Just reject the program? Okay. What Weinstein is referring to, with rejecting the program, is something cold religion or if you don't care for that, morality. People have been trying to come up with ways to reject the program and stick to it for eons unsuccessfully. That's THE human struggle. I have great respect for the professor and his Insight on evolution among other things, but it cracks me up when these hard core science types start making proclamations about Humanity from a scientific point of view, that we've already known from psychological and religious points of you forever. If it were just that easy to reject the program, we would have done it already
No, religionists and moralists knew nothing about biology and evolution in the past. They thought that our harmfulness was due to being bad or faulty. Now we know it is (partly) biology/evolution. Big difference. Instead of suppressing our essential supposed selves, we can reject our biological programming. So we are coming from a place of empowerment and knowledge rather than self-judgement.
@@worldwidehappiness Isn't it just the exact same idea using different words? ei using the concepts of today's paradigm rather than those of the days of old.
@@Captain_MonsterFart Psychology and religion are related to the mind and spirit, whereas evolution and biology are related to the material body. If we are mind/spirit, then we are victims of the body rather than being perpetrators.
Clearly we wouldn't have done it already..? You are confusing two structures with each-other solely based on the fact that they are dealing with the same problem. Science is an open and dynamic system, or tool, where you try take out all confounding factors, human or otherwise, to get a progressively clearer picture of reality. It's a system where intelligence compounds and connects the dots. It stands free from any sentient being. We don't believe in it and it doesn't believe in us - it's just a way to gather information. It is how we would communicate with aliens. They understand math like we do. That's how fundamental it is. Religion is a closed system, based on top of everything else (genetics, tribalism, social hierarchy) that proclaims to already have the answer and then tries to convince any followers that that is the case.
From where I come from, people don't gang up on each others because they lack resources. They do it for other reasons, like hate or if there is someone uncooperative in the group. You can give people all the wealth you can, it won't change a thing, and in fact, it is the opposite that is true. When people are wealthy, there is no cost to gang up on others, since you are not forced to cooperate. It's a first world problem essentially for the most part. That is why competition is more ruthless, there is just no incentive to cooperation. You see the other program when there is a natural disaster, then people realize they are mortal and start caring. There is a price to pay for wealth, and it is one of them.
Up until WWII, Progressivism and Fascism were political twins - perhaps not identical twins, but twins. Both were overtly racist, embracing eugenics and its concepts of superior races. Both pursued concordant race-based population reduction: from Progressives we saw Planned Parenthood and its “Negro Project,” and from Fascists concentration camps. The first Progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, segregated the formerly integrated federal government. Progressives of that era (and ever since) have lauded large, dominant and domineering central government, a model diametrically opposed by our Constitution. Yet the second Progressive President, FDR, erected an ever more powerful “state” through his “New Deal” - much to the approval of Fascist leader Mussolini in Italy. Indeed, we all know how Fascists view government power and scope. So overall, FDR and the Fascists of his era were essentially sharing Collectivist “best practices.” Unfortunately, from the standpoint of the Classic Progressive leaders, the end of WWII exposure of the National Socialists’ concentration camps forced eugenics out of fashion, at least in polite company. However, Collectivists of all stripes, including those of the Progressive branch, never lost their ardor for achieving an all-powerful global government, administered by an elite of superior human beings, lording over the inferior masses beneath. For their own good, of course. Even if they are too stupid to appreciate what their betters were doing for them - but then again, what else can you expect from “deplorables”? So for the Progressive leaders, how to continue the mission, now that open eugenics was off of the table? Strategic salvation came in the form of what today is referred to as “Cultural Marxism” - the purposeful and anarchistic deconstruction of Western culture and norms, executed so as to pave the way to build a secular utopia upon the societal rubble. Its originators and proponents included Antonio Gramsci, the Communist theorist from Italy; Germans like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno (of the “Frankfurt School” that eventually set up shop at Columbia University); and “American” Saul Alinsky of “Rules for Radicals” notoriety. (Yes, Progressivism is a branch of Collectivism, which is international in scope and menace.) The post-WWII Progressives - henceforth we’ll refer to them as “Neo-Progressives” - knew a good thing when they saw it, and have run with Cultural Marxism ever since. In doing so, they’ve shifted Progressivism’s emphasis from “White” racism to a sort of “egalitarian racism.” That is, Progressives now pretend to believe that all races are “equal,” and that they are the champions of the “minority” and “underprivileged” races - Blacks and the so-called Hispanics “race” in particular. (It deserves mention that Progressives’ “advocacy” for ever-multiplying categories of gender and sexual proclivities is also part of its Cultural Marxism strategy.) Neo-Progressivism is egalitarian in the sense that any “race” but “White” is welcomed aboard, so long as it will be useful toward advancing the agenda. Note that both the Classic Progressives and Neo-Progressives always have, and always will categorize people by group, particularly by race; and do so in a manner diametrically opposed to our founding principles, i.e., “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator…” The Neo-Progressive leadership - still to this day almost exclusively comprised of elite-class Whites - for public purposes portrays “Whites” as the privileged boogeyman. Thus, Neo-Progressives appear to embrace the opposite of the “White Supremacy” that their Classical Progressive forefathers embraced. Yet all the while all Progressive leaders have embraced and pursued the same ultimate goal - that of a global, Godless utopia governed by a ruling elite of the “best and brightest” (i.e., them). While the White