 G'day, May 40 here. So I was just watching a terrific Robert Wright video, and it's not often that I can say that. But I was, I was given a link to this, the age of secular gurus to Robert Wright interviewing a professor at the famous Central Queensland University. Right? So I got a lot of family in Central Queensland, my, my grandparents on my mother's essentially owned Tannum Sands and Tannum Sands Queensland is in Central Queensland. And so this is a terrific, terrific interview, discussion of a highly popular relatively new podcast called Decoding the Gurus. Decoding the Gurus. Have you heard about this? But it's not so much that they're debunking the ideas of all these secular gurus, it's that they're analyzing the reasoning. So this is a podcast by two academics and, and you know, I love, love me some academics. And they were great. They were great on Brett and Eric Weinstein. I've never had much time for. So all these people were sending me Brett Weinstein skeptical video, you know, COVID vaccine skepticism and like no interest in like Brett Weinstein's video. I've never, never been able to develop much enthusiasm at all for the intellectual dark web. That maybe once every three years, I'll listen to something that Sam Harris has to say. I think I probably spent an hour and a half of my life listening to Eric Weinstein and didn't feel that I got any benefit from it. Who are the other leading members of the intellectual dark web? That doesn't really mean anything to me. But I love this idea of secular gurus, because we are living in the first time in history where most people are not religious, where most people's lives are not substantially affected by religion. Like you can, a lot of people think America is such a religious country, 40% of the country supposedly goes to church every week. But you can also look at America as the most secular country, because the way Americans do business has absolutely nothing to do with religion, right? Americans are probably the most mobile of all the major countries, and people who are mobile tend to be secular. And when they do practice religion with their mobility, it's such a watered down, synthetic substitute of community that they're obviously reaching for. That real community means you live in an area where your parents lived and your grandparents lived. And that's genuine community. But the reason that the churches and some synagogues and other religious institutions are so friendly is because mobile Americans are so desperate for intimations of community, of rural values. And that's what belonging to a friendly church or synagogue can give you is intimation of rural values. And people evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to live impacts with up to a maximum of 150 other people. That's how we evolved. And so even though our world has changed, that's how our instincts have developed. So that's why it's rational for us to fear public speaking, because if you speak publicly in front of your clan, there are very good odds that you'll say or do something that will offend people, which will then place your well-being, even your life at risk. So here we are. We've got the secular age. We've got hypermobility. We are disconnected from traditional sources of meaning. We less than left have any sense of communal feeling, right? Our real community tends to be specialized, specialized from our occupations, specialized from our hobbies. We live with specialized frequently virtual community. This is not how we evolve. So we have a lot of mental distress. We have a lot of addiction. We're wired to connect. And if you can't connect normally with other people, you're going to connect to substances or processes. So into this big, gaping hole of our secular world, we have all these secular gurus. And this is just a fun podcast. And they develop a guru meter. So of course, one outstanding characteristics of gurus is they tend to be, let's just say, narcissistic. So that's certainly true for me. I would not be sitting here talking to you right now if I did not have perhaps a beyond reality regard for my own wisdom and sagacity. And if I did not have an above average desire for your admiration, otherwise I would just be kicking back reading a book on my own. But here I am inviting your admiration doing a live stream. So this is very characteristic of religious gurus, secular gurus. And you can pretty quickly get a sense how needy people are for your admiration. Right. So Dennis Prager, he can't hear enough about how much people admire him. Yeah, you're a moral leader. All right. What kind of blog, you know, says I'm your moral leader, even if he's like being sarcastic and joking is obviously someone starved for admiration and attention just can't get enough of a bottomless pit. So these these blogs doing decoding the gurus podcast, they come up with a list of 10, 10 qualities of secular gurus, but it also applies to religious gurus. So what is galaxy brainness? So this is someone who presents ideas that appear to be too profound for an average mind to comprehend, but are in truth trivial, if not nonsensical. And so of course, primary reason I'm going through this list of what constitutes a guru is to just confirm in my own mind that I'm not one of these charlatans. So I don't think I do this. Gurus present themselves