MN Book Discussion: Al-Muqaddimah (Part 2)

So so basically, this is a continuation of our previous discussion where we talked about how historians get things wrong, you know, and why why they do that. One of the reasons Ibn Khaldun mentions is that when they talk about history, they often do not understand the purpose of of an event. They don't really know why it happened and under what, you know, circumstances. And the second thing is, obviously, everybody has these internal biases. You know, they don't put to a party or ideology or what have you.

And that clouds their judgment and objectivity. So that's in in a nutshell the the point.

And then you were you were asking a question about maybe examples of things that we've misunderstood in history.

Well, not not just history actually because, I mean, we often talk about in Middle Nation content talks how, let's say, you have these political analysts who, you know, read about a piece of news and they completely miss the point or they misinterpret or they create a narrative that suits their ideology or interests. Right? So that's how history is written Where, I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I can only speak about English language history and commentary analysis and so on. Because as an American, I'm pretty much monolingual. I can speak a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but I'm only really comfortable in English.

In in The US, and again, this is I can also mostly only speak about American history. In The United States, we we learn we grew up learning mythology. We learned a fairy tale about America. It's folklore, basically. What what what passes for history is basically folklore.

From the from the time of the so called pilgrims until, you know, know, until until today. The history so called history that we learned is is nothing but narrative. It's the the historian's job is narrative construction in service to power, the power structure, the institutions of power, and so on, and and to try to create social cohesion and compliance with the with the needs of the of the power dynamics in society. So this then becomes a a a sort of cycle where on the one hand, have people who, like, say like, you were talking about analysts analyzing current events or policies or what have you. Today, well, they grew up with that same history.

They grew up hearing that same history. So they have their own version of how they think the world works, which again, talking about The US, and I don't have any reason to believe that it's any different in The UK or throughout most of Europe. You've you've learned a narrative which tells you about your society and about your institutions and about your leaders that is almost completely inaccurate. And then you try to interpret the world in a way that or through the through the filter, through the lens of that narrative that has been built through history, and then you inevitably will end up misunderstanding or not understanding almost anything that's happening in the world today. And then as I was starting to say before, you have what you can sort of classify as oppositional historians who have correctly identified that the narrative that we've been fed of history, American history, European history, western so called civilizational history, and so on, that that narrative is a false narrative, that it's full of half truths or exaggerations or straight up falsehoods.

And then they want to counter that hopefully by presenting the the real history. But what they end up doing because they've also developed this pattern or developed the habit rather of approaching everything as a form of narrative creation. So then now they are not actually presenting an objective history to try to correct the mistakes of the history that they've been given or the the the mainstream history that the society has given rather than presenting the objective history as it actually was as best they can, they create a a counter narrative. So they then become guilty of doing the same thing that the mainstream historians are guilty of, which is to just falsify, exaggerate, engage in half truths, and so forth just to try to counter the false narrative of the mainstream historians. So then you end up just getting two false histories.

There's a little bit of truth in this one, a little bit of truth in that one, but you have to try to figure out what's really going on. It's it's it's it creates a very a habit of dishonesty in the intellectual sphere overall. And then, of course, this will spill over into anyone who's doing analysis or commentary and so on.

Yes. Karin, you want to try something?

Yeah. Yeah. No. I just wanted to add that I think the, like, the history is a really easy tool for, you know, the narrative shapers, narrative makers. Like, you can lie about current events.

Right? But people see what's happening and, you know, can somehow okay. I guess, you know, most people are propagandized, and it's easy to somehow shape the narrative even in present times. But when you shape the present historically, you know, when people were not there, it's very easy to make use of that up to your standards or up to who we how you wanna use it. Right?

So that's why I think, like, history is very susceptible to this type of narrative shaping because it's very easy to go back and just add some sticker to the thing that happened. Right? And say, justify what you're doing currently or how you view yourself currently. Right? Because it's very easy to lie about stuff that people are not present at rather than lie about stuff where people are present.

Yeah. Absolutely. It's it's easy to do and it's really necessary to do for the power structure. For those for those in power, it's very necessary to do because it's just like it's just like, you know, if you put it on an individual basis. If someone is say say you catch someone doing something that that that maybe they're not supposed to do or that looks very suspect or that looks very dodgy, what's the first thing they do?