Supremacist “means to the ends” may have been flipped on its head - at least for public consumption - the ultimate goal has remained unaltered. Judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their individual character - and encouraging useful idiots to do likewise - and herding them into proverbial Collectivist cattle cars of the victimhood train, is politically useful for Neo-Progressives. “Antifa” and “Black Lives Matter” are Neo-Progressive cadres; while the KKK types are Classical Progressive cadres (note that the KKK started as an arm of the Democrat Party, in many respects the Reconstruction era’s “Antifa”). The battles between them that we just witnessed in Charlottesville are not unlike what occurred in the 1930’s - two forms of Collectivism duking it out for dominance as the form that rules - only today it’s an intramural squabble between two forms of Progressivism. Back in the 1930’s it was Fascism vs. Communism duking it out - in Germany and Italy Fascism controlled through WWII, while Communism prevailed in the USSR. After WWII, Communism (and its adolescent sibling, Socialism) prevailed in the USSR, China and much of Europe. Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, before and after WWII, Progressivism continued its incremental but determined “fundamental transformation” advance through the United States of America. Today’s street-level Neo-Progressives believe that they are “fighting” to achieve “social justice,” while street-level Classic Progressives believe that they are “fighting” to achieve “White Supremacy.” Both cadres are useful idiots, unwittingly in service of their Progressive overlords, who are manipulating them to inflame and irreparably divide our country. Seeking to wrench us from e pluribus unum - and ultimately intending to achieve the Cultural Marxists’ dream of societal deconstruction. After which, the street-level folks will be encouraged to lock-arms in solidarity, as they become indistinguishable equals, human widgets within Progressivism’s proletariat under the new global order.
@@loriprice457 that dismissive response adds nothing. There are a lot of ideas in this, and very well communicated. Debate or comment on the ideas, or...I guess it's your prerogative, to just "spew" out a one sentence Ad hominem.
Yes. Thank you. This is the operative passage: "The fact that we have become an existential threat to ourselves slots in very nicely with the enemy we face together. We have seen the enemy and it is us. Awareness of that can trigger the kind of unity you're talking about. The problem is, that narrative, which I believe is true, that we have become an existential threat to ourselves, that narrative is in conflict with those who are most powerful in civilization who would like to keep it running as it is because it's feeding them pretty darn well.That story, even though it should unify us, it happens that there are a few holdouts and they are the most powerful people and they're selling a different story."
And further, "Evolution screwed up. It handed us the tools to recognize that we don't have to value the game that it is playing. We can now repurpose the hardware to something that is actually worthwhile." Consciousness, reason, empathy and the ability to say, "My aircraft."
I can hear JBP's voice speaking so clearly throughout these comments. It's almost as if he's here. Lol. Oh, wait. On further reading it seems that Sam's tribe is here too. Gotta love that Bret can do that.
I respect Bret a lot, and he is such a nice fellow, but his view is too reductionistic, because he doesn't take into account the spiritual aspect of human beings. So while the biological aspect is as he says, the spiritual evolution pulls us in the opposite way - towards realizing our union with the whole, and developing a higher state of consciousness where we actually want the best for everyone...basically developing all the virtues and sacrificing ourselves in the spirit of service. One of the ultimate examples would be Jesus, and I say this as a Hindu and Buddhist. But yeah...he's explaining only one side of the coin.
How is the money worth anything if the people didn't produce anything to earn it? Also, there has to be more to it, it can't be enough money to choose to be idle. People are not healthy without struggle and strife.
The answer is only found in the family. That's where we can begin to answer the problems with Society. . The family is the archetypal route that paved the way for the development of advanced civilization..The family is encoded in religion. The concept of us being able to alter the encoded imprint of our destructive selves is what for me religion was designed to do. The issues in today's world of mass immigration and multiculturalism is probably asking too much of our genetic tribal imprint
pro ton It was the Family and Religion that was the safety net before the welfare state . The welfare state destroyed all this and now the government is Daddy to all those fatherless children . Most of the wests problems are directly coming from feminism . As you don't see any of this in cultures that still values the family even when they live in the west
Interesting. Never thought of it this way but in retrospect it makes sense. We see the West shifting past the traditional ideals of family and we are starting to see the results of this shift. Ironically, many things we have today would not be if not for moving past tradition, but the question is at what cost, and at what point is it going too far?
Big love to you guys - brilliant work. Are we reaching out to Dr Peterson to say there are people who want to help? Also, are you aware of the work being done on what is know as your second genome - the microbiome in you gut and the influence they have over us which apparently is bigger then we ever thought? There are 30 trillion human cells and 39 trillion bacterial cells, we are only 43% human and on a DNA level we are 1% - there are 20,000 human genes and 2-20 million microbial genes. It's the next big thing in the medical world. I've just spent the last 12 month making an effort to feed all mine well to see if they do indeed change the way you think and feel - it has been utterly amazing and truly transformational. Most people on a standard diet, high in meat, dairy and processed food have a very diminished microbiome which make there immune system weak and make their bugs fearful of infection - fearful of others outside their group. Change your diet and this can change the world - maybe!
I think we have already started solving the economic issue of oscillating between boom and bust. We could use a global currency like BitCoin that matches population and productivity and is fair cross boarder... and we have ideas emerging such as a Resource Based Economy. It's just that too many people benefit from boom-bust volatility. And the fatal cancery idea that we need perpetual growth.