as founts of wisdom. And it's an all encompassing knowledge that tends to span multi disciplines and topics. Oh, that's painfully. Okay, that one's hitting a little painfully close to home. Their arguments often link together disparate concepts, such as quantum mechanics. Yeah, someone's on YouTube talking about quantum mechanics, yards at 99 to one that they're a fraud. Quantum mechanics logic in the nature of consciousness. Now I think like Kenneth Brown, he has a lot of really smart things to say. The guru will often present themselves as a polymath who can offer novel insights in many different fields. They will allude to their own accomplishments and exaggerate them to a shameless degree. Okay, I don't think that's me. Now constantly offer hot takes on technical topics. I don't think I do that. And with a wave of the hand dismiss the perspectives of genuine experts. I don't think they do I do that. So this is a confidence trick. They use unnecessary references to high or specialist literature. They use jargon and technical terms. Okay, I don't think I do that. These references tend to be superfluous and tangential. So these references are most effective when the recipient does not understand them at all. They are merely illusions intended to signal a deep level of knowledge. All right. Quality number two on the guru meter, courtishness. Being a guru is a social role. A guru is only a guru. If there are people who regard themselves as such and Bernard, Bernard of Scandinavia said 40 days, you set yourself up as a guru. So how gurus interact with their followers and critics their in group and their out group is often revealing gurus not usually burnified court leaders. However, the social groups they cultivate often with themselves positions as intellectual leaders can have some elements reminiscent of a court. So key characteristic of court is establishment of clear in group and out group identities. I don't think there's a clear in group and out group at 40 University. Primarily between the court members admirers and outsiders. Yeah, I think there are these dynamics at 40 University will often be internal discriminations made within the court, such as between an inner circle of favorite members. Well, there are people that I really like. And there are people that I feel comfortable with. And there are people that I like let my head down with allow myself to say stupid things. Do I know a Steve Assan's work on courts? Yes, I'm aware of him. He seemed to say some smart things about that that court that would brand women's thighs. Nixium Nixium. So yeah, he seemed to say some good things. Generally, Rick Ross, I'm generally speaking a fan of Rick Ross. I don't know Steve Assan as well as I know Rick Ross. So 90% plus of what I've seen by Rick Ross, I respect. Okay, so you guys feeling the strong internal discriminations between the inner circle of favorite members? Oh, yeah, the channel members, the broader normal members and problematic or troublesome members, members who may need to be reprimanded, temporarily excluded or exorcised. So courtage behavior is characterized by emotional manipulation and control. You're feeling manipulated and controlled right now. So gurus tend to act in a manipulative fashion with their followers and potential allies. So they use excessive flattery, such as intimations that their followers are more perceptive, more morally worthy and more interested in the pursuit of truth than outsiders. Oh, Kenneth Brown says people get attracted to extreme right wing politics because of social and personal problems. Yeah. So what's going on in the chat? Steve Assan has been self promoting last couple of years, comparing his experience with the moonies for the cold of Trumpism. Richard Spencer has been retweeting Kenneth Brown videos. Kenneth Brown did a live stream discussion with Matt Parrott. So yeah, I think Kenneth, Kenneth Brown is a young, smart, interesting dude who I don't see much of a downside. If anything to what he's doing, I frequently learn a new insight listening to Kenneth Brown. So I think he's probably the most productive, thoughtful member of the new right on YouTube of whom I wear with more original thinking. Okay. A guru will put some effort into signaling a close and personal relationship with their followers. So encouraging the development of parasocial ideation. So I don't think I encourage this, right? This is not a real relationship. This is a performance on my part aided by your interactions. But am I, am I encouraging the development here of parasocial ideation? Keith Woods ratioed Jordan Peterson on Twitter. What does that mean to ratio someone? So I've heard that term a lot. Clean your room. How about eat this ratio, the murderous anti-semitism of the effort to kill Iron Dome. Okay. What does it mean to ratio someone? That means that there are more negative comments than positive ones. I think that's what it means. So I don't attach significance to the number of likes or dislikes on a video. There's no relationship in general between importance and popularity. So just because one video got 25 million views, another video got 55 views tells me nothing about which video is more important. It tells me nothing. Like it does tell me something about which is more compelling to watch. But as far as the importance of what's