
>> Okay. So, uh, Mouse Utopia speedrun for
people that don't know it, uh, if you
create a situation where the mice have
everything they need, plenty of space,
plenty of food, uh, they end up
imploding. Uh, they end up stopping
having children, they end up killing
each other, it's wild. Uh, do you like
if you had to shorthand that, would it
be something like this? When there is no
adversity that you have to face, you
turn inward. when you turn inward and
become self-obsessed,
uh that you're no longer thinking about
the group, what's good for the group,
you're no longer disciplining yourself,
you're no longer um like reigning in our
worst impulses.
>> Yeah. Uh what you said earlier is true
that a lot of these previous cycles
because empires come and go, uh there
have been lots of times the world has
ended over history. It's just the world
was the world they knew. Um and that's a
lot of cases you can either be hurt by
wealth or you can be hurt by poverty. Uh
crises of wealth or I mean the ones we
spoke of before where because inflation
is an overabundance of wealth where it
stops having value. Crisis of poverty
are situations like in Africa in the
19th century where you have mass famine
and migration or um the huns the
barbarians coming out of the grasslands
because they need to to conquer
outwards. As I like to say, you're going
to die anyway. So, it's better to die
rich than poor where you're going to
have problems no matter what you do, but
it's better to have more interesting
problems. Um and uh that that's that's
kind of what's happening here. And um
>> things have been too good for too long.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh yes, I very much agree with
that. Uh my whole thing is I think some
people need to be chased by a lion. And
by that I mean really we all need to be
chased by a lion. There needs to be some
adversity. Adversity is the thing that's
going to keep us um disciplined. It's
going to keep us focused. It's going to
keep us cooperating. all the things that
as a species we were meant to do. Okay.
So, help me understand how this ties
specifically to the left. You did a
video called WTF is going on with the
left. Um,
what is happening? What what do you see
there? Why was that worth a video and
why is it one of your highest performing
videos? It's one of the highest
performing videos because it's politics
content and politics content is always
the one that does best because and I get
it like um it's perfectly reasonable to
care more about the things that affect
your daily life than
>> What's interesting though, I didn't take
that video to be overtly political. It
certainly is talking about a political
class, but you weren't talking about
policy or anything like that. You were
talking about a mindset. It felt more
culturally
to me. Um, did that one feel overtly
political to you?
>> The reason I say political is that um
with um when I make these videos with um
like uh you met Merrick and my editor
and whatever um I subdivide the videos
by subtopic. So I'll have the political
subtopic, I'll have the anthropology
subtopic, I'll have the history one. So
I jump between them. So in my internal
mental I put all modern things in the
political category. [snorts]
So, I put um everything like um Incel
Revolution or uh that video or will
America have a civil war in the
political box. So, that's why I say it.
You could move the categories around and
I wouldn't care much. Um but the thing
with the left is
um they're in a weird place. One of the
things people don't notice is that the
different subcoalitions of the left are
fraying. Where, for example, the Tik Tok
viewers don't trust the NBC CNN viewers
where there's been a generational rift
on the left where um the Zoomer left
really does not like the Boomer left
because they see the Boomer left as the
capitalist oppressors. So they've
stopped listening to um their pay
masters at DNC and then uh instead they
follow accounts on Tik Tok and Instagram
that have no factual basis. So they are
the people who are turning up the
throttle for violence and it seems
nearly every day at least in my feed
leftists are calling for violence in one
form or another. Um, and I think the the
NBC CNN left um don't really know what
to do with with this because on top of
it, they've built out their ideology and
coalition in a certain way that they
can't back down. They uh fired all the
reasonable people like a decade ago. If
you've made it this far into the left,
you cannot be reasonable. They've
removed any way they change their
ideology,
but the American people have sort of
seen through it enough and they've lost
all of their flexibility. Look at the
presidential candidates. I don't think
anyone who the left is pushing as
leadership either for that or for a
variety of things, they they're so
lacking because the left has pushed this
culture of inauthenticity for so long.
That's their core issue.
So if their core issue is pushing an
agenda of inauthenticity,
um would becoming authentic solve the
problem like this feels I don't know how
to make that
>> I as I said that I thought I should take
that back. They have lots of core
issues. I can't I shouldn't say um I
shouldn't say that they have one. They
have several that are eating them alive.
Um, but
>> I mean, doesn't this really go back to
if you were right in the beginning that
this is a Marxist thing? That was the
first thing you went to when I asked my
first question. And then I said, "Okay,
this all makes sense if and only if that
group is driven by um envy and a desire
for control." And you added uh power and
money to the equation. It's like, okay,
yes, that that all makes sense to me.
Um, when I look at the far left, and
there are plenty of people that I
wouldn't put into this box that would
selfidentify as left, but when I look at
the far left, uh, they don't make sense
to me until I clock envy. Once I clock
envy and control, like, oh, they just
want to be in control and they want to
be in control in a in a like spiteful
way of I want to tear this down. I want
to stop people. They don't have a clear
vision of what they want to build. It's
a like anti-ag against movement instead
of a for or a building. Um, if you were
saying that was a problem, I'd be like,
"Ah, yes, that maps what I see in the
world." Does that seem accurate or is
that a misread from where you're at?