One wonders whether Bret's understanding of human evolution from a strictly materialist POV could be remedied with a proper dose of psilocybin. Jordan Peterson remarked that Sam Harris should have upped his dosage of the stuff. I mean, how far can a materialist envision a future for humanity when their underlying premise is slated for extinction? "Architecturing the future" reeks of mechanistic thinking. What we need are psychonauts and visionaries familiar with deeper layers of consciousness.
Yep mechanistic thinking is not in line with how the universe actually works, it's impossible to keep track of all the variables that will ensue, this is why dictatorships die relatively quickly, 100% order is impossible. An artist cannot "consciously" paint, the process of creation is dominated by the faster unconscious. We are much more likely to be succesful as a species if we remain in a state of continuous evolution and mutation than to attempt to instill a rigid mechanistic morality on to ourselves. This is akin to a dog chasing it's own tail or the uroboros, chasing a state of complete order will subsequently create a symmetrical amount of chaos. It's better to accept the state that we are in and enjoy the simple pleasures of life than to obsess over social engineering and "correcting" our path. I see a kind of weird transhumanist glee in Bret which I have not seen before this convo.
@@MrMadalien Great insight. Yes, it does seem an odd side of Bret I hadn't seen before. It may be an occupational hazard that Evo-psych scholars like Bret tend to assume tenets of materialist philosophy as unquestionably true. Otherwise, I do appreciate their insights when they stick to their field.
Great point Tom 🍋. I suspect the bret shock n' awe approach is correlative with the frustration science-psycho-nauts have with the wider, less exposed more sheltered, identified....
Perhaps, though it's true that humans get tribal, jealous and selfish when there is a percieved lack and that's simply not the world we live in. However, this is the reality for those who lost out to globalisation, they are in the minority but they are still important because they'll throw the breaks and halt everybody else if they get forgotten. That's likely what's happened, but that doesn't mean we can't solve the problems. Humans are conditially tribalistic, which means we need to think about our conditions and how we view them.
So, we are that robot, on that mission? And Bret is saying "we just reject the programming?" Well, that's not much of a robot then. If we are free to obey or disobey the programming, then we aren't a robot. I dunno, the whole analogy seems to be weak and this topic needs a lot more introspection into "what are we?" Bret is a bit idealistic "all we need to do is decide not to genocide." Really? That's it? I think it's a bit more complicated then that.
Shadilay I don't think he is saying that we are free to disobey. You can't disobey the fact that your body needs food. But you can recognize that every hunger urge does not need to be satisfied. It is a trick the program is playing on us. Eat now eat now eat now. Recognizing the program, does not invalidate the program. The program works. It just needs to be managed in our time of abundance.
me darby Exactly. Rejecting the programming isn't necessarily implying that the programming no longer exists. It is simply stating that the programming is complex and its underlying laws are still followed, even if they are unnoticed (because of the complexity of daily life). You can force yourself not to do something like eat, sleep, drink. That is still within the confines of your "programming", you are just deciding to act out that particular choice later. It's a matter of priorities. Some lead to better or worse consequences down the line. It's the level of experience and reasoning that defines and actualizes those consequences.
I don't think he was speaking about eating and the like. He's talking about our programming to prefer our biological children over any others. And extend from that, our tribe over another tribe. As for the former, I don't think we can just "ignore the program." He might say "I wouldn't care if my child got switched at birth", but it's real easy to think idealistically about that. Lets see it happen then tell us how he ignored his "programming". Specific tribalism isn't programmed, as far as I know. I guess he may know better, but tribalism seems to stem from the environment, so it's not the same thing at all. Whatever it was he was saying, it didn't come through well. I thought he was going down the Sam Harris deterministic road by suggesting we are a slave to our genes, but then we can just ignore the things we don't like.
Shadilay our programming includes both genocide and cooperation. We are starting to understand the code well enough to conciously decide collectively which program we choose to run. I'd also guess that Bret is saying the idea is simple, but with full understanding it's implementation is rather less so. I thought he clarified a lot of his ideas quite succinctly here.
The analogy I think was fine. The difference here is we get our values from our minds, but our programming from our genetic code. Our values CAN override our genetic programming. Being aware that most of our behavior and instincts and feelings are actually a program, instead of being real is almost a scientific way to arrive at what the Mindfulness Mediators or the Buddhists talk about. Being aware that most of what constitutes the self is actually an illusion. That realization is quite helpful, and it is probally the core of what it means to be 'wise', and I define 'wise' loosely and in the sense of 'having sufficient will to resist participating in never ending social catastrophes that have nothing to do with what my body is telling me they have to do with.'
the interviewer made me have visions of soros. we can retain a sense of cultural / national identity with be ethno nationalists. much better to proffer global ideals of behaviour we can all hold / aspire to than to become some global homogenised hive.