discussed, the number of views, number of likes, number of dislikes tells you nothing. Okay. Praise in regard for the guru is usually reciprocated while criticism is dismissed as coming from an unworthy person. I don't think I roll that way. A worthy person does not truly understand the significance of the guru's ideas. I don't think I roll that way. Guru wishes to avoid appearing like a controlling leader. They don't want their privileged position challenged. Okay. Well, we all like to feel comfortable and so we all develop caricatures of other people and other groups to maintain our own comfort levels. So we develop inherent attraction and like and love for a certain person. And when you're attracted, like and love certain persons, you automatically will dislike and want to distance yourself from other persons. So I think that's just inherent. Which alt-right leader most fits the description of secular guru Richard Spencer, Keith Woods, Mikey Nock, Eric Stryker. So I think Steve Saylor does not fit any of these categories at all. The guru will prime a particularly special or controversial idea with various cautions as I know many of you won't be able to understand this, but I think the more perceptive among you might. So a few of their followers are one to admit that they lack the necessary qualities to appreciate the brilliance of the guru's insight. And those that do reveal themselves to be troublemakers. Yeah, I guess maybe Nick Fuentes. Nick Fuentes is now saying that America first has to ally with blacks and that white nationalist and blacks have a lot in common. It's amusing to me that Robert Wright cites intellectual dark web figures for his discussion of secular gurus. How about Dr. Fauci? Yeah, is Dr. Fauci a guru? Well, not in this sense, because he does not pretend to expertise he doesn't have. So Dr. Fauci is not giving opinions on, you know, all sorts of issues outside of his expertise. And so I don't think I don't think Dr. Fauci qualifies. So they said on that discussion with Robert Wright that 90% of what Dr. Fauci says is fairly grounded in the science. So they didn't seem to grapple with they talked about you've got to how important it is to trust science. But if science is strong and good, why do you have to trust it? I mean, scientific research may well have through a lab leak given us the COVID catastrophe. So I don't I don't get trust science, let alone trust scientists. No, actually, my perspective is the very opposite. We cannot trust science. Science has proved itself it cannot be trusted, because science is overwhelmingly funded by just a small number of huge funders who only fund with a specific agenda. So I would take the opposite perspective. You cannot trust least big science. So science is not gentleman science conducted by a gentleman just, you know, researching their interests. Science today is funded by a very small number of entities who pour enormous amount of funds to achieve particular ends. And scientists who want to receive the largest and keep that money coming have to feed results that the funders want. So you tell me to trust science and I will tell you that I distrust science that the science incorporated has proven itself to be untrustworthy. Now science as a technique is frequently useful. It makes contributions. But science incorporated big science and almost, you know, when we talk about scientific research, it's almost lavishly funded to achieve certain results. So in the trust science, distrust science, I'm very strongly in the distrust science incorporated. Okay, anti-establishment. So again, I am not anti-establishment anymore than I'm pro-establishment. My self-perception is that I'm right in the middle. Sometimes the establishment's right. Sometimes the rabble is right. Sometimes the populace is right. Sometimes the establishment and the elite are right. I don't regard myself as either inherently knee-jerk, anti- or pro-elite. So sometimes the elite are right. Sometimes the elite are wrong. I don't think you can get any closer to the truth by automatically assuming that the elite are wrong or right. It's going to be contingent. That's a word that academics love, but everything is contingent. I get along great with Riccardo, contingent on certain things. I feel happy contingent on, I don't have a toothache, I don't have any bodily illness, I have money in the bank, I have friends, friends, family, community. Take away all those things that make me happy. I've got my health, I've got vitality. Take away all those things that make me happy, and my happiness is gone. This is my self-perception anyway. I am a mellow, easy-going guy 95% of the time, but this is how I go. I go like this, then I get triggered, then I'm like up here. And boy, did I make like an abject apology Monday afternoon for being a total pompous jerk to someone, to a stranger. And I just made like abject apology, and she accepted it very graciously, and then I like made two more abject apologies on top of that today. Because my self-perception is anyway, I go along like this 95% of the time, but then I get triggered and then I just like and when I get triggered, I'm not a very nice person. Pill eater told me you aren't eating well, Luke. Oh, I don't need to worry about eating well now. I have, guys, this podcast is brought to you by grass-fed