Support my work and get access to exclusive content by becoming a Patron: www.patreon.com/OneDime Read more faster with Speechify: speechify.com/?via=1Dime
If we're doing fictional, can you please cover the politics and economics of star trek (TNG especially)? A mix of private property communism with a touch of imperialism. 😂
@@majorian4897 When Arrakis got terraformed the desserts died and so did their way of life. A major theme of the books is that we are all product of our environment. The Fremen fought to create a green paradise in Dune, but when the paradise arrived it also marked the end of their culture.
In my Berber language, Tashelhiyt (or Soussian to cater to the Anglo-Saxon speech organs), the concept of asabiyya is called 'tiwizi'. It's usually used to refer to solidarity, while it's cognate to another word with the same root (√AWS 'help') meaning tribe, i.e. 'tawsit'.
Not to dismiss those doing a deep dive into the subtleties of capitalism, but I find fascinating how since so long ago thinkers have been doing critiques of power that are aplicable to pretty much every hierarchical civilization, independently of their methods of resource distribution and checks and balances.
Capitalism as a mode of production is very different to anything we had before. Private property, commodity production, and wage labor are unique combination we never before had in human history. Cheers.
this is one of those hidden gems channels that have yet to pick up steam & popularity. when you do, dear 1Dime, remember the passion that drove you to make videos like this one
Your channel had already been doing killer videos for a while and I had high expectations for this video but holy shit the insight this Ibn Khaldun dude had is unreal A companion video on his biography or life story would be really cool, he seemded to have lived an interesting life too
If you want to know Frank Herbert's political philosophy: • it starts with a respect for truth/honesty, • it prizes education, self awareness &, self discipline, • it tell you all governments have an increasing tendency to cater to the interest of the powerful, • it tells you good governance is not dependent on laws but on the personal qualities of the people operating the machinery of government which means the most important part of the political process is how the leaders are chosen. In the Dune series the Bene Geserit, Paul &, Leto II are primarily who he speaks through on this subject.
• it tells you good governance is not dependent on laws but on the personal qualities of the people operating the machinery of government which means the most important part of the political process is how the leaders are chosen. Both Paul and Leto II say the even the best leaders cannot do anything against the will of the people and the system. It is why Paul sees the jihad coming but cannot find a way around it, and why Leto II breaks up the empire and humanity to save humanity as a whole. I would argue its also ultimately why the Bene Gesserit doesn't seek to rule, but seek to manipulate those who rule from the shadows. It doesn't matter how good of a person Paul was or how great his personal qualities was, he could not steer the Imperium away from the horrors coming. He note that no matter his orders, whether he lived or died, the jihad and religion around him would continue. He left the throne in despair over his failure to truly steer the Imperium in any direction. Leto II spends 1500 years breaking down the people of the Imperium to prepare to them abandon it all and emigrate out, to renew and revitalize humanity. Leto II does not seem to ever believe sufficiently good or strong leaders can be found in the Imperium to save it, that bad leaders are impossible to avoid, no matter the means they are chosen by, how well educated they are or how disciplined they are. The entire reason Leto II undertakes takes the path of becoming a sandworm so he can live for the entirety of his plan, so no one messes it up on the way and when humanity is ready to abandon the old stagnant ways he allows himself to finally die. If we use Paul and Leto II as examples of the basic idea of Dune, I would say it is to warn against the dangers of letting all of humanity be so interdependent that any threat to a part of it can destroy the whole. That any all encompassing system holds within it the means for its defeat because all structures have a weak point, and that weak point will be hit eventually collapsing it all no matter what any does. Thus no structure should ever become all encompassing, and nothing should be relied upon by everyone.
@NATIK001 The effects of the personal qualities of leaders is always the primary factor to consider when considering a person for a position of authority because the kind of person they are is how they will govern- a good person might face hard choices and make mistakes but a bad will intentionally exploit the shit out the position. Also Leto spent 3500 years preparing humanity not to save the imperium but to modify the human desire for war and specifically says that in book 4..... War can be bad for the individual but it can do a lot for the species; it rewards intelligence, punishes stupidity, fosters invention and, stirs the gene pool but the greatest threat to humanity survival is we are smart enough to concieve of weapons of mass destruction but not smart enough to not build them. The difficulty in addressing this issue is species without the will to fight to survive won't so modifying this desire will have to be done carefully.