The tricky part is that transitioning in to a literal hive mind would be akin to total destruction. This is the issue with the "anti-ego" sentiment. Sure, ego-death is something that we should all strive for to a certain extent, we should transcend our selfish impulses, but the endgame of 100% ego-death is physical death itself. What I'm trying to say is that we should only strive to remove the ego where it's really necessary, because we're at a point of imbalance where the ego is overly emphasized and we don't know how to moderate it, once it's moderated it must stop there, because the other pole is precisely the hive mind which is ironically symmetrical to the unbridled ego (1 hive mind = 1 ego). Transcending evolution entirely is exactly the same as dying. I agree with Bret on a lot of things but this segment just seemed foolishly utopian, and reminded me of the gnostic practice of suicide to transcend the material world. We cannot transcend the material world, we need to marry the material with the spiritual, some kind of 50/50 relationship.
These totally don't sound like a couple mad scientists, planning the next major psyop, to engineer society. Psycho? NOT! (P.S. There's no such thing as smallest meaning. The Universe isn't quantized. It's really 3D, just like it seems. Time is simply a method for observing the ratios between multiple series of events.) I think I binge watched too many "intellectuals" recently.
We don't need to overcome our programming, that's pretty much impossible without genetic modification. What we need is wise rulers who know how to organize society in a way that human nature is able to express itself in a way that benefits the majority. I believe propertarianism is the answer because unlike evry other political ideology, I haven't been able to find anything it is wrong about.
Didn't we already pretty much modify our programming (agri revolution etc.) And the rest of Natural genomes /ecosystem (continued extinction etc.? PSA en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarianism
Jamie Wheal is offering a false choice. Either "forward" toward globalism or "backward" toward tribalism, by which he means ethnic nationalism. What he is missing is the tribalism (if that is what it is properly called) of ideology. In the American case, while there was active ethnic tribalism from the very beginning of the nation, including slavery of blacks, genocide of aboriginals, ostracization of certain ethnic immigrants, the idea of America was to build the structure, the context to be able to eliminate that, and that is what the Constitution is all about. It has taken a long time to make progress on that front, but looking back, massive progress has been made. That is the ideology that constitutes "American Nationalism" and when it is perceived to be in jeopardy by groups of Americans who see loss of sovereignty as a direct threat to the ideals of the Constitution, whether well applied at any given time or not, they react by voting in a "populist" (a vacuous term) who promises to put America first. By that they mean the ideals of America, like free speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Entire comment section focused on Bret; his shock n' awe method here sums the frustration sciencey-psycho-nauts have with the religo-poli-cause-identified....
Be kind rewind! Most of the seven billon souls on the planet are more than three generations removed from Bret's the world of plenty. Naiveté writ large.
I'm disappointed with Bret in this video. As a psychologist, I found myself in total agreement with his analysis of his situation as it unfolded. As a woman, I'm disappointed in another man jumping from an excellent analysis to an abstract solution as though his head could imagine solutions that could be implemented. This is a Marxist way of thinking. Marx was a brilliant analyst but Communism sucks. My favourite analyst of global political reality is Noam Chomsky but like all Marxists, his solutions suck, especially for women.
Suppose God decided women were to be the gender to produce offspring. This means less independence and high cost of sex and lack of income opportunities. The biology model already sucks. The proposed solution long preceded Marx, who got it from Plato, yet I still see it as unpalatable and undesirable and unworkable. Still, the discussion must be expanded from biology to politics and economics and social engineering and then good reasons can be considered as to why policies should be considered or rejected. Best to allow all ideas and assess them with reasons rather than dismissing it as Marxist.
After the Bikini test, Teilhard exclaimed that the new bombs “show a humanity which is at peace both internally and externally.” And he added beatifically, “they announce the coming of the spirit on earth.” (L’Avenir de l’homme) realphysics.blogspot.com/2011/09/inhumanity-of-teilhard-de-chardin.html Also "marchands de lumière" - L’arrivée à maturité du projet universaliste dont témoigne cette stratégie mondiale s’appuie sur la foi en la toute-puissance de la science pour assurer le progrès humain, foi qui devient à partir du début des années 1920 le pilier du projet philanthropique. hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/65/25/89/PDF/RF_et_universalisme_US.pdf
WHERE IS THE FULL TALK!
Just reject the program? Okay. What Weinstein is referring to, with rejecting the program, is something cold religion or if you don't care for that, morality. People have been trying to come up with ways to reject the program and stick to it for eons unsuccessfully. That's THE human struggle. I have great respect for the professor and his Insight on evolution among other things, but it cracks me up when these hard core science types start making proclamations about Humanity from a scientific point of view, that we've already known from psychological and religious points of you forever. If it were just that easy to reject the program, we would have done it already
No, religionists and moralists knew nothing about biology and evolution in the past. They thought that our harmfulness was due to being bad or faulty. Now we know it is (partly) biology/evolution. Big difference. Instead of suppressing our essential supposed selves, we can reject our biological programming. So we are coming from a place of empowerment and knowledge rather than self-judgement.
@@worldwidehappiness Isn't it just the exact same idea using different words? ei using the concepts of today's paradigm rather than those of the days of old.
@@Captain_MonsterFart Psychology and religion are related to the mind and spirit, whereas evolution and biology are related to the material body. If we are mind/spirit, then we are victims of the body rather than being perpetrators.
Clearly we wouldn't have done it already..? You are confusing two structures with each-other solely based on the fact that they are dealing with the same problem.
Science is an open and dynamic system, or tool, where you try take out all confounding factors, human or otherwise, to get a progressively clearer picture of reality. It's a system where intelligence compounds and connects the dots. It stands free from any sentient being. We don't believe in it and it doesn't believe in us - it's just a way to gather information. It is how we would communicate with aliens. They understand math like we do. That's how fundamental it is.