beef organs. This is cattle in New Zealand, eating grass, and they harvest their organs, and it's got New Zealand grass-fed liver, New Zealand grass-fed heart, New Zealand grass-fed kidney, New Zealand grass-fed pancreas, and New Zealand grass-fed spleen. This has changed my life, right? A life spent with ill health, often bedridden week, turned around by taking six of these capsules a day, completely turned around. I'm biking like 10 miles on average, probably four days a week, and feel good, man. I just feel good doing the push-ups, doing some light weights. And the only variable that's changed about two months ago is grass-fed beef organs by ancestral supplements. So I didn't have any scientific evidence for this. It may be entirely placebo. I have no scientific expertise. I have no health expertise. This just, this change, this feels to me like it changed my life, right? I feel like I've been living in a veil of tears from my horrible vegetarian diet. I think the vegetarian diet is so unhealthy. Almost all the big studies into the health benefits of vegetarianism are funded by people with a pro-vegetarian agenda, right? Those are the only people who fund major studies generally speaking into vegetarianism. They've got an agenda, and so the studies tell them what they want to hear, but obviously we evolved to eat me. Our teeth are designed to eat meat, right? Being vegetarian is just so crazy. I'm a self-hating vegetarian. On the other hand, let's be honest, our imprinting essentially decides for us in our first 10, 12 years of life what type of food we like. So I still can't program myself to eat meat or to eat fish, right? So I still probably got a horrible vegetarian diet, but I try to stay in the zone, which, you know, I help mildly with my health, but man, these grass-fed beef organs just change my life. Luke, when are you getting to apologize to ultra testosterone and Lyft, bro? Well, if they feel like I owe them apology, then I certainly want to entertain that. I want to, I want to clean my side of the street. What is my opinion of Mickey Mouse? I really like Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse and I ran in the same social circles for, I don't know, seven years or so. So I saw Mickey a lot. I really enjoyed Mickey. He wrote a lot of very nice things about me on his blog. He is so smart and I think he's got a lot of sharp, sharp insights. Do I chug those beef pills? I chug them with a protein drink in the morning. Okay, I'm still trying to figure out if I'm a secular guru. Yeah. So it's necessary that the orthodoxy, the establishment, the mainstream media, the expert consensus are always wrong or at least blanket and limited or incapable of grappling with the real issues on the rare occasions when they're right. They are right for reasons other than what they think. So yeah, you can call this science, hipsterism. A guru consultant agree with the establishment because it is crucial to their appeal that they are offering unique insight of fresh, hot take that is not available elsewhere that may be repressed or taboo. And the guru's popularity benefits if his iconoclastic view coincides with the prejudices or intuitions of his lay followers. So look, what people want on live streams like this is confidence and assurance. People want certainty. People don't want answers that are contingent. People want certainty. People want to hear. Ricardo's a good guy. Ricardo's a bad guy. Richard's a good guy. Richard's a bad guy. Keith's a good guy. Keith's a bad guy. That's what people want. People want certainty in their YouTube personalities, in their pundits, in their newspaper pundits, in their Fox News pundits, in their MSNBC pundits. One quality people want more than any other also with their religious leaders. People want certainty. That's the path. You want to give people reliable certainty on why their way of viewing the world is correct. And people will see pictures of this social media post and this video and say, oh, 40, look at the evidence here. It's so clear here. I've got a picture of some unsourced pronouncement on Twitter. Here's the basis for my thinking. So in a world of uncertainty in the secular world where there are no eternal verities, people want certainty so badly, so badly. Am I on the spectrum? Yes, I'm on the spectrum. And so are you. We're all on the spectrum. We've all got AIDS. Everyone's got AIDS. So yeah, you peddle anti-vax. There's like an enormous audience for that nonsense. You peddle voter fraud, enormous audience for that nonsense. You peddle white genocide, enormous audience for that nonsense. You peddle the great replacement, enormous audience. People want certainty. So gurus are drawn to topics where there is a split between the expert consensus and the public opinion, such as climate change, GMOs. I think GMOs are great. Vaccinations, I think vaccinations are great. Climate change, I don't have an opinion, but I'm sure the climate's always changing, and I'm completely open to the idea that human behavior has an effect on our climate. Lockdowns. So I think lockdowns in some times and places are a great idea, and other times and places it's not so clear. So if a guru is merely agreeing with an expert consensus on a topic such as COVID, there's no reason to listen to the guru. Why not listen to the relevant