@@robdeskrd >The effects of the personal qualities of leaders is always the primary factor to consider when considering a person for a position of authority because the kind of person they are is how they will govern- a good person might face hard choices and make mistakes but a bad will intentionally exploit the shit out the position. Certainly, but if we examine Herbert's feelings on this, he clearly states that his entire point of Dune is that good or bad, leaders with strong enough followings will be a detriment regardless. All leaders in the Dune books exemplify this, their capacity to bring ruin only increase with the strength of their following, not significantly with how good or bad their personal qualities are. One could argue, and I would, that the Emperor Paul Atreides bring much more ruin and suffering to the Imperium than Baron Harkonnen ever did. This is the crux of Herbert's views and what he wanted to show with Dune, that following any leader, regardless of their qualities was dangerous. > Also Leto spent 3500 years preparing humanity not to save the imperium but to modify the human desire for war and specifically says that in book 4 Much more importantly, Leto II sought to modify the way humanity sought leadership, to lessen the drive towards a single unitary state from the top of which an exalted figure ruled all. Humanity was reshaped by Leto II to reduce interdependence within the species, and especially to reduce dependence on strong charismatic leaders as central drivers as they will always fail over time.
I think one part of why tribal societies have asabiyya is precisely because they are much more egalitarian than settled societies. Edit: good to know you addressed this too. I think the allusion towards class struggle is an often overlooked part of Ibn Khaldun's body of work
A historical example that comes to my mind is the Scottish divide between Catholic clans in the Highlands, and the Protestant, first feudal later capitalist, Lowlands.
How fun! Maybe I'll read the books now. Thanks for the edu-tainment. I think Ibn's analyses were way ahead of his time, and are certainly worth studying and understanding all the way out here in the year of our lord 2024, but of course, importantly, within their own proper historical context. Ibn didn't formulate some universal theory of CiViLiZaTiOn or something, but rather analyzed the movements of his own, particularized historical moment and its antecedents, within the given political-economy(s) he studied. That kind of analysis is applicable, and useful, to other contexts precisely in regards to its methodology & in its considerations, not in its conclusions. and i think that's important for people to grasp. We don't want to merely "put on the costumes of the past," or, in the effort (idealist effort) to universalize a particularity, fail to grasp our own historical moment. Thanks again, You're a dime
The use of a green screen obviously not for its typical intended use. Tells me that you’re not trying to disappear into a typical video-essay in the way that most people would. A bit jarring but I can sense that you’re doing it deliberately
The unclear low resolution video also tells me that this is a face reveal video but it’s not REALLY a reveal. It’s still a hyperreal projection of who you are. You aren’t revealing yourself at all as this is a very poor reflection of who you really are.
This video confirms what I think: Ibn Khaldun is criminally underrated. I know for instance that he developed an embryonic labour theory of value, centuries before Adam Smith. This was included in Cockshott’s amazing book “How the World Works “. Also, his idea of the loss of asabiyyah reminds me a lot of what Parenti talked about in “Blackshirts & Reds” in the USSR, regarding how difficult was for the Soviet youth of the 70’s and 80’s to keep that same revolutionary zeal as the generations who made the revolution, fought the imperialist invasion, committed to a collective nation-wide industrialization plan and later defeated the German war machine. A lesson to be learned from I guess. Finally, about what you said about mercenaries, there’s a reason why Machiavelli warned again and again against using them become of their non existent loyalty 😂
Very insightful video, thumbs up. But as a non native english speaker I have one remark: You talk way to fast. What you have to say is well worth the effort but please consider to be a little less demanding on people outside of the US, UK, Australia etc.
The Bene Gesserit are interesting as well because you could argue they have greater unity than the Fremen given they can passed down their memories to a new generation, so in a sense they are immortal, coupled that with their pseudo secular religion of a commitment to improve humanity you have a hardcore collectivist society.
It's the wrong question. Art is not done because it is necessary. It just happens regardless of whether we think it has a purpose or not. Disposing of religious dogma will not prevent people from thinking in dogmatic ways. Dogma produces organized religion. Not the other way around.
It works both ways around: dogma and religion feed off and reinforce each other, just as many things do .. misogyny and religion, sectarianism/tribalism and religion, politics and religion, etc.
How many books do you read a year ? And how many pages do you read a day ? I'm a 15 years old Vietnamese student who is trying to read at least 20 pages a day. I have read : -Towards a new socialism -Principles of communism -Socialism : utopian and scientific -State and revolution -Communist Manifesto I'm currently reading "Critique of the Gotha program" now but I have a streak of not reaching 20 pages a day. Can you please suggest a better method of reading ? Thanks ❤!
also personally i've never read a single leftist book.......but i just find info on the internet about leftism which so far within 2 years turned me from conservative to communist to anarchist.......and i'm staying as an anarchist lol.