>> So, the reason I said inauthenticity is
I was thinking, what's the core issue
with the left changing strategy? And the
issue is they live in such an artificial
world. They can't relate to other
Americans or know what they did wrong.
They've made
>> and they're in an artificial world
because they're telling each other a
story about what's happening that isn't
accurate
>> because their way of life is in direct
opposition to what humans would normally
do. Where if you're in an environment
where men have certain biological urges,
women have other certain biological
urges. If you're in a society which
doesn't let you think about them, you're
going to constantly be feeling a sort of
internal jostling between your social uh
performance or your internal self. Or in
the left, they have enormous amounts of
aggression and hatred, but they say that
hatred is the worst possible trait. So
on top of that, they've cut out any sort
of new ideas or even aesthetics. There's
no good new left-wing art because
they've sort of cut themselves off from
everything that's not ideology. So,
at this point, they're just so deep into
the cult and the cult has so much
programming
that they can't program themselves out
of the cult. That
>> out of curiosity, so I like this idea of
biological urges. I think that one of
the things as somebody who came to
politics very very late, I felt like um
I was the kid saying the emperor had no
clothes. Uh seeing people say that men
and women are the same. I was like you
guys haven't been married. Like there's
no way you've been married and think men
and women are the same. Uh so on this I
take a very nonchalant approach of um
that like if you're building a worldview
in a way that's detached from things
that are self-evident, you've got a
problem. So uh are the urges that you're
referring to largely sexual in nature?
Are they about aggression? like what are
the what would be the clear distinctions
that a sane grounded person would make
that the left is failing at?
>> In the premodern world you had a concept
called natural law and America was built
off the concept of natural law where it
was sort of lost between the American
and the French Revolution. The idea
behind natural law and it it stems back
originally to the Greeks but it was
codified in Christianity is the
structure of society and the legal code
should be a representation of real the
real world. And so when they were doing
various things um like setting up the
American Constitution, they were saying
we're going to build this system working
with human nature. And their idea was
we're going to work with God's reality
because if you lie against it, you're
going to get punished. And so when they
set up this the checks and balances,
um their idea was that humans are
naturally greedy and selfish. So let's
make a system where if humans are greedy
and selfish, it works for
the society in general. And that's same
with capitalism, with science. You're
working with an accurate understanding
of human nature. Um and the reason that
um
basically every every other society
besides us had had sexual norms
is because of natural law. But it's not
just that. That would be a
simplification where social class is to
agree natural law. Same thing as a legal
structure. Same thing as how a society
wages war.
Augustine had the principle of just war
which was um there are certain
conditions under which war is okay and
others where it isn't because they had a
sense that there's human nature and it's
best to work inside the the sort of like
the range of human nature because you'll
actually get the result. And so, um,
what the left does is they just shot
natural law and then laughed at its
corpse where they just have no concept
that there is human nature to work with
where um,
>> do they really believe that or is that
one of the [ __ ] ones that they throw
in to confuse people?
>> So, I think they actually believe it
because
they would make so many better decisions
if they did believe it. So, I'm reading
um a really brilliant book now called
Modern Times by Paul Johnson, and it's a
history of the 20th Century um and it's
talking about the Soviet Union where
they kept on making all of these
staggeringly terrible decisions. And
partly Stalin was literally a criminal
before he got power. So, he is sort of
that backdrop. Uh but at the same time
Stalin shot all of his officers right
before the war with or 80% of his
officer corps before the war with Hitler
because the Soviets thought hierarchy
doesn't matter. You can replace the
officers with sort of like um privates.
But in reality
the most important variable for a
successful military is a strong officer
core. And so he shot all the people with
experience and they didn't think about
how are we going to pass on the human
knowledge between these two
>> and he shot them because he thought they
weren't loyal.
>> Yes. Because Stalin um went through
phases of paranoia where he just killed
people. He killed off like a dozen
different groups in Russia and he each
time he thought they were going to be
his rivals. But in the process he killed
Russian society because he killed off
everyone who could have been productive
or helped Russia where they they went
through a they killed off the rich first
then they killed off the kulocks or the
independent farmers. And keep in mind
this is just a generation after the end
of surfom. So all of these people were
new money. They would have like a few
more cows or a tiled roof. Stalin killed
all of them.
>> It's one of the most horrifying stories
in all of history.
>> Yeah. Um because you're you're just
imagining like I'm from um rural
Pennsylvania. It's like imagine going
into a town and just killing off all of
the most respected members of that town
and most of the time the other people in
the town don't dislike them. Um and
you're just destroying the society. And
it speaks to your mental illness point
that if you were in the Middle Ages and
you had an understanding of human nature
and you wanted to wield power that
brutally, you'd be like Mchavelli where
Mchavelli has this highly structured and
logical sense of when he's going to be
brutal. And Stalin is just like kill
them all and that betrays they actually
believe it. or same thing as importing
immigrants. You if you know enough
anthropology and even left-wing
anthropologists agree with that.