Religion is a closed system, based on top of everything else (genetics, tribalism, social hierarchy) that proclaims to already have the answer and then tries to convince any followers that that is the case.
From where I come from, people don't gang up on each others because they lack resources. They do it for other reasons, like hate or if there is someone uncooperative in the group. You can give people all the wealth you can, it won't change a thing, and in fact, it is the opposite that is true. When people are wealthy, there is no cost to gang up on others, since you are not forced to cooperate. It's a first world problem essentially for the most part. That is why competition is more ruthless, there is just no incentive to cooperation. You see the other program when there is a natural disaster, then people realize they are mortal and start caring. There is a price to pay for wealth, and it is one of them.
Still in everyday non disaster regions, his point "one can afford to be nice/cooperative " still holds, no?
🔥 O H S H I T 🔥
WhealWave? He's a monster
Rejecting the evolutionary programme is not simple - for evolutionary reasons, this is typically the most difficult thing for an organism to do.
Up until WWII, Progressivism and Fascism were political twins - perhaps not identical twins, but twins. Both were overtly racist, embracing eugenics and its concepts of superior races. Both pursued concordant race-based population reduction: from Progressives we saw Planned Parenthood and its “Negro Project,” and from Fascists concentration camps.
The first Progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, segregated the formerly integrated federal government. Progressives of that era (and ever since) have lauded large, dominant and domineering central government, a model diametrically opposed by our Constitution. Yet the second Progressive President, FDR, erected an ever more powerful “state” through his “New Deal” - much to the approval of Fascist leader Mussolini in Italy. Indeed, we all know how Fascists view government power and scope. So overall, FDR and the Fascists of his era were essentially sharing Collectivist “best practices.”
Unfortunately, from the standpoint of the Classic Progressive leaders, the end of WWII exposure of the National Socialists’ concentration camps forced eugenics out of fashion, at least in polite company. However, Collectivists of all stripes, including those of the Progressive branch, never lost their ardor for achieving an all-powerful global government, administered by an elite of superior human beings, lording over the inferior masses beneath. For their own good, of course. Even if they are too stupid to appreciate what their betters were doing for them - but then again, what else can you expect from “deplorables”?
So for the Progressive leaders, how to continue the mission, now that open eugenics was off of the table? Strategic salvation came in the form of what today is referred to as “Cultural Marxism” - the purposeful and anarchistic deconstruction of Western culture and norms, executed so as to pave the way to build a secular utopia upon the societal rubble. Its originators and proponents included Antonio Gramsci, the Communist theorist from Italy; Germans like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno (of the “Frankfurt School” that eventually set up shop at Columbia University); and “American” Saul Alinsky of “Rules for Radicals” notoriety. (Yes, Progressivism is a branch of Collectivism, which is international in scope and menace.)
The post-WWII Progressives - henceforth we’ll refer to them as “Neo-Progressives” - knew a good thing when they saw it, and have run with Cultural Marxism ever since. In doing so, they’ve shifted Progressivism’s emphasis from “White” racism to a sort of “egalitarian racism.” That is, Progressives now pretend to believe that all races are “equal,” and that they are the champions of the “minority” and “underprivileged” races - Blacks and the so-called Hispanics “race” in particular. (It deserves mention that Progressives’ “advocacy” for ever-multiplying categories of gender and sexual proclivities is also part of its Cultural Marxism strategy.) Neo-Progressivism is egalitarian in the sense that any “race” but “White” is welcomed aboard, so long as it will be useful toward advancing the agenda.
Note that both the Classic Progressives and Neo-Progressives always have, and always will categorize people by group, particularly by race; and do so in a manner diametrically opposed to our founding principles, i.e., “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator…” The Neo-Progressive leadership - still to this day almost exclusively comprised of elite-class Whites - for public purposes portrays “Whites” as the privileged boogeyman.
Thus, Neo-Progressives appear to embrace the opposite of the “White Supremacy” that their Classical Progressive forefathers embraced. Yet all the while all Progressive leaders have embraced and pursued the same ultimate goal - that of a global, Godless utopia governed by a ruling elite of the “best and brightest” (i.e., them). While the White Supremacist “means to the ends” may have been flipped on its head - at least for public consumption - the ultimate goal has remained unaltered. Judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their individual character - and encouraging useful idiots to do likewise - and herding them into proverbial Collectivist cattle cars of the victimhood train, is politically useful for Neo-Progressives.
“Antifa” and “Black Lives Matter” are Neo-Progressive cadres; while the KKK types are Classical Progressive cadres (note that the KKK started as an arm of the Democrat Party, in many respects the Reconstruction era’s “Antifa”). The battles between them that we just witnessed in Charlottesville are not unlike what occurred in the 1930’s - two forms of Collectivism duking it out for dominance as the form that rules - only today it’s an intramural squabble between two forms of Progressivism. Back in the 1930’s it was Fascism vs. Communism duking it out - in Germany and Italy Fascism controlled through WWII, while Communism prevailed in the USSR. After WWII, Communism (and its adolescent sibling, Socialism) prevailed in the USSR, China and much of Europe. Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, before and after WWII, Progressivism continued its incremental but determined “fundamental transformation” advance through the United States of America.