They explain. Well, this happened and this happened and this happened. And and it's not what it looks like. I can explain. That's what their version of history is.

It's not what it looks like. I can explain. I can explain everything. And so this is what they do as a nation. This is what they do as a society.

This is what they do as a civilization. You look at what the situation is now in the West and, well, there's a lot of accusations to be made. And the West collectively in the in the in the realm of history, the realm of historians, basically, their job is to say, it's not what it looks like. I can explain. Just let me just let me explain.

And that's what they do. They just spin the narrative to try to justify everything that they've done and everything that as the present situation currently is, they try to explain it away. That's their job. So it's very necessary to explain and to control the understanding of what came before so that you can explain and justify the present.

Actually, you know, that's that's something we we see a lot in, like, using historical events or historical figures in propagating or, you know, crafting a narrative. The author in in Muqaddim says that, you know, when he talks about why historians get things wrong, he says that people as a rule approach great and high ranking persons with praise. They embellish conditions and spread their fame. The information made public in such cases is not truthful. And like, to be honest, like, you go online today, you have these, like, old rights accounts, like, you know, western supremacists, whatnot, that glorify certain historical figures.

You know, they as the author mentions, they embellish their achievements, their their character, their, you know, their writings, whatever, in order to to craft a narrative. So I saw a couple of days ago short, like, a clip a video that was supposed to be about the so called white culture that, you know, glorifies the Roman Empire, the the Holy Roman Empire saying that, you know, we we had this great thing in the past and it was, you know, all white and we know we kind of have to go back to it, which is a clear instance of crafting a narrative, right, and preparing people for some sort of cultural revolution and whatnot. So that example is what I could think of using certain historical figures, periods, empires, whatnot, in order to justify your current or present day ideology and way of thinking, I suppose.

And they keep doing the same. You know? Like, the whole Renaissance movement and enlightenment was exactly, you know, oh, shit. You know, we we messed up these last thousand and three hundred years or something. Let's go back to the, you know, Roman Empire or the Greek or something that it it was better there.

Right? And you can see the narrative, like, four hundred years later just being the same again.

It's it's childish. It is childish, honestly. That's all I

can say. Right? You know?

And I and I think I think that you're gonna see this more and more in the West, in Europe and in America. You're gonna see this more and more because as your present becomes more and more dismal and your prospects for the future become more and more dismal, you will, you know, just like just like some you know, America America today is really like that that that guy whose life peaked in high school. He was the high school quarterback, and now it's, you know, fifteen, twenty years later, and he's meeting, you know, the kids that he used to bully, and they have good jobs, and they have happy lives, and he's still reminiscing about when he was, you know, scored the the the the touchdown back in the high school game. They they they will inevitably try to relive a past that never really existed, but they'll they will they will, you know, the their glory days, they imagine glory days, they'll cling on to them. I mean, I remember when I lived in The UK for a little while, it was it it's an exaggeration to say it was every night, but it felt like every night.

They were running documentaries about World War two, about what the British dealt with during World War two, what England, you know, during the during the the Blitz and so on, and how they survived and how tough they were and how great they were. And it's like, no one's thinking about World War two but you. Nobody's thinking about that but you. But you keep having to talk about it because your present is very dismal and your future is very dismal, and you're getting weaker and weaker by the year and getting more and more irrelevant by the year. So you have to remind yourself of these fairy tales of your past and pretend, you know, just I mean, even even Rome, when they talk about Rome, you know, they pretend that they were that that the founders of Rome were raised by wolves.

They the whole thing is based on fairy tales. And then and then the the Rome was based on a fairy tale, and then so called Western civilization is based on the fairy tale that they were inspired by Rome and they're following Rome even though Rome was was lost in the dustbin of history until the Muslims reminded them of what Rome was and what Athens was and what their philosophers said and did and so forth. They forgot about all of that. They they they completely overlooked that. Now they wanna remember it and and and pretend that they have these these past glories.

And this this tendency is gonna just intensify over the next few years and decades because their their position in the world is gonna decline increasingly over the next few years. So they're gonna really, really cast their minds back to this imaginary past when they were great and wonderful.

Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. It is all it is all propaganda at this point and there's no critical thought behind it. Now with that said, I don't really want to talk too long on this because we do have some other stuff to cover here.