experts? So the guru is highly motivated to undertake epistemic sabotage. Epistemic is how do we know what we know, and to disparage authoritative and institutional source of knowledge. So the more the guru's followers distrust sanded sources of knowledge, such as that emanating from universities, the greater the perceived value that the guru provides. So yeah, that's like Dennis Prager, like he's always knocking the elites and the universities. So this is a little at odds with the guru's natural tendency towards self-aggrandizement, which usually involve emphasizing their limited academic intellectual recognition. I mean, come on there. Do you know how much 40 would love someone to do his PhD thesis on the life and thought of 40? Some guy at Wichita State is doing his PhD thesis on 40 University. Yeah, gurus strategically use ambiguity and uncertainty within their criticisms to give themselves the means to walk back claims that prove to be wrong. And the dynamic of sabotaging other sources of wisdom is evident in their fractious relationships with other gurus with whom they often make alliances of convenience that are also strongly incentivized to compete with. Oh, grievance mongering. Right. I'd like to think that I'm largely free of this. But yeah, that's true. You notice that everything that Eric Weinstein and Brett Weinstein get haughty about and make these world-changing proclamations about it's always because they got screwed over some ways. So it was like, Eric Weinstein didn't get the recognition that he felt he deserved at Harvard University and Brett Weinstein didn't get the orthodontic care that he thought he deserved. And so they come up with these grand galaxy spanning theories that are based in their grievance about some, you know, slight petty slight that they suffered. Opinion on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. being banned from YouTube. So I don't have a big problem with YouTube banning anti-vax perspectives. I don't support it, but I don't stay up at night worrying about it. To me, it's a difficult issue. So I tend more on the free speech end of it, but I am not appalled and I'm not losing sleep that YouTube is banning anti-vax. Josh Neal says he is debunked and destroyed Curtis Yavin's arguments and claims on Tucker Carlson's show. I can't summon much interest in that. I don't have much interest in Curtis Yavin. And I don't have much interest in debunking Curtis Yavin. I thought I'd do a show critiquing Curtis Yavin's appearance on Tucker Carlson. I just haven't been able to summon the energy and the desire to do that. I think Curtis Yavin, he swings for the fences. So to me, he bats about 100. So nine out of 10 of his proclamations I find useful. And about one out of 10 of his proclamations I think is really sharp, meaning of his original proclamations. And I think Casey Godwood podcast is kind of similar. So most of his original proclamations I find suspect, but occasionally I feel like, whoa, that's a really sharp insight. So Mouldbug cried on stage at Justin Murphy's live event in LA. I don't think that makes him less of a man. I don't dismiss Curtis Yavin because he cries in public. To me, it doesn't speak either ill of him or well of him. It's completely a matter of indifference. Okay, characteristics of, this is true, grievance mongering. I notice this grievance mongering, but I encounter a grievance monger. I know that I'm dealing with someone who's a waste of time. Like this is someone who's toxic. Like someone who is running on resentment and grievance, like Eric Weinstein, Brett Weinstein, and the whole grievance crowd, like it's toxic. I just don't want anything to do with the people who are overwhelmingly motivated by grievance. Now, there are going to be some situations where grievance is a very powerful energy, but it's not the way I approach the world. I don't believe in monsters and I don't believe in demons and I don't believe in devils. So for everyone who says like, Hitler was a monster. Hitler cared about animals. He was a dutiful son. He loved his mummy. He was a decent painter. He was an honorable and courageous soldier in World War One. So even Hitler was not a monster. Stalin was not a monster. I don't believe in monsters and demons. I don't believe in grievance mongering, though at times I'm human and so I'm susceptible to it. I probably dished out my share of hate porn, but I would like to think it's not a dominant characteristic of what I do. So yeah, grievance mongering is probably the most powerful way to drive engagement because the more angry you are, the more likely you are to get engagement. So gurus love personal grievance narratives and not only encourage emotional connection and sympathy for the guru, but they explain why their unique talents have not been widely supported and given the recognition that they deserve in the wider world. And they also lead to conspiratorial ideation. And they explain, like Eric Weinstein, why their special ideas and perspectives have not been recognized and accepted by the outside world. Their ideas have been suppressed by malevolent powerful actors for selfish reasons. Half Galician is here. Brett Weinstein used to come through my line at Safeway. He always seemed too smart and witty. I've been listening to a pro-Trump psychiatrist who claims he can prove that