@@TankieVN then read Das Kapital.i checked again that you've finished communist manifesto first but yeah one of Marx most important works is Das Kapital.also i have David Graeber books for recommend too if you wanna know.
There is also parallel to some of Chinese Dynasties, including the last Qing Dynasty were formed by non-Han ethnicities in the North who were originally vassals but conquered China and later losing power as they became corrupt and decadent
In political science this group solidarity is refered to as social capital. A very interesting book on it is “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community” by Robert Putnam
Philosophy does not supersede evolutionary biology. Self-interested human tribalism (Homo sapiens state of nature) develops through: a. Ethnocentrism (“race,” static genetic identity); b. Monotheism (typically a unique exceptionalistic often supremacist origin story, also, a spectrum of prevailing belief systems); and c. Ultra-nationalism (sacred territorialism, securitization, and resources). A taxonomy of tribal instincts with authoritarian characteristics exists (establishment liberal social science recognizes “Authoritarian Personality”), which is expressed through in-group/out-group dynamics. (Taxonomy available.) The degree to which in-group/out-group dynamics achieve tolerance and coexistence is directly related to what degree of continuity is shared between ethnocentrism, monotheism, and ultra-nationalism. Cooperation exists to facilitate the internal in-group functions of human tribalism, including to maximize competitive ability, where coexistence and sharing with out-groups is suspended upon encountering hardship. Interchangeability identifies affinity to reproduce the taxonomy of tribal instincts with authoritarian characteristics, including conform to legacy institutions (see below). Culture contributes to developing a unique exceptionalistic tribal identity, by providing variations on every theme, spanning language, rituals, tools, weapons, clothing, colors, styles, etc. The quality of static tribal identity, i.e. the synthesis of ethnocentrism, monotheism, and ultra-nationalism, results in tribal instincts with authoritarian characteristics coveting an equally static conservative status quo, where legacy institutions are reproduced. Common expressions are church-state systems, Theocracies, and military dictatorships, each demonstrating the authoritarian institutional hierarchy of militarism, religion, politics, economics, and culture, where each institution is required to make an authoritarian contribution to the authoritarian totality, which competes in the interstate system and evolutionary arms race. Natural Selection demonstrates species success (self-interested human tribalism) through achieving genetic and environmental hegemony. Finally, The Enlightenment produced an incorrect assessment of human state of nature, which is the false assertion of blank state “tabula rasa” individualism, where consequently, many Western institutions were developed upon exploiting reductionist individualism. Additional agendas (socialism) also suffer from agreement with the false diagnosis, and therefore continue to make false assessments with false expectations. An important consequence of self-interested tribalism never being properly addressed, is that it continued to insidiously function throughout society, including within the ruling class, which maintains (in America) an in-group white Christian nationalist ruling class identity addressing the multiracial multicultural working class as a demonized otherized lesserized out-group. Another consequence is that while the existential issue of tribalism remains unresolved, moving forward with systems-based analysis and solutions, including through cognitive-based reductionism and objectification, remains as quarantined as Sociobiology.
6:59 this is a very important point, and another instance why the best comparison of the fremen for me is the sahabah. Asabiyyah sounds like a term closer to As'haab, the term used for the companions of prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And they were not a homogeneous mass. Not only were the tribes under the Quraishi different in their values, cultures and behaviours (such as the fact that banu adhiyy tribe of Umar Faruq(r) was known for its diplomatic capabilities, while gifaar tribe of abu darr were known to be ferocious warriors whom rob loot for a living) there were even people coming from different cultures altogether. Salman al Farisi, one of the most respected sahabahs is a Persian. Suhai al Rumi is a Byzantine. And most significantly, Bilal ibn rabah was an Abyssinian. King najjashi of Abyssia came to Islam and provided shelter for Muslims. This relationship is quite remarkable because Arab tribes infamously hated Abyssians and vice versa, due to the occupation of their empire till Yemen, and one of the most infamous threats to Ka'aba in history was led by an abyssinian king, only 60 years before the prophet. Moreover, The differences between the various members of companions worked for muslims. The battle of Khandaq saw a massive army led by not just quraishi tribes but also the neighbouring forces. Muslims won against them by employing trench warfare (a strategy unknown to arabs and only familiar with Persians), which was adviced by Salman al farisi(r). Having members from various regions meant smoother running of administration. Aside from the cultural differences, there were differences in ideals. The most famous difference would be the one between each of the rashidhun Khalifas. The point is, the As'haab became a formidable force not because they were a homogeneous group, but because they were not. They were people from diverse backgrounds, with different ways of thinking, united under one banner.