So I'd like to move on to chapter one where the author talks about human civilization in general and this is sort of an introduction to the to the topic. There were a number of things mentioned here, and I'd like to draw our attention to some relevant relevant quotes that I found to be to be particularly interesting. So I'm going to read one of them, and I'd like to to get your your commentary on it. Basically, Ibn Khaldun says that the power of the individual human being is not sufficient for him to obtain, in this case, the food he needs and does not provide him with as much food as we as he requires to live. And in another instance, he says that man cannot live without the social organization.

So without society, without some sort of group feeling. Right? How do we make sense of this, especially given the current the current dogma in like most western countries where everybody raves about individualism, individual freedom, individual agency and so on?

Well, I mean, I think that statement of Ibn Khaldun is self evident to be true. I mean, as much as they talk Here's where you have to understand what's the real thinking behind the emphasis on individualism in the West when when the practical reality is exactly as Ibn Khaldun said. I mean, and even even someone if they're so called, you know, off the grid or or what have you, they're still relying upon countless other people for their for their existence, for their life, for the food they eat, the water they drink, for the tools they use, for the the house that they live in, or or what have you. There's there's no way to avoid our interconnectedness. And so when you when you emphasize individuality, it's basically trying to create vulnerability in people, atomize atomize people, and make them vulnerable and make them alienated and estranged from the the very interconnectedness and the web of society in which they are enmeshed inevitably and unavoidably and in inextricably.

But to create a psychological disconnect and an emotional disconnect and a mental disconnect from all of the other people who actually are making their lives possible or making everything in their life possible. So it's kind of it's kind of a a combination of factors in my opinion. It creates it tries to instill vulnerability, I e, to make the the the person feel alone and feel, you know, that yeah. That they're on their own isolated. To make the person feel isolated and to make them also there's a there's a level there of ingratitude that is also instilled.

There's an ingratitude and a lack of appreciation a lack of acknowledgement in in an individual who actually believes that they are self sufficient and independent when in fact everything about their life is made possible by the entirety of the community in which they live. Even at this point, it's even made possible by people very, very far flung away from them. But it so it creates a kind of a a lack of appreciation, a lack of acknowledgement in that person to to to really appreciate the reality that their life is a part of the whole and that they're not, you know, existing in a vacuum. I mean, the the the this this emphasis on individuality and on the individual and sovereign individual and this and that and the other is obviously false. It's obviously a fake mentality.

It's a fake perception of your position in the world. And even even you can you can argue that this creates a kind of a a a cognitive dissonance because you're not you're not actually understanding your place in the world as it really is and what makes what makes the reality of your life possible. If you are convinced in some way that you're some kind of, you know, sovereign individual existing in isolation, existing in a vacuum And and having this mentality, like I say, it ends up making you quite vulnerable. But what what Ibn Khaldun is talking about is just the reality of life. It's it this is a an objectively true statement.

So if you're trying to create a perception in people's minds that this objectively true statement is a subjective statement and it doesn't have to be this way, then you're trying to put in people's minds an unnatural perception that actually puts them at odds with the with the reality of the world that they live in.

Yeah. Exactly. If I can just add, I think, like, they realize that there's this dependency upon others, but they view this interconnectedness as something that should serve me and my desires. Right? That's like it's just about the perspective of this dependency.

Right? Like, they view it even this invisible handle, the market and so on all of their economic theories. It's just really selfish theories where everybody should follow his own desires, and everybody would be better off. Right? That's their premise.

That's how they view how the economy should work or how people should decide about matters. What I think our perspective for us Muslims, right, thinking, you know, like, Right? This is the view where, like, the dependency is viewed as something helping others and beneficial for others. It's not just about me. For them, the interconnectedness is just to serve me.

Right? That's the difference, in my opinion, between like, because you can see that they understand some integrations. Right? They they wanna integrate. They wanna have trade between each other.

They wanna have this connectedness even with, like, this European project and so on. So there's this sense that they understand that cooperation leads to benefit, but they view it only as a benefit for me. Right? Like, I will join you, but just to get something out of it. Right?

It's not just joining as a point of joining and trying to work together on something.

Right. But but but but also this it's it's important to note that that this is only really pushed on the population that sort of the the, you know, the general masses, that they should be individual and so forth. Whereas you have I mean, look just look at, like, for example, BlackRock. How many how many companies have come together? How many investors have come together?