>> Hold on. Let's go back to that because
that's a really interesting point and
I'm it's hitting me weird. Okay. So,
what I just heard you say was, "Hey,
Tom, as proof that these guys really do
believe that it's all blank slates,
generals, the same as a private, doesn't
matter. Kill them. If they're not going
to be loyal, just promote the next guy."
Do you think that the first order of
what drove him to do that is paranoia or
a belief that everybody's the same?
>> What anthropology has found is that
culture
varies a lot and it's very deep. Um, and
you it's sort of lots of implicit stuff
where there's still a significant amount
of cultural differences between
different sort of ethnic different
subreions of British Americans from
hundreds of years ago as well as
different groups of white American. So
generations later, there's still you can
still see if someone's culturally
Italian or Irishamean from a variety of
things. And so culture is very deep in
the vast majority of its unconscious.
And so when the left does a lot of
things, they're acting out sort of very
complex subconscious beliefs which have
sort of been uh transmitted to people
unconsciously. where children pick up
all the elements of their society's
worldview without being taught it sort
of directly where a child will know for
example that their society values
equality a lot because people in that
society just won't brag or uh they'll be
uncomfortable with stating one group uh
is more successful than another group.
So people act out very complex
psychological principles that they don't
understand the full implications of. And
so Stalin's first motive was paranoia,
but then inside his sort of deck of
logic was everyone's interchangeable.
[snorts]
Okay. Uh yeah, it feels like mental
illness is a key ingredient, but that is
very fascinating. I never saw Stalin
through that lens. Uh Stalin being one
of the most terrifying figures of the
20th century. Um, okay. So, we've got
the left. They believe that everybody is
an interchangeable cog. This is one of
the things that they actually believe.
Uh, and that is certainly creating the
problems. Why do you think that this is
gaining so much steam right now?
>> Uh, it's gaining steam for the economic
issues you describe. Um, but why does
that push people to the left?
>> So, bad times bring radicalization.
That's just a consistent principle. And
that could be religious fundamentalism.
It could be radical nationalism,
leftism. Um, I read this really
fascinating book called The Psychology
of Socialism by Gustav Leon. And it was
written in the 1880s. And uh, it's
absolutely insane. He totally nailed the
left psychology back in the 19th
century. And it's one of the most
prophetic books I've read in my life
where I wrote all of the predictions he
got right and it filled two pages. M um
and he said that the core demographic of
the left is sort of maleducated people
where our education system overproduces
midwits where we teach people non-useful
skills and then the economy doesn't have
jobs to pick up for that. So there's
this huge lag in sort of overeducated
people who are taught to believe they're
more important in the world than their
services are and they are the people who
drive the left. What happened in the
last 40 years and Turin talks very
cogently about this is we had a huge
cadre of both over and undereducated
people and be due to the economic issues
they could not um sort of integrate into
society. So they became radicalized and
they used the radical left virtue
signaling game as a way to short circuit
not having to deal with merit because
they resent merit. So they use
ideological purity spirals for status
selecting. Um and so among young people
there's lots of sort of dissatisfied
elite aspirants and the college educated
ones tend to go left and like I spent a
semester in college. Uh the non-oled
educated ones tend to go right.
Okay. So, we've got this spiraling up of
>> [snorts]
>> uh what's happening on the left,
overvaluing what they've uh achieved and
what they're going to offer to society
at a time where we're having uh economic
woes. How is that manifesting
politically? Like when I look at the
left, what I see are people that are
using I'll say um is empathy the right
word? Compassion maybe closer. That's
not what they would call it. So they I
don't think maybe you see something I
don't, but I see them as fighting for
the oppressed all the time. Like these
people are legitimately having a bad
time. Somebody's got to stand up for
them. We've got so much, you know, to
whom so much has been given, so much is
expected, and they're going in there
trying to help people. Um,
but it does not appear to be birthing a
better world. that seems to be creating
this uh what Gadsad calls suicidal
empathy. Uh and for me, zooming in on
the things that worry me about the left
or authoritarianism and unchecked
immigration. Um
what what do you see manifesting in your
understanding of the left and all of
these predictions about the left? Um
what does it have to say about those two
things specifically? So um the west was
built off Christianity and the core sort
of emotion of Christianity is love. Um
envy is the shadow of love. So they
think they're doing Christian love but
they're actually doing its opposite
because when you love someone you accept
their issues for what they are as a
person. And when you envy someone you
look for issues tear them down. So
they've created a mask of Christian love
to show its opposite. Um, and the thing
we're seeing is just
so you watch the woke commercials like
the the Jaguar one or whatever ones
they're doing now. Um, and you think a
group of people green lit this. You
could put 10 people in a single room who
did not think there was a problem here.