Today’s street-level Neo-Progressives believe that they are “fighting” to achieve “social justice,” while street-level Classic Progressives believe that they are “fighting” to achieve “White Supremacy.” Both cadres are useful idiots, unwittingly in service of their Progressive overlords, who are manipulating them to inflame and irreparably divide our country. Seeking to wrench us from e pluribus unum - and ultimately intending to achieve the Cultural Marxists’ dream of societal deconstruction.
After which, the street-level folks will be encouraged to lock-arms in solidarity, as they become indistinguishable equals, human widgets within Progressivism’s proletariat under the new global order.
P Lewin you can certainly spew out paragraphs but I'm afraid your a paranoid ideologue.
@@loriprice457 that dismissive response adds nothing. There are a lot of ideas in this, and very well communicated. Debate or comment on the ideas, or...I guess it's your prerogative, to just "spew" out a one sentence Ad hominem.
@@loriprice457 I think so too.
Sounds like a robot squabble (so many useful idiots)... Interesting reading, needs a closing paragraph?
"My aircraft." Thanks for that.
Yes. Thank you. This is the operative passage: "The fact that we have become an existential threat to ourselves slots in very nicely with the enemy we face together. We have seen the enemy and it is us. Awareness of that can trigger the kind of unity you're talking about. The problem is, that narrative, which I believe is true, that we have become an existential threat to ourselves, that narrative is in conflict with those who are most powerful in civilization who would like to keep it running as it is because it's feeding them pretty darn well.That story, even though it should unify us, it happens that there are a few holdouts and they are the most powerful people and they're selling a different story."
And further, "Evolution screwed up. It handed us the tools to recognize that we don't have to value the game that it is playing. We can now repurpose the hardware to something that is actually worthwhile." Consciousness, reason, empathy and the ability to say, "My aircraft."
I can hear JBP's voice speaking so clearly throughout these comments. It's almost as if he's here. Lol. Oh, wait. On further reading it seems that Sam's tribe is here too. Gotta love that Bret can do that.
I respect Bret a lot, and he is such a nice fellow, but his view is too reductionistic, because he doesn't take into account the spiritual aspect of human beings. So while the biological aspect is as he says, the spiritual evolution pulls us in the opposite way - towards realizing our union with the whole, and developing a higher state of consciousness where we actually want the best for everyone...basically developing all the virtues and sacrificing ourselves in the spirit of service. One of the ultimate examples would be Jesus, and I say this as a Hindu and Buddhist. But yeah...he's explaining only one side of the coin.
His existential version of "shock and awe." Perhaps this lovey-spiri comes after?
Brett is one of the top minds of our time. Hands down, debate over
What’s wrong with universal basic income as a means of letting people feel as if they are immersed in abundance.
How is the money worth anything if the people didn't produce anything to earn it? Also, there has to be more to it, it can't be enough money to choose to be idle. People are not healthy without struggle and strife.
The answer is only found in the family. That's where we can begin to answer the problems with Society. .
The family is the archetypal route that paved the way for the development of advanced civilization..The family is encoded in religion. The concept of us being able to alter the encoded imprint of our destructive selves is what for me religion was designed to do.
The issues in today's world of mass immigration and multiculturalism is probably asking too much of our genetic tribal imprint
pro ton
It was the Family and Religion that was the safety net before the welfare state .
The welfare state destroyed all this and now the government is Daddy to all those fatherless children .
Most of the wests problems are directly coming from feminism .
As you don't see any of this in cultures that still values the family even when they live in the west
P Lewin Amen.
Interesting. Never thought of it this way but in retrospect it makes sense. We see the West shifting past the traditional ideals of family and we are starting to see the results of this shift. Ironically, many things we have today would not be if not for moving past tradition, but the question is at what cost, and at what point is it going too far?
Agree
Damn feminism. Starting all those wars. Spilling all that oil. Creating all that inequality...
Big love to you guys - brilliant work. Are we reaching out to Dr Peterson to say there are people who want to help? Also, are you aware of the work being done on what is know as your second genome - the microbiome in you gut and the influence they have over us which apparently is bigger then we ever thought? There are 30 trillion human cells and 39 trillion bacterial cells, we are only 43% human and on a DNA level we are 1% - there are 20,000 human genes and 2-20 million microbial genes. It's the next big thing in the medical world. I've just spent the last 12 month making an effort to feed all mine well to see if they do indeed change the way you think and feel - it has been utterly amazing and truly transformational. Most people on a standard diet, high in meat, dairy and processed food have a very diminished microbiome which make there immune system weak and make their bugs fearful of infection - fearful of others outside their group. Change your diet and this can change the world - maybe!
I think we have already started solving the economic issue of oscillating between boom and bust. We could use a global currency like BitCoin that matches population and productivity and is fair cross boarder... and we have ideas emerging such as a Resource Based Economy. It's just that too many people benefit from boom-bust volatility. And the fatal cancery idea that we need perpetual growth.
Bret parts from so many axioms that are not coherent with his materialistic world view.
This needs to be discussed in length with Weinstein...interesting tidbit though...thank you!
One wonders whether Bret's understanding of human evolution from a strictly materialist POV could be remedied with a proper dose of psilocybin. Jordan Peterson remarked that Sam Harris should have upped his dosage of the stuff. I mean, how far can a materialist envision a future for humanity when their underlying premise is slated for extinction? "Architecturing the future" reeks of mechanistic thinking. What we need are psychonauts and visionaries familiar with deeper layers of consciousness.