schizophrenia is literally possession by demons. I think that perspective helps anyone. So the demon perspective can help give you energy and in-group solidarity. So I see that Rabbi Mizraki is angry with Luke Ford for not following the Sabbath sufficiently for wasting too much seed and begging for one stars. I have been master of my domain for eight years. Don't you want to shake my hand? I think that's an accomplishment worthy of a Yashakaak and shake my hand. I have not been spilling my seed for eight years. Self aggrandizement and narcissism. It's impossible to be a guru without having a sense of grandiosity and inflated idea of one's self-importance. Being a guru involves cultivating praise and attention, demands a certain level of charisma and charm. There's a belief in one's uniqueness and that only special people can appreciate them. Gurus tend to have a very thin skin when it comes to criticism. And they expect the world should recognize their talents far more than it does. So narcissism is the key personality trait of gurus. So people without overconfidence and attention seeking will find the role of guru very uncomfortable. So I think I'm so fascinated in this decoding the gurus podcast because I see that I have many of these tendencies where if I don't keep myself in peak spiritual condition I very quickly relapse. People on the spectrum of narcissism will find any attention in regard highly satisfying. Ouch. That hits home. This is the motivating factor for engaging in going beyond what talents they have to engage in the pseudo-profound BS techniques. The lack of self-awareness common among narcissists also explains why gurus seem to believe their own BS. I think I have a fair degree of self-awareness. Oh. Cassandra complex. Another sign. So I'm not into grievance mongers. I've got all the narcissism that I want. Don't really want to be around narcissists. And Cassandra complex people who get so much energy and enthusiasm from claiming that the war is coming to an end. I don't have time for those with a Cassandra complex. So the gurus like to claim prescience. Their heightened insight gives them a superior ability to predict the future. And they enjoy dwelling on those instances which they made a purportedly correct prediction. Okay. That is the point of me. I'm not so thrilled to mention and to acknowledge all the times when I got it wrong. So I'd much rather tell you about where my predictions were right rather than wrong. So a heightened sense of how the world is not right and ought to be fixed and they are the persons to do it is a common feature of gurus. Unfortunately, the broader public fails to recognize their genius and heed their advice. And so the world just lurches from calamity to calamity. So gurus position themselves as a Cassandra. They see the future and warn of possible calamity. So yeah, certainly being susceptible to this at times. And their followers have a positive role in supporting, defending and promoting the guru that could help make the world a better place. Revolutionary theories, trait number seven of secular gurus. So if galaxy brain and nurse refers to a breadth of knowledge, the ability to forge connections between disparate topics, their professed development of revolutionary theories displays the depth of their knowledge. They don't just have the breadth. They also have the depth coming up with these revolutionary ideas. And then there's a lot of pseudo profound BS. This is their stuck in trade. They're most comfortable in the role of the arm chair opinionator, the wise man graciously offering their advice to eager seekers of wisdom, a you an eager seeker of wisdom. So pseudo profound BS describes the form of their discourse. So revolutionary theories and galaxy brainedness describes the content of the discourse. So the guru's language is easy to process. Superficially appears to be profound. Turns out to be trite, meaningless, contradictory and tautological. So tautological means you're just repeating yourself. So classic examples of pseudo profound BS, best exemplified by Deepak Chopra, who I've always had an allergy to. He said, there are no extra pieces in the universe. Everyone is here because he has a place to fill. Every piece must fit itself into the big jigsaw puzzle of the universe. To think is to practice brain chemistry. It is the nature of babies to be in bliss. Then conspiracy mongering, to gain real insights, real special knowledge that nobody else can see. That's hard work. To be a guru, to set yourself up above the orthodoxies, above conventional wisdom, above the established political and ideological groups, beyond contrarianism, beyond skepticism, into the world of conspiracies. So the expert consensus seems to supply us with the most reasonable and evidence-based view, depending on current information, while the guru needs to provide a contrasting perspective. And then has to supply the arguments that back up their bold claims in a compelling way. So this inevitably leads down the path of conspiracy mongering. And then quality number 10 of gurus, gurus desire admiration, but they feel that more worldly and tangible recognition of their talents is appropriate. So they are willing to undertake activities such as shilling health supplements that would otherwise be a little surprising for intellectual