And that speaks to a real disconnect
[laughter] between them and the rest of
the world that they have these highly
enclosed places where they constantly
ratchet up ideological extremism and
they don't the one of the core issues
the left has is they don't have
self-regulation mechanisms. Christianity
as an example has a series of rules and
if you break the rules you'll get kicked
out. That's even um even like fascism
has a better rule structure than the
lefts does. If you follow the rules,
you're fine if you don't. The left hates
rules. So they just have vague vibes,
but then they have no mechanism to turn
off the blood lust. So that's what
happened in the French Revolution, which
was 5 years of just mobs in France
eating each other, and it was the snake
eating its own tail. So the left is
stuck in these where if you don't show
your purity, you're kicked out. And
>> but purity to vague rules cuz you're
saying they don't have like the specific
>> it is purity to vague rules. Like none
of it makes sense. It's all
contradictory and they're using the
contradictory to prove their loyalty. Um
where every single thing the left says
they also believe the opposite. Um, and
that it's it's George Orwell articulates
it very well. Um, and
so they don't really have rules and
their standards get more and more
extreme, but in the process they purge
anyone who had realigned them. So
they're just getting crazier and
crazier. And anyone who would have told
them no was kicked out 5 to 10 years
ago.
>> Okay. One thing I've heard you talk
about with the left and my earliest like
step into what's going on politically,
what's going on culture war, uh was I
was interviewing Heather Hying. This was
like 5 years ago and I said, "This
sounds like um
basically a female mode of living
pathizing."
>> Yeah.
>> And I've heard you say similar things
about there's a feminization of culture.
um is that being driven by the left and
if so what's the mechanism?
>> One of the things I like to do to figure
out how the world works is I look at
what predictions of the future work
because you can see what's retroactively
making a predictive model is important
because it means you're understanding
the world's accurate that's what the
scientific method is. So I when I look
at old predictions and they did
something right, I try to figure out
what they did right and there was this
>> what was the core logic? What cause and
effect were they
>> um there was an ancient Greek play I
believe written in the 4th century BC by
Aristophanes and it's a society where
only women could vote and it's a society
where they get rid of capitalism and
institute communism. They destroy the
family. Senators sit in the central um
sort of Senate and then they complain
about how the room's too cold. Um and
they use sex to control the men. Um they
constantly they can't form a coherent
plan of argument and they just stay
stuck arguing over the details. Um, and
so you have this author in the ancient
world who said that feminization of
society will produce communism in the
breakdown of the family and culture
because there's an innate biological
self-interest. Um,
>> say more because I think a lot of people
would look at women and say that's who
wants to have children.
>> Life's complicated, man. So um women
want to have children under certain
contexts and they don't under other
contexts and there are different
biological switches for both that
societies can press. This is really a
sign of archetypes being real because
the easiest way to explain this is the
yian division between mother earth and
the devouring feminine where um women
tend to not like social barriers uh
clear principles or rules. Um, and you
can either say that's out of some like
evolutionary self-interest or you could
say it's just sort of there's the whole
argument of like the ying and the yang
and like each sex has their own sort of
innate character that propels them. Um,
but the core logic is that because women
are so biologically secure, they don't
get any benefit from taking risks. So,
it's all risk mitigation. And so when
you're removing all of these social
structures, you're removing potential
sources of risk. And you try to make a
society
where to differentiate yourself is a
risk where everything is as sort of
undifferiated as possible. [snorts] So
that's how you end up with um with
communism from it. Did I explain that?
Well,
>> you've got the first brick laid down,
but I think there's more bricks to lay.
So, uh, things that I've heard you talk
about which are very much along these
lines are, uh, when women say all women
are a 10, that there's a thing that they
are actively trying to pull off. Uh,
that female hairdressers will cut the
hair of women that they believe are more
attractive than them by a couple inches
more than you would to maximize their
attractiveness. So, they're actively
trying to um hurt their chances on the
sexual market. Uh, so it gets to this
idea that women are playing a very
different game from a masculine
perspective. I recognize it. I see what
you're talking about. I see that in
women. Uh, but I don't even now talking
with you. I don't know that I fully
understand the endgame that they're
playing for.
>> There's a great book on the topic called
Warriors and Warriors by Joyce Bennison.
>> Warriors and Warriors.
>> Yes. It's on Audible. It's very good.
Um, and it talks about the negatives of
female psychology. And it's funny seeing
this middle-aged, I would guess, leftist
woman write such like a cutting and good
critique of toxic femininity. And it
goes through a lot of evolutionary
psychology where, as an example, unhappy
women
attack their family the most and then
are polite to the outside society. Look
at the modern west. Attacking our
family, polite to the outside society.
um or there's in female friend groups,
and this is all backed by statistical
evidence. You can look it up. Most women
are scared to um
are scared to succeed less their friends
like them less. where that's a very
toxic dynamic. Or intertexual
competition, which we spoke about, of
hairdressers will cut the hair of women
that are more attractive than them a few
inches shorter than women who are are
beneath them in attractiveness. Or um it
it's the there's an in female social
settings,
the not having the implication of
equality is considered socially very
dangerous. Um, and you look at modern
society, what's happening is that the
bureaucratic machine of industrial
civilization likes this feminine
equality mechanism because it stops
anyone from rising up and challenging
it. It's a highly useful mechanism to
keep the public in conformity. So,
that's why they're pushing men bad
because only men could rise out of this.