They cooperate with each other. BlackRock, State Street, you know, this is absolute coordination and and communal action. This is cohesion among the the the private sector and the and the elite sector. They absolutely know how to coordinate and work together and believe in working and coordinating together. But they want they want the the masses not to be that way because that leads to social movements.

That leads to, for example, unions. That leads to, you know, protest movements and so forth. That leads to organizing. So you need to you need to cut people off from that psychologically and mentally to make everybody feel that they're on their own. Like I said I said in a in a in a recent video, you have this you you you promote the dog eat dog mentality to people who are the equivalent of poodles surrounded by jackals and hyenas and wolves.

So you want you want the you want the weak to feel that they are alone whereas the the the strong operate in packs. So, you know, the the the reasoning behind this is what is quite clear. The logic behind this is quite clear. They want the people to be vulnerable. And this is why you see also, you know, you have you have the this what they're they're they're calling it now loneliness epidemic.

You know, you have these mental health crises and so forth in the West. All of this is based on the atomization and the isolation and the alienation and estrangement of this wonderful rugged individualism. That's all fake. Because again, like, if there's a if there's a if there's a crisis, if there's an emergency, if there's a a disaster, people always naturally come together. They they naturally come together and work together and help each other, help their neighbors.

They they come out and volunteer and so forth to help clean up or to help get people out of flooded areas and so on. People people will naturally do this. So you have to do everything to try to like, okay. That's that's allowed to a to a certain extent. We allow that to happen when there's an emergency, But we don't want you to do that in a normal situation.

We don't want people to come together and work together in a normal situation because then that will disrupt the ability of the of the power structure to maintain its hierarchical control.

And I I think that's not very controversial. I mean, when you talk about the the need for a social organization and group cohesion, those are pretty basic principles in, I would say, most of the world. Mean, as you mentioned, it does seem to be an issue in the so called developed world where people live in luxury and they probably forget what makes humans great. Right? It's cooperation, it's sacrifice for each other, etcetera.

However, I think the next couple of quotes are going to what's the expression in English? Ruffles are feathers, I suppose. It can be a bit controversial for the modern ear where the author talks about the necessity for royal authority and the necessity for order hierarchical, clear hierarchies and restraining forces, which for, you know, the the modern ear, the the contemporary man, it sounds very hostile. Right? You're you're limiting my freedom.

You are restricting my my my rights and whatnot. But basically, the the author makes the following point about the necessity for restraint. He says that when mankind has achieved social organization, as we have stated, and when civilization in the world has thus become a fact, people need someone to exercise a restraining influence and keep them apart for aggressiveness and injustice are in the animal nature of man. The person who exercises a restraining influence, therefore, must be one of themselves. He must dominate them and have power and authority over them so that no one of them will be able to attack another.

This is the meaning of royal authority. It has thus become clear that royal authority is a natural quality of man which is absolutely necessary to mankind. And then later on he says, they, meaning, you know, the people follow one who is distinguished as the leader by his natural characteristics and body. What do we make of these propositions? Yes, Omar?

Go. Yes. Everyone. Can you hear me?

We can hear you clearly. Go ahead.

Yeah. So to be honest, we have to I mean, at least I always consider the writings of our scholars or our famous writers through the Islamic lens. So when when he when the the point about the lowlands and and so on and so forth, it, you know, indirectly contrasts with the part about I mean, they they they seek out, you know, other peoples to dominate, while as we seek out other peoples to to to get to know each other and to integrate. Second thing is when he says that people are naturally inclined for violence, I do not believe that he means all people or that he means that human beings are naturally inclined. I could be wrong, but I do believe that, again, in in our Islamic lens, we have the saying that in Allah Quran that Allah knows that some people are only to be stopped in their heels by the by the the notion of power and not by just, you know, or invitation to to goodness and kindness because they simply will not heed.

That's just that's just how they they are, and that's how things go. And in another in the Quran, Like, if if it were if it were not for Allah pushing some people by others, then places of worship would be demolished. Meaning that some people, not all, will always have to be put in their places by the notion of power or by the by the knowledge that the other party will always be ready for them if they attempt any violent tricks or any violent attacks. So I think that's what muhalun is talking about, that there could be a lot of people who are inherently good or inherently nonviolent or inherently willing to follow the sharia, willing to follow the law, and willing to cooperate. And there are those, you know, low lives who will only be held in check by the notion of power.