caliber. So gurus tend to go further in the effort to monetize their following, while avoiding the appearance of such, because that would detract from their guru status. So think about the actions of London Real, venue for gurus such as GPCs and David Ick, who constructed an elaborate censorship justification for gathering over $1 million from their followers to move their content from YouTube to a dedicated platform for which they can monetize their content at a much higher rate. All right, this is from the two academics who give us the excellent decoding the gurus podcast. Bridget Spenser vs. Stixon Hammer debate tomorrow on the killstream. John David Ebert interviewed Deepak Chopra. Luke, you have the glow of someone who's been caught up to the Torah. What can I say? Sheminiat Sarat off the hook this year, Torah. We stormed the heavens, mate. Absolutely stormed the heavens. It's just such a great time. And it's like you have a ticket to the inner party, mate. I had a ticket to the inner party where we decide what interest rates are going to be for the next six months, and what movies are going to get green lit, and what TV series are going to get picked up, and who's going to go to war with whom all the time with so much good food and drink and singing and dancing and just socializing off the hook for hours upon hours. Sheminiat Sarat. So Kenneth Brown says that people are attracted to right wing politics because of a lack of importance in their own lives and for a need to feel grandiose. Yes, I think he's absolutely right. Everybody wants to feel important, and if you don't have normal reasons for feeling important, then you're going to have to seek out delusional reasons for feeling important. So Kenneth Brown has a lot of smart things to say. Let's check him out here on why some people are attracted to extreme politics. The answer is grandiosity, right? I think I want to feel important. Everybody wants to rule the world. People want self-right wing is sort of like glaring red alarm that something is ignorance of the sort of issues that I've brought up here, or they're acting out of extreme emotional attachment to a certain branding out of loyalty to that branding because it's become a kind of pseudo religion for them. It's not a real religion about something like Christianity or Islam or Judaism or something that would actually provide real organizational moral and spiritual instruction for a person to put them on a better path, to give them a tribe, to give them a group, to give them a sense of purpose and belonging. Now the right wing is not sufficient for any of those things, but it's a kind of pseudo religion. It's sort of like a hermit grab that a mollusk dies and it leaves behind the shell. The right wing is kind of like this hermit grab and goes into the shell and claims it and basically occupies that shell. The shell of course represents your mind here. The right wing goes into your mind and says, oh, we can't talk about religion. That's too divisive. We can't work on our personal lives. We don't have time for that. We've got to be political. We've got to be pragmatic. We have to ignore that. So the right wing basically distracts people. It obsesses people with this idea of importance. Your personal life is useless. Who cares what your individual life? Who cares about your relationship with God or your friendships or your family? And part of the reason why people are inclined to ignore these quote unquote petty problems or small personal problems is because they feel like they're intractable. People feel like they're lack of friends, they're lack of family, they're lack of relationships, they're lack of religion. They feel like this is something that they can't overcome. It's just too big of a problem. It's a civilizational problem. And so for a person who feels like they're stuck in life, like they can't make any progress, it feels like, well, I might as well try to defeat the globalists because, you know, the learning how to get up in the morning and be disciplined and have good personal relationships and have a functioning marriage, all of those things seem impossible. So if we're going to throw out impossible ideas, hey, why not, throw out, we're going to defeat the left. I understand that feeling and I sympathize with that feeling, but it's not correct. It is simply not correct. We've reached a new stage in history. Leftism has been around for a while. I would say the core of leftism is as Heidegger describes it and as Byzantium describes it. It is technology and it is more fundamentally techniques or you could say themematics and linguistics. That is the core of leftism. That is the spark of what differentiates humans from other animals and it's what's been leading us in this direction through urbanism, through civilization, through monotheism, all direct history to the current day. And with all the new technology we have that's opening up even new potentialities that were latent in all of these superstructures and technologies are now coming out in this explosive way in the same way that we sort of laid a bunch of dynamite under our feet and now there's little sparks going on and it's flying everywhere. There's explosions and loud noises. And for people who just want to stable family life, that is very disruptive. That is something that's