Um, and there's toxic femininity and
there's positive femininity. And I want
to state that um because
for every like if for example if if we
said like you look at the murders of
various dictators and genocides you say
that's men that's true but it's also a
specific subtype of men who are doing a
specifically male pathology and it's
comparable with with pathological
femininity. Um and the core issue of
that is the abdication of responsibility
where because the cost of child rearing
is so hard um
that you have an incentive to abdicate
responsibility to let go of costs
um associated with wi-i with with
basically having this little person
attached to you for 20 years where
you're physically incapacitated for
months. And so if you look at the left,
it's all the abdication of
responsibility. If you want a single
place where the left um
single place where the left um does
something that doesn't make sense, it's
because of the abdication of
responsibility.
>> And you're saying, just to make sure I
understood that, that because women have
so much responsibility with child
rearing, they need to get it off of them
in other ways.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh, I've also heard you say that,
um, you know, women just need to be
honest. They're not going to be
attracted to a man that can't dominate
them.
>> Yeah.
>> So, how do I reconcile that women both
want to be dominated by a man in
controlled circumstances, all of that?
It's got to be somebody that they want,
blah, blah, blah. But that with and I
want no rules.
Man, I I know the answer to that, but
this has been such a complex journey of
learning all these things. as I stare at
it in retrospect and like man that's
complicated. So, um it's it's two
different biological switches based off
context where
are there rules being enforced on me or
are there not being rules enforced on
me? And until there are rules enforced
on me, I can I'll sort of do um I'll
sort of I I'll push these low trust
strategies until there is a social
structure because men have always been
the people that have built social
structures. That's true for um
that's true for uh governments,
religious institutions, corporations,
militaries. And so women have been
dependent on the patriarchy or the
structures men build. So in the absence
of a patriarchy, you'll do these low
trust strategies until the context
switches and then you switch behaviors
where it's one of those things where
it's it's it's Schroinger's feminist. Uh
a feminist is either empowered or she's
uh a victim. And it's depends on
context. Whichever one you choose,
>> whichever one they choose for
themselves.
>> Yes. by context
>> and would that context be whatever when
whichever one of these gets me more
gives me more control gets me more
>> whichever one I can avoid conflict with
where
>> if there's a conflict because the
incentive structure is that women cannot
win fights against men so a lot of
female behavior is offsetting their
physical weakness against men because if
you're not going to win go with the flow
So
if I'm in a context where I can get away
with, I'm going to get away with it. If
I can't get away with it, I won't get
away with it.
>> Okay.
>> It doesn't make sense to
it doesn't make sense to people like us
where I you and I are both very sort of
entrepreneurial and we want to enter in
a situation and figure it out. It makes
significantly more sense if you're like
a Russian peasant or a Chinese peasant
where you have these huge governments
that are utterly exploitive. And so when
you can hide a little bit of grain from
the tax collector, you do so.
>> Okay. So you're saying that is one of
the strategies that women employ.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So as we feminize the societal
structures that have traditionally been
created by men and at least in this
moment are being co-opted by women. What
are the consequences for men?
>> A lot. Um I mean there's no birth rate.
That's a pretty big consequence where
>> what's the actual mechanism that's
driving that down?
>> Yes. [laughter]
Um so uh it's it's a holistic system. So
one of the core issues with modernity in
the left hemisphere is you can't see the
entire equation which all fits together.
So if you have a sexual breakdown that's
going to have consequences on your
society's political structure on its
religious structure. If the birth rate
decreases that's going to affect your
society's economy. Everything's
connected. Um, and so
as an example, the industrial revolution
was a huge causal variable here because
you removed women's reliance on men's
physical labor and you also remove the
threat of starvation. But um, so the
consequences for men are most men get
hypergami out of the pool and hypergamy
is the principle that women will
naturally be attracted to the most
powerful man. And
again, that makes sense if you use the
analogy of if I am a peasant in a war
zone, I will pick the most powerful
warlord to protect me because he is the
one who is most likely to stop wandering
vagrants, wandering mercenary bands from
stealing my grain. Keep in mind, this is
operating out of an idea of fundamental
weakness in a very brutal Darwinistic
evolutionary world. Um, so it makes
total sense from the sort of logic
they're coming from. Um, and
when you hypergamy most men out of the
pool, you end up with these sort of a
huge amount of dissatisfied men and then
no one has children because there's of
course the mismatch between um a few men
who get a lot of a lot of uh sort of
selection and then most men who don't.