And so that's what I think he he might be referring to. I might be projecting some, yeah, some very positive outlook on the on the sentence, but that's what I what what came to mind when I when I heard it. So

Well, I I would say, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the statement that aggression is is that every that that it's part of our our our nature. I don't I don't think that's deniable. He's not saying that we are aggressive by nature, but we have the capacity for aggression, suddenly. Every person has the capacity for aggression and violence. And I think that just because it's in our nature, it doesn't make it inevitable that we act in an aggressive and a violent way.

But you have to have something to restrain that that impulse whether that is from an external authority, whether that's from an external power that is preventing you or it is your own character, your own culture, your own obviously, your own religious belief, your own religious understanding, your own cultivation of morals and ethics and principles and values that that in in an individual that suppresses the violent or aggressive impulse when it when when the when the violent impulse is unjustified, when the when the violent impulse would be aggressive or hostile as opposed to defensive or reactive or mobilized for the sake of justice and order. But on for an individual, they have they have their own other characteristics. They have a hierarchy, you can say, of characteristics within their own personality that will suppress the the the the impulse, the natural impulse to violence and aggression. So you have a hierarchy of authority within yourself, which is the like jihad and nafs, where you are suppressing your own ness. Are suppressing your own negative qualities or destructive quality qualities within the individual.

And then it it this just broadens out onto the onto the the the level of a state or the scale of a of a a nation. The same thing applies. Right? If you this is why this is why I talk incessantly about the fact that the West never civilized because they have not done that with their people. They haven't done that on an individual basis, and they haven't done it on a on the basis as a nation, on the scale of a nation.

They haven't taught their people to repress and to suppress their violent, aggressive, hostile impulses. Whereas other civilizations, and it's not only the Muslims, other civilizations, in fact, most civilizations in the world that can actually bear the name civilization have successfully done that. They've understood that violence and aggression are negative and that they that those should be suppressed on the individual level and on the level of the nation. In the West, they have not done that neither on the national level or on the the level of a of a state nor have they done it on the individual level. This is why you have so much violence and you have so much abuse and so on and so much crime in those countries, particularly my country.

And you have that, as I say, on the individual basis, you have it on the family basis, you have it on the on the city, town, communal society basis, and then you have it on the on the the level of the nation. Because this isn't something that they ever ever actually suppressed. They never learned to suppress it on the individual level. If if the if the society actually quote unquote civilizes, then the then the necessity of external repression of violence and aggression will be less. But when you when you don't civilize your your people and the individuals themselves don't understand that they're supposed to actually suppress these violent impulses, then, of course, external suppression will be more and more necessary.

But when you have a when you have a society like the ones in the West where this isn't even on a on a national scale, it's not even suppressed on a national scale. This is when you have a serious problem. But, excuse me, I don't I don't see there's any any anything wrong or mistaken about the the statement that aggression is part of human nature. It certainly is.

Karim, you wanted to add a few points as well?

Yeah. I wanted what I think brother Omar had expressed earlier. I'm not sure if you wanted to say something or if it's just language.

No. But, yeah, I think you can go in then. If Nayil don't mind, I will go after you, InshaAllah.

Okay. Yeah. Exactly. I wanted to mention just this point that brother Shalid mentioned. Like, this season, the approach of our scholars, you know, they do admit that we have these predispositions, I can say, or, like, a word to permit.

A lot, you know, greater than us anger, greater than us desires. It's about the balance. Right? It's all about balancing these qualities. It's not about deleting them or suppressing them, like, without anger.

You know, people would be cowards. Right? We need to have self defense. We need to be standing for what's right, standing for justice. Right?

With the desire to know we need to reproduce. But the problem is when it gets out of balance. Right? And that's where there should be if you cannot manage it on your own, someone will have to manage it for you. Right?

So I think that's the most important aspect. Like, it's not about ignoring and I think even the problems in the West stem from this sense that they are somehow deleting this inherent nature or trying to show it in a different light than it actually is, and what is the purpose of a human being and how he should approach it. Right? And they will tell you that everyone is, you know, peaceful and everything. Like, they keep on changing the reality of things, and this leads to more problems than if you address it properly.

Right? That's what I'm trying to say. So this excessive aggressiveness is because they are trying to somehow shape the there is no one at all aggressive. Right? So they do not address the problem at all, and they just make as if it's not existent.