extremely difficult to deal with and I understand that. But trying to deal with politics in a way that is unrealistic in a way in which you are emotionally dependent upon these political outcomes to the extent that you are distracted from what I think are more important problems, I think at some point it does not serve a purpose that in terms of helping you is actually serving to hurt you. And I think that if we could solve some of these more instrumental or fundamental I should say problems, if we could solve some of these more fundamental problems, the problems where people feel alienated, the problems where people feel like they can't go to church because helping you to talk to somebody at church, you're not connecting with the church. We have to rebuild these very, very basic structures of socialization, of acculturation, of belonging that are not going to be solved by some like super ideological, biological materialist, racialist, we're all like brothers, that's not going to solve it. Donald Trump is not going to solve it. Vladimir Putin is not going to solve it. Ultimately, there have to be people who want to address this problem who are willing to prioritize this problem. Now, would life legitimately be better if we had some kind of political structure that had an counterbalance to the billionaire class, where middle class values were promoting work that's good for the middle class, was actually enshrined in law, and we're defended and protected through unions, or we had some kind of representation in terms of our government or our military, something to defend us. Would that be nice? Sure. Is it something that, you know, is there a chance that Donald Trump might move us in that direction? So, why not go ahead and vote for him? Sure. But if it's getting to the point where your support of the right wing for Donald Trump then leads to a massive black killing event because you don't get what you want, and then you become more radical and more extreme and more esoteric and more bizarre with these things, to the point where you're advocating violence, you're advocating marching in the street, you're advocating, or that's the warrior style, if you're more of a priestly style, you're going to say, we have to read all this esoteric ebola, this like weird, Byzantine, irrelevant, just crazy stuff. I mean, people are going to be post-modernist with it. They're reading Derrida, they're reading Deluz, and all of this stuff. And it's like, what's your personal life with like, are you a women's son? I feel like the dad, and I'm walking into our collective, you know, and this is also self-repleted, right? Because I've done this process for you, but are you a women's son? And what is the response? We have to ask ourselves that question. If you feel that you're on these beliefs, or any of the beliefs that I call lies or fallacies, you identify with those, and you think those are just fine and anti-great problems, or whether Trump loses. All of the disappointments that come from politics, and all of this reinvestment that I see people doing, this danger is doubling down, where things don't work out politically. It becomes a situation where people form these destructive political groups that continually have this cult-like mentality. They're not quite religious because they're not very functional. You know, a lot of the doxing that happens on the right-wing is not left-wing people doxing right-wingers. It's right-wingers doxing right-wingers, because these people are such idealizable purists, whether it's the American Nationalists, or whether it's the right-wing post-modernists, or all these weird, different factions. They hate each other more than they hate the left, because they become so involved in these esoteric theories about how they're going to change society, change civilization. It's like in the meantime, you haven't done much. You know, in the meantime, you've got these glaring rocks in your eyes, and you're focused on these sky-in-the-clouds, your head is in the clouds. You think about all these abstract problems, and meanwhile, the things in front of your face are not being taken care of. So, you know, you can accuse me of being a little bit George Peterson-hero. You have to clean your room before you take on the world buck-o-world. I'm saying that people, you should be focused on your eternal life, you know, just because of this personal life. Is there a way to solve these issues and to solve these problems? I don't know. Stick out like a sore thumb, and basically set off the red alert of the establishment and say, I'm a threat. I'm a threat. I'm going to insult George Floyd. Oh, you don't like it when I say a certain racial slur. Oh, I'm going to say it all the time. That kind of immature mentality is really funny when you're 13 years old. It's like a dead thing. You've got that whole Olympian cycle or, you know, the Assyrian and the revolutionary spirit, the Patrocyle spirit. You want to question all the taboos. It's very funny when you're 13, but at some point, just questioning taboos and just saying things because they're offensive, the most obtrusive and the most noticeable Wow. Oh, I feel like I'm on the, uh, feel like I'm very much on the same page as Kenneth Brown there. Woman is the jogger of the world. But are you winning, son? Are you winning, son? Bye-bye.