And then these men don't have an
incentive to get married and have kids
because their life is pretty it's fairly
satisfying. Um and
so you don't start families in this. And
it also breeds mass social distrust. And
for every loss in sort of like
if you raise taxes you'll have
exponential economic decreases. Same
thing as social life. If you make social
interactions 20% more difficult. you're
going to see an exponential decrease in
social interactions and that's why I
think politeness is important to
societies
>> because you're trying to alleviate some
of that friction.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So that feels like an example of
wealth inequality. Wealth in this
example being not the hypergamy becomes
possible because of literal wealth
inequality. But then in terms of sexual
mate selection opportunities, there's
also a sort of wealth inequality of that
as well. Okay. So, uh, that came from
I'm trying to figure out what happens
when you feminize a culture. How what's
the pathology that we're going to start
to see in men? If I just started
rattling off things that I can already
see right now, uh, obviously making men
uh, and their natural proclivities
problematic. So telling men not to be
aggressive, telling men not to be
dominant, telling men that they need to
step back and let others speak,
specifically women, um telling men that
their ambition is in and of itself uh
problematic. And one stat that I've come
across recently is since I think the mid
90s, the number of patents that China
has filed compared to America. China
went from like less than 1% globally now
to like 43% globally. I mean, it's
insane. Uh, and America has gone from
like 18% to 16% or 25 to 20 whatever it
was a drop. And uh, that's where I'm
like, these things matter. China
believes in itself. China is encouraging
its people to be aggressive, to be
dominant, to be as ambitious as humanly
possible, to grind, to train, and it
really manifests. It manifests in GDP,
it manifests in innovation, it manifests
in progress. Uh, and so when I start
looking at if the problems in the US,
like just looking at US versus China,
uh, when I look at that and I say, whoa,
some percentage of this is due to the
feminization of society. Uh that's where
I've started beating the drum recently
where I'm like, "No, I men should not
make space for anybody. Men should
compete as hard as they can. Uh you
should always want an equal playing
field. You should never sabotage
somebody or try to hold them back. But
if somebody can't out compete you, tough
shit." So it's like you should be going
allin.
>> I agree. I very much agree. Um yeah,
it's funny you talk about China because
uh first of all, you're assuming they're
telling the truth and they normally lie
about 20% statistically. They amassed
the Communist Party lying by each
province when it's about 20% of stats or
it's about 20% of G total GDP. Um the um
I I think China in some ways is a more
feminized society than America because
they've just totally let themselves get
walked over by the government in the
school system and like the factory
system where I I follow a lot of Chinese
news and it's crazy. They have like 50%
youth unemployment now.
>> Whoa.
>> Yeah. They have a litany of issues.
They've had lots of uh failures of major
corporations. There have been protests
across the country. Xihinping has said a
lot of just like you should literally
prepare for war. And they like having
really sort of like exploitive
well explosive explosive rhetoric. And
people like to say that but at the same
time the book I'm reading about the 20th
century people said that about Hitler
and Stalin. And it's totally insane to
speak back to your earlier point that
people tried to appease Hitler. The
British gave back a quarter of their
fleet to Hitler to appease him and you
don't get Hitler to compromise by giving
him stuff. These people have no
comprehension of how predatory actors
operate. Or the Western media was just
writing glowing reviews of Stalin and
Mao who are the even worse than Hitler.
or they killed like twice as many people
at least. Um, and so we just are so
naive and the only way to fight players
like that is to sort of bring out our
own masculinity because appeasing
monsters is not going to work. Um, and
that's just it's just a dangerous
worldview. And I think it's there's an
element of just um there's just there's
lots of very insidious dark I think
instincts in there. Um
and
yeah, I think it's it's more dangerous
than people think.
>> It's more dangerous from a thusidity's
trap perspective. It's more dangerous
from a look at even China can collapse
if you allow that kind of thing. What do
you mean by that?
>> Uh it's dangerous in a lot of levels. I
think because we're developing a lot of
godlike technology now between AI,
genetic engineering,
um
the space technology, um
new forms of weaponry, sort of like
predator drones. I'm probably forgetting
a bunch. Um and this technology would
require a lot of masculinity to master
because we've let the genie out of the
bottle. We can't go back. And so we have
to sort of grab uh we have to sort of
grab Yorman Gander by its tongue. Um but
uh we don't have the the will or the
energy for it because we've destroyed
the same masculine impulses that would
allow that to happen where there's all
of these external threats. So when you
destroy masculinity, you're destroying
the very thing that would allow your
society to reset. I I just also think
China is very dangerous because I think
they are significantly worse than we
believe. I think we're going to look
back on the things going on in China now
and realize that it was like it was like
the other totalitarian regimes we slept
on. I think they're probably doing very
dark things that we don't know about.
>> That would not surprise me at all. I
think the big thing that's going to come
out about China is that we don't
understand there's a very big difference
between Deng Xiaoing and Xihinping. And
when Mao finally died, and I don't think
people realize, you know, you've talked
a lot about only having lived in the
21st century. Uh I was alive when Mao
was alive. So I'm like, yo, this was
recent. And he was killing people by the
tens of millions. And when he died,
finally the CCP woke up and was like,
okay, hold on. this is horrific. We
don't want to keep going through this.
And so Deng Xiaoing makes his famous
quote, uh, it doesn't matter if the
cat's black or white as long as it
catches mice. And being rich is glorious
or wonderful, whatever he said. And so,
uh, the thing I try to always remind
people is, hey, capitalism is so dope
that the when the communists decided
that they wanted to lift, you know,
hundreds of millions of people out of
poverty, they turned to capitalism.