Right? But we understand that there is some anger. There is some aggressiveness, but you have to battle with it. You have to, you know, try to balance it out. There are some desires in people, but you have to try to balance it out.

Right? You can see people acting like animals, you know, in the Western part of the world, and they cannot acknowledge that these qualities exist, right, or that it's just normal. But we understand that they exist. And now it's up to us to try to fight against them, right, as mentioned with the Jahadan. Thank

you, Karim. Vladimir, would you like to go ahead there?

Yeah, just a final point about the hierarchy. I think I read it somewhere, I don't remember, I think it was Sapiens, that after a certain number of people gather around in the community, hierarchies will tend to develop because that's how human beings that's how they are, that they have to have hierarchies within this society. And there there there suddenly comes into existence the fact that there's specialization amongst different human beings. And so you have you start to have priests. You start to have traders.

You start to have courtsmen, and so on and so forth. So these different hierarchies, these different levels of society, it's always more often than not the fact that there has to be a ruler who will organize the relationships between these different layers and each other. And so I think this is another important point that he was trying to make, that I think that he was talking about hierarchies between the hierarchies and society. And so because people would say, why don't I do that? Why don't I get to do that?

Why don't I get to do this? And so there is always this ruler who is the Islam the Muslim ruler who is we're talking about the the perfect case scenario, of course, who who wants the best for the ummah and so on and so forth. And so he will start to eliminate the friction between those levels and at the same time utilize the people in their best capabilities as as Allah has created them. So some people are better than others at certain types of jobs, and so they get up the hierarchy, and some others are are lesser. So they will have little use and so on and so forth in in the best interest of the

And, you know

Can I just Oh, sorry? Sorry.

Sorry, brother.

Go ahead. No. It's fine. I just wanted to say, you started by talking about how to Western ears, this would maybe be offensive, this idea of hierarchies and so on. But, obviously, hierarchies are an inevitability in any large group of people or even a small group of people.

And it certainly exists in the West. In fact, I think it it exists in the West even more drastically than it exists anywhere else when you look at, for example, the consolidation of wealth and power in America or in in the collective West generally as opposed to the the very limited wealth and power of the of the masses. You have a very steep hierarchy in the West and that's that's in reality. So no matter what they might say about themselves, again, we have this this issue of the the folklore that they grew up believing to to give them a so that they follow a misrepresentation of the history and then therefore a misrepresentation of the of the present in which they're living. So that they believe that there's maybe no hierarchy or that it's, you know, all for one and one for all or what have you.

A government up for and by the people and all of this nonsense. But the reality is that it it's a very, steep hierarchy in the West and it's very arbitrary. I think that that in in a natural in a more natural organic way, in most you can say maybe enlightened societies, hierarchies are not fixed across society generally, unless you're talking about specifically about government. But like what brother Omar was talking about, there are people who are specialized in certain areas and that that automatically puts them at the top of the hierarchy in that area. This there's there are scholars who are more knowledgeable than others and who are more knowledgeable than so called laypeople.

So in the area of their particular field of knowledge, they're they are the top of that hierarchy. They're not going to be the top of the hierarchy in terms of car mechanics. They'll be at the bottom, for example. So it's conditional. The hierarchies are not fixed across multiple fields.

You you you are at the top of a hierarchy in a particular field or in a or even in particular circumstances. Even, you know, according to particular conditions. So the the hierarchies are are more fluid in in people's normal lives. But when you have when you have, you know, a state, when you have this large conglomeration of people all brought together, it's supposed to be a cohesive organized society. Well, obviously, you do need some kind of a some some kind of an an external hierarchy of authority where people I mean, like you say in the West, for example, one of the things that makes the state the state is that it has a monopoly on violence.

That's what they say. The monopoly on violence. That the state is the only one who's allowed to be violent and aggressive, whereas the the people don't have that right. So you have this very clearly this concept very clearly in the West. So there's no reason why anyone in the West should should balk at the idea of a of a hierarchy.

There's just there's just a question of how arbitrary is it. And in the West, it's extremely arbitrary. And it's based like, I I I was talking about in a recent video, you've built your society in such a way that really the worst people in your society, the people with the least morals and ethics and principles and values, the worst people in the society are programmed for success in that society. They're programmed to rise in the society and to gain power and control based on based on your cultural system, what you value and what you reward and so on. So it's it's very arbitrary.