Yep mechanistic thinking is not in line with how the universe actually works, it's impossible to keep track of all the variables that will ensue, this is why dictatorships die relatively quickly, 100% order is impossible. An artist cannot "consciously" paint, the process of creation is dominated by the faster unconscious. We are much more likely to be succesful as a species if we remain in a state of continuous evolution and mutation than to attempt to instill a rigid mechanistic morality on to ourselves. This is akin to a dog chasing it's own tail or the uroboros, chasing a state of complete order will subsequently create a symmetrical amount of chaos. It's better to accept the state that we are in and enjoy the simple pleasures of life than to obsess over social engineering and "correcting" our path. I see a kind of weird transhumanist glee in Bret which I have not seen before this convo.
@@MrMadalien Great insight. Yes, it does seem an odd side of Bret I hadn't seen before. It may be an occupational hazard that Evo-psych scholars like Bret tend to assume tenets of materialist philosophy as unquestionably true. Otherwise, I do appreciate their insights when they stick to their field.
Great point Tom 🍋. I suspect the bret shock n' awe approach is correlative with the frustration science-psycho-nauts have with the wider, less exposed more sheltered, identified....
Even if he is right, the message to 'reject your mission' will surely never sell to the wider population.
Perhaps, though it's true that humans get tribal, jealous and selfish when there is a percieved lack and that's simply not the world we live in. However, this is the reality for those who lost out to globalisation, they are in the minority but they are still important because they'll throw the breaks and halt everybody else if they get forgotten. That's likely what's happened, but that doesn't mean we can't solve the problems.
Humans are conditially tribalistic, which means we need to think about our conditions and how we view them.
Muslims would cross that bridge if they could ever reach it...(part of the no reformational history argument...).
Perhaps genes & ideas are intimately related !
So, we are that robot, on that mission? And Bret is saying "we just reject the programming?" Well, that's not much of a robot then. If we are free to obey or disobey the programming, then we aren't a robot.
I dunno, the whole analogy seems to be weak and this topic needs a lot more introspection into "what are we?" Bret is a bit idealistic "all we need to do is decide not to genocide." Really? That's it? I think it's a bit more complicated then that.
Shadilay I don't think he is saying that we are free to disobey. You can't disobey the fact that your body needs food. But you can recognize that every hunger urge does not need to be satisfied. It is a trick the program is playing on us. Eat now eat now eat now. Recognizing the program, does not invalidate the program.
The program works. It just needs to be managed in our time of abundance.
me darby Exactly. Rejecting the programming isn't necessarily implying that the programming no longer exists. It is simply stating that the programming is complex and its underlying laws are still followed, even if they are unnoticed (because of the complexity of daily life). You can force yourself not to do something like eat, sleep, drink. That is still within the confines of your "programming", you are just deciding to act out that particular choice later. It's a matter of priorities. Some lead to better or worse consequences down the line. It's the level of experience and reasoning that defines and actualizes those consequences.
I don't think he was speaking about eating and the like. He's talking about our programming to prefer our biological children over any others. And extend from that, our tribe over another tribe. As for the former, I don't think we can just "ignore the program." He might say "I wouldn't care if my child got switched at birth", but it's real easy to think idealistically about that. Lets see it happen then tell us how he ignored his "programming". Specific tribalism isn't programmed, as far as I know. I guess he may know better, but tribalism seems to stem from the environment, so it's not the same thing at all.
Whatever it was he was saying, it didn't come through well. I thought he was going down the Sam Harris deterministic road by suggesting we are a slave to our genes, but then we can just ignore the things we don't like.
Shadilay our programming includes both genocide and cooperation. We are starting to understand the code well enough to conciously decide collectively which program we choose to run. I'd also guess that Bret is saying the idea is simple, but with full understanding it's implementation is rather less so. I thought he clarified a lot of his ideas quite succinctly here.
The analogy I think was fine.
The difference here is we get our values from our minds, but our programming from our genetic code. Our values CAN override our genetic programming.
Being aware that most of our behavior and instincts and feelings are actually a program, instead of being real is almost a scientific way to arrive at what the Mindfulness Mediators or the Buddhists talk about. Being aware that most of what constitutes the self is actually an illusion.
That realization is quite helpful, and it is probally the core of what it means to be 'wise', and I define 'wise' loosely and in the sense of 'having sufficient will to resist participating in never ending social catastrophes that have nothing to do with what my body is telling me they have to do with.'
Bret won’t admit that he is taking a theistic view to counter the material reality he is aware of.
But he's not.
What project is Bret talking about ?
Holy Fuck. This was Amazing.
I’m looking forward to Bret opening the first maternity hospital which randomly allocates babies to mothers.
the interviewer made me have visions of soros. we can retain a sense of cultural / national identity with be ethno nationalists.
much better to proffer global ideals of behaviour we can all hold / aspire to than to become some global homogenised hive.