Literally brought over Americans to
teach them how to capital. And that was
what brought them out. But then when
Xihinping came into power, they didn't
realize he ended their they had term
limits like cuz they didn't want to have
happen what happened with Mao to happen
again. And yet Xiinping was able to
reclaim the Communist Party, make
himself supreme leader. But I am hearing
and I can't validate this yet, but I am
hearing rumblings coming out of China
that Xiinping may be losing his grip on
power. uh that he may not be meeting
with Trump partly because he's afraid he
can't leave China because that they
wouldn't let him back in. Now that is
wild. Now you normally hear stuff like
that and ends up being whatever. People
said all kinds of crazy [ __ ] about Putin
5 years ago and none of it has come to
pass. So uh take it with a huge grain of
salt. But um the part that I do think
we're missing is so many of us are
clocking what was going on in China in
the early the late '9s and early 2000s
as what's happening now. And it's been a
very different picture since Xiinping
took over. I've gone through sort of
multiple phases of uh obsessive study on
China. I've done it several times or for
a few months. I'll like just look at
everything coming out of China. Um, and
it's weird to look at the trajectory
they've been on where uh back in again
in the 70s they were hardcore Mauist.
Uh, like it was like the Taliban today.
We would perceive them the way that we
perceive the Taliban now. Then they went
through this liberal phase where they're
like, "We're going to bring in Western
companies. Our major cities can be
places that Western expats can
comfortably live in. We'll like pretend
to care about stuff like the UN or free
rights." Uh then they went through this
phase in the 2010s um where like I
remember Fared Zakaria made this um he
made this whole thing like the rise of
the w the rest and he was championing
the decline of America against the rest
of the world and there was this whole
cultural moment of China's going to
surpass the west and China is doing this
empire building with the belt and road
initiative and I was kind of horrified
at how complacent the American elite
were that so many of the American elite
were totally happy with letting a
Marxist state that hates us sort of rise
to global predominance. Then after 2020,
we saw a totally different phase of
China. And I believe Peter Zahhan is
fundamentally correct, although it's
going to take longer where um they have
really high youth unemployment. they
they're cut they're uh the cities are
getting empty at least from the several
different sources I'm looking at because
they have such high unemployment people
are moving back to their hometowns
because in China there was this huge
migration from the countryside to the
cities um and the communist party is
killing a lot of people there were 2
million unaccounted for deaths for co
>> where there were 2 million deaths for
like unstated reasons with coffins
Um, and that's a lot.
>> They're teaching children how to do
military military sort of uh training.
Uh, they openly say that America's the
enemy in their propaganda. They've
closed their borders for years. So,
China is in a very totalitarian place
and they're cracking down on their own
population. And it's just it's scary
because I see the potential in China for
what America could be. And um
>> if we keep going in a totalitarian
direction.
>> Yeah. Because keep in mind, we didn't
know at the Holocaust at the time. We
didn't know at Stalin or Mao at the
time. These totalitarian governments
have been very good at insulating the
world from what's going on. The
Weaguers, too. I mean, um they've
experienced horrible things.
[snorts]
>> Yeah. Yeah. There's uh there's plenty of
malice in the world. There's no doubt
about that. This is why I bang on about
free speech. If you're not willing to
let people say what they say, if you're
not willing to be voted out of office,
then the guns come out. And uh there is
no other way. And I don't know why
people can't see that, but they really
can't. All right. I want to ask you
about uh Gen Z. You're a Gen Zer. I want
to know about what is uh sex like for
Jenzers? What does that tell us about
either the feminization of culture? Uh
where we're headed as a society. I know
you're close with the guy behind Homath.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh so what are some of the most
important Homo math equations?
>> The the core variable I'd say is just
lack of social trust and that operates
across the entire pyramid
>> between men and women.
>> Yes. Um just in the entire equation. Um,
and so you have the you have the the
hypergamy system where I always forget
your audience is probably a different
demographic than because for for the
spaces I'm in, we've had this discourse
for a while and everyone's seen the home
math chart and I I realize a lot of your
audience might not have seen the home
math chart.
>> Yeah, my audience is older than yours.
So uh 80% of men uh 80% of women go to
20% of men and that's due to the
structure of the dating apps where a
majority of uh
sort of um relationships among Jenz are
formed online. And it's an important
thing to realize Jenz doesn't really
leave the house um partly because
they're not wealthy enough and partly
because they have social anxiety or
everyone's on their phone. So most
relationships are formed online and uh
that's a fairly
how do I explain this? um that's very
shallow and dehumanizing
and with the way it works as well with
the inequality is you have a lot of
incentives for low social trust even
either between sort of um the Chad guys
who have lots of options and then that
brings down the value of the individual
women who they're cycling through. So
you have a large disenfranchised
population. You have a a lo a loss of
social trust due to sort of the
incentive structure and because there's
no community with the way uh social
media works and dating apps work. Uh,
and then you just have mouse utopia
eating at the equation where you have a
significant portion of Gen Z women. Um,
I think some men too who have basically
just checked out uh who are radical left
or lesbian or uh something like that.