Whereas in more traditional societies or in Islamic society, there's not really that much that's arbitrary about it. For example, you can you can say that what you call inherited power, say, like, in the in The Gulf States or in in in Brunei or or we you even have the the monarchy in Malaysia that this sort of monarchical system is unfair because it keeps people out of out of power. You know, you don't have this so called democratic system where theoretically anybody can rise to to a position in office. But if you think about it in another way, any given sultan or emir or, you know, king or prince or what have you, he grew up his whole life in the halls of power. He grew up his entire life learning about statecraft.

He grew up his whole life learning about governance. He he spent from childhood until adulthood learning about how politics works, learning about governing, learning about how to run the run the state, run the run the affairs of the state in all areas of the state, economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, judicial policy, the penal system, on and on and on, civil society, everything. This is what he has learned. It's been his bread and butter his entire life from childhood until adulthood. Who can match that in terms of expectations and specialization?

It's not arbitrary. This is these are people I mean, like, it it it's it's like expecting someone who has been learning to play chess from the time they were four years old, and you meet them when they're 40 and thinking that it's undemocratic that he gets to be the chess master. It's it's it's this is an area of expertise and specialization. Whether you like it or not, you think that everyone is supposed to have a position in this hierarchy of the state, but there's qualifications for that. And I don't think that that someone who just learned about politics when they got to be in their thirties and then decides to run for office is ever going to be able to compete in terms of qualifications with someone who has learned about statecraft and governance from the time that they were a child and they grew up in the halls of power.

There's no there's no way to compare these two people. One of them is going to be definitely more qualified than the other. So that so but but in in in the so called democratic system, who gets to be the ruler, who gets to be the the head of state or what or what have you is extremely arbitrary. It's like a popularity contest. If we're assuming that they actually get voted into office by their by their population and that it's an actual so called democratic process.

But that person doesn't just because they're popular and they can say nice sound bites, you know, in a debate doesn't make them qualified to actually run the state, to run to run the government. So your system over there is you have and and and I've I've talked about this before. I'm sorry. I'm sort of moving back and forth between topics here. But because you don't have a system of traditional authority where where the people rise up into a into a position of authority through an organic process of service to their community and proving themselves.

You have this very arbitrary system where you vote people in, and and then they end up not being particularly good at their job and so forth. So now what happens is the inevitable happens that actual power is moved out of that sphere, which is what has happened in the West. It's moved out of that sphere. This is why it doesn't make any sense for anyone to look at these really, really blatantly moronic politicians who can barely put words together, who who who just glaringly show their idiocy and stupidity every time a camera is on them or every time that there's a microphone in front of them. And for anyone to believe that those people are entrusted with power by people who have a lot on the line, by anyone who has something at stake, who has millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars at stake.

There's no way on earth that you could ever believe that those people are entrusting a Donald Trump or a Marco Rubio or a Pete Hegseth with any responsibility at all. You wouldn't you wouldn't put them in charge of a Target store. You wouldn't make them a manager of a coffee shop. You can't put these people in charge of the state when you've got millions and millions of dollars on the line. No.

Of course not. So because you have this very dysfunctional approach to hierarchy in the West, you inevitably move power out of that sphere, out of the government sphere, into the sphere where nobody has any say, where the where the population doesn't have any say. You don't elect the CEOs and the executives and the rich and the and and the the the elite class. They're unelected and they can't be voted out of office, you have nothing to do with what they do. And they don't serve they don't have term limits.

They'll stay there for as long as it takes just like a Putin, just like a Xi Jinping, just like a king, just like Mohammed bin Salman or Mohammed bin Zayed or whoever else who sees presidents come and go. They've lived through multiple administrations in The US. So the same goes with a Larry Fink. He's there for the for for for the duration. He's not gonna be get voted out of office.

He's there for the duration. Larry Fink is gonna have power for the next twenty years, thirty years, and he has had power already for twenty years. So he's dealing with other people in in other countries who are in government, who who are not subject to so called democratic processes, and who are able to maintain their position and their authority in their country for decades just like Larry Fink. They're able to see eye to eye because neither one of us is going anywhere. Whereas, you know, you have these these so called, you know, presidents and politicians and what have you come and go, come and go, come and go.