The tricky part is that transitioning in to a literal hive mind would be akin to total destruction. This is the issue with the "anti-ego" sentiment. Sure, ego-death is something that we should all strive for to a certain extent, we should transcend our selfish impulses, but the endgame of 100% ego-death is physical death itself. What I'm trying to say is that we should only strive to remove the ego where it's really necessary, because we're at a point of imbalance where the ego is overly emphasized and we don't know how to moderate it, once it's moderated it must stop there, because the other pole is precisely the hive mind which is ironically symmetrical to the unbridled ego (1 hive mind = 1 ego). Transcending evolution entirely is exactly the same as dying. I agree with Bret on a lot of things but this segment just seemed foolishly utopian, and reminded me of the gnostic practice of suicide to transcend the material world. We cannot transcend the material world, we need to marry the material with the spiritual, some kind of 50/50 relationship.
These totally don't sound like a couple mad scientists, planning the next major psyop, to engineer society. Psycho? NOT! (P.S. There's no such thing as smallest meaning. The Universe isn't quantized. It's really 3D, just like it seems. Time is simply a method for observing the ratios between multiple series of events.)
I think I binge watched too many "intellectuals" recently.
We don't need to overcome our programming, that's pretty much impossible without genetic modification. What we need is wise rulers who know how to organize society in a way that human nature is able to express itself in a way that benefits the majority. I believe propertarianism is the answer because unlike evry other political ideology, I haven't been able to find anything it is wrong about.
Didn't we already pretty much modify our programming (agri revolution etc.) And the rest of Natural genomes /ecosystem (continued extinction etc.? PSA en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarianism
Wise rulers? Agreed, yet they must stem from within, where we ourselves do not become useful idiots !
Let's repurpose! Xo great minds think alike! I love your abilities to make it clear .
Jamie Wheal is offering a false choice. Either "forward" toward globalism or "backward" toward tribalism, by which he means ethnic nationalism. What he is missing is the tribalism (if that is what it is properly called) of ideology. In the American case, while there was active ethnic tribalism from the very beginning of the nation, including slavery of blacks, genocide of aboriginals, ostracization of certain ethnic immigrants, the idea of America was to build the structure, the context to be able to eliminate that, and that is what the Constitution is all about. It has taken a long time to make progress on that front, but looking back, massive progress has been made.
That is the ideology that constitutes "American Nationalism" and when it is perceived to be in jeopardy by groups of Americans who see loss of sovereignty as a direct threat to the ideals of the Constitution, whether well applied at any given time or not, they react by voting in a "populist" (a vacuous term) who promises to put America first. By that they mean the ideals of America, like free speech, freedom of religion, etc.
BG: "Az bez 1 moga, no samo sus edno ne moga ."
Entire comment section focused on Bret; his shock n' awe method here sums the frustration sciencey-psycho-nauts have with the religo-poli-cause-identified....
Bret has a very NWO tone to his speech in this video, I don't know what to think about it.
Comment
Response
Matt Babb Every time I write an actual comment, I find myself having a pointless debate.
So I try to help the algorithms in this way :)
Response to response to comment 😆
Interesting conversation though I have strong disagreements with Brett
I'm sorry but Bret is way out beyond his skis IMHO.
Too short!
This game of Cosmic Spelling Bee is all tracked on a big Selfish Ledger kept by Google & Friends,
and it ends in genocide, the directed kind.
Ry P there is hope..Google is a friend 😊
excuse me?
Be kind rewind! Most of the seven billon souls on the planet are more than three generations removed from Bret's the world of plenty. Naiveté writ large.
I love Brett, but "architecting..." Aaaaaaccccckkkkk!
Yep.
I'm disappointed with Bret in this video. As a psychologist, I found myself in total agreement with his analysis of his situation as it unfolded. As a woman, I'm disappointed in another man jumping from an excellent analysis to an abstract solution as though his head could imagine solutions that could be implemented. This is a Marxist way of thinking. Marx was a brilliant analyst but Communism sucks. My favourite analyst of global political reality is Noam Chomsky but like all Marxists, his solutions suck, especially for women.
Suppose God decided women were to be the gender to produce offspring. This means less independence and high cost of sex and lack of income opportunities. The biology model already sucks. The proposed solution long preceded Marx, who got it from Plato, yet I still see it as unpalatable and undesirable and unworkable. Still, the discussion must be expanded from biology to politics and economics and social engineering and then good reasons can be considered as to why policies should be considered or rejected. Best to allow all ideas and assess them with reasons rather than dismissing it as Marxist.
After the Bikini test, Teilhard exclaimed that the new bombs “show a humanity which is at peace both internally and externally.” And he added beatifically, “they announce the coming of the spirit on earth.” (L’Avenir de l’homme) realphysics.blogspot.com/2011/09/inhumanity-of-teilhard-de-chardin.html
Also "marchands de lumière" - L’arrivée à maturité du projet universaliste dont témoigne cette stratégie mondiale s’appuie sur
la foi en la toute-puissance de la science pour assurer le progrès humain, foi qui devient à
partir du début des années 1920 le pilier du projet philanthropique.
hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/65/25/89/PDF/RF_et_universalisme_US.pdf
The alpha, the omega... Go on. Perhaps tied to humanism, carries the theistic story.
Americanism not globalism!
Americans are tiresome blowhards!
Yeah, Polite Q, cool yer jets, braheim ! But your point to the OP is relevant, pissing on authoritarian tribalist meritocracy, etc. !
Bret needs to cite someone, or cite research or give examples of tribalism arising from lack of growrh.
That's a pretty understood idea. Demagogues and populism rise up during economically deprived times. Lots of examples in history.