Um, and no, I'm I'm not making this up.
Um, so that's why young people don't
have children.
[gasps]
>> That is uh that's wild. Okay. So, if you
were going to try to unwind some of
this, like if I don't know if you just
are blackpilled and it's like there's
nowhere we can go or if you feel like
like is this a we got to re champion
religion? Is this obviously we've
already talked about economics so I'll
assume you'll say we got to resolve some
of those issues. But other than the
economics like how would we unwind this
if you gave us a generation or two
generations? What are the things that
would need to be true uh for us to
renormalize?
I agree in the economic. After that, I'd
say just a return of masculinity. Um
because the issue with a lot of sort of
religious conservatives is they want to
bring back a rule structure for religion
without really reference to God or sort
of the masculine enforcement because the
way um if you study sort of like I have
multiple sources of information but um
like if re like conservative authors of
a century ago or ancient wisdom would
say that the first step in this is to
increase masculinity and then that has a
frame for femininity because masculinity
is based off respect.
>> Masculinity will create a frame for the
feminine to basically live inside of.
>> Yes, exactly.
>> Okay. Sorry, you were about about to
think I think you're about to go into
more detail on that. Please explain.
>> So, the masculine sets the frame. It's
like iron and the feminine's like water.
It flows through the frame the masculine
sets. Um, and so this is why women don't
build social institutions or why they
don't sort of drive the course of human
history directly in the way men do, but
they do drive it indirectly. And there
are exceptions like Jon of Arc or
Katherine of Russia. Um, and so just
trying to enforce religious rules
without masculinity means no one will
respect them. But um, I'd say two
things. First, increase masculinity
because um, like how do we do that? like
eat more [ __ ] Brazil nuts. Like what
are we doing here?
>> Yeah, I it's a it's a difficult question
because industrial civilization solves
so many of our problems. Uh but we're
going to have a lot of problems very
soon and the masculine is doing and the
feminine is being. Um and so when men do
things that garner respect because the
masculine is formed by respect um and uh
the feminine is garnered by love. So
women will love men they respect. Uh but
the issue is that in our current society
we make it n impossible to produce men
that women respect because the feminine
group sort of um herd mentality
is envious that other women may get men
they respect. And this is my mate
suppression video. So they stop men from
rising to positions of respect.
>> That's wild. Give people a quick primer
on mate suppression. It's a great video.
>> Thank you. Uh so this is one of the very
twisted parts of human nature. And one
of the things I've learned in the last
few years is that we think evolution's
simple and we think that life is sort of
every it's rational. It fits in a
spreadsheet. But life can periodically
be very twisted where you've got the
fungi that go into an ant's brain and
eat it and take control of the ant. You
have horrible diseases that spread
through like like syphilis is pretty
twisted. Um, and mate suppression is one
of the most twisted biological impulses
where it's and it's um it exists across
sex, both sexes, but it's he more
heavily a part of toxic femininity and
it's the impulse to hurt other people
who are potentially doing better than me
by lessening their fertility.
>> Jesus.
>> And examples of it include I mean the
easy this there was so much of this
stuff when I was growing up. I mean, uh,
the the second point I'd say for fixing
the sexual duality
is you have to stop dehumanizing men and
you have to stop dehumanizing children
as well. Um because
when I was growing up like you there
were people had pressure to put their
kids in after school programs and if you
didn't watch your kids play all the time
you could have the police called on you
or uh there was the whole thing like
there was um the government passed a
bill you had to put in a certain type of
car seat to have children and it saved
an amount of lives I could count on one
hand and it stopped like 200,000 births
because the cost of having the car or
the seat for that. Um
it people couldn't afford it. And if you
want other examples, socialism is taking
from others, bring putting it in the
central pot. It's just or trying to make
silly rules about like silly dating
rules or like when people make silly
rules, they're normally for mate
suppression because if if the rule
doesn't serve an actual purpose, the
purpose is to hurt you.
>> [laughter]
>> That is a very dark place to end this
interview. Uh Rodard, where can people
follow along with you?
>> Uh check out my two channels, uh what
altist and history 102. And thank you.
This was a wonderful episode,
>> dude. You you are a fascinating mind.
Every time I have to recheck your age
cuz I am a ghast each and every time. Uh
I was like, "Yeah, he really has only
lived in the 21st century. It is wild. I
cannot wait to see where you're at in 10
years, 15 years. Your ability to sponge
up uh knowledge, historical context,
frameworks is really incredible, man.
[snorts] So, I love being on the
timeline with you. So, I'm honored.
>> No, man. My pleasure. All right,
everybody. If you haven't already, be
sure to subscribe. And until next time,
my friends, be legendary. Take care.
Peace.
>> If you like this conversation, check out
this episode to learn more. I'm looking
at America and I'm saying that we're
really going through something. We are
in decline. I would use even more
dramatic words than that, but I don't
want to get trapped in a linguistic
game. Okay.
>> So, I'll just ask, do you think America
is declining on any measure any
meaningful measurements? I would push
back.