Is "The cycle of civilisations" where the saying Bad times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men and weak men create Bad times, come from?
I find it interesting how much of a distinction people make between religious fervor and ideological zealotry. As a Christian in many Marxist circles, I am often struck how alike a young new marxist radical is like a recent religious convert. They both point to their prophet, and their book, and say "this voice from the wilderness, calling out from history, is the one that will show us the way." Certainly there is great differences between a religious idealist and a political materialist in their rationality and arguments and language, but the conversation - to me anyway - feels the same. And Ibn Khaldun's asabiyya shows that sociological universal under any religious or class solidarity. It's something any group identity, movement, worldview needs to tap into to mobilize any effective group agency. It calls to mind a phrase my brother says. "The two most important resources in war is blood and conviction." Any imperial army well equipped in material resources, vs a rag-tag people fighting for their lives and homes, and a cause they believe in? And the notion of the necessity for royalty in the justification of authority? While many say messiah's and their worship is a solely religious problem. The veneration of political royalty, even communist leaders glorification - even unbidden and disliked by the leader - seems to be a very human thing.
19:03 "While Asabiyya may be enough to unify a tribe it is not always enough to unify all of the tribes within a given region... And a tenet of unity is required in order to establish a civilization on a bigger scale. See, Ibn Khaldun's theory of the state is much different from those of the anarchists or conservative social contract theorists such as Thomas Hobbes. Ibn Khaldun does not think that royal authority is necessarily natural to all societies... "
39:48 while this is true, I highly doubt that the majority of RuAF units in Ukraine are private military contractors or minority ethnics, there is a Russkiy lawyer who lives in Moscow and got drafted. He said that while there are minority ethnics, Russkies are in high numbers as well. Though I think that most of the Russkies are of lower class backgrounds.
i feel his description of the rise and fall of empires definitely has some truth to it, however you shouldn’t understand it as this is always how it happens. it is more of an regularly appearing dynamic which can of course be changed by other circumstances. I especially see how social cohesion (asabiyyah) is low in western countries also due to inequality but other factors such as ideological and cultural diversity. I hope it creates an opportunity for egalitarian social revolution if the asabiyyah of the common people (aka class consciousness) will develop as they realise the true extent of inequality and issues their system creates. however with how capitalism pits each one against each other it’s perfect for destroying asabiyyah :/
25:39 the Mahdi will not be the last prophet. Because prophet Muhammad is the last prophet after Jesus. The Mahdi will only be a great righteous leader and most mainstream Muslims believed that Jesus will return and follow the Mahdi. This is according to mainstream Islam. I’m not sure what Shia Muslims or Ahmadiya Muslims think of the Mahdi. Maybe they think he’s a future prophet. I hope someone can clarify that. Great video btw. Good job.
Oxytocin is what this is about in culture and in conflict, and vassopressin bonding. Oxytocin is group binding. Vassopressin is problem solving together through stress (fighting an enemy in a fox hole together)
I'm not, or have ever, been religious. I get why it's used and all... But I never needed it and generally only see value in it for its philosophical, historical, and academic discourse, that's it. I don't really need it for any spiritual reasons.
If we're doing fictional, can you please cover the politics and economics of star trek (TNG especially)? A mix of private property communism with a touch of imperialism. 😂
The most fascinating thing about Khaldun is not his recognition of class struggle but that he tried to resolve it using basically the same illusions that the Enlightenment thinkers would several centuries later. The circularity of Khaldun's invention of equitable (not egalitarian) kinship as the driver of nomadic-urban conflicts is a less sophisticated version of the liberal invention of "human nature" in order to explain the definite individuals' recalcitrance to state/social structure. People knew that class struggle and class differences exist ever since they started existing. It's not very difficult to understand that rich people are wealthy on the backs of the poor. But the idea of class _per se_ is neither a threat to, nor a refutation of, the necessity for social control. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise, like the creator of this video, is selling you cynical complacency (if you're doing well) or impotence (if your life sucks to begin with). Capitalism is not a new phase of class struggle, it is the terminal crisis of Capital - the transhistorical rule of alienated wealth - and hence of class struggle, ending in mutual ruin or socialism within our lifetimes. Proceed accordingly.
@~8:05, "where people are more well off, they can more easily get by on their own." This makes me think of preppers in the US. Isolation and as near total self-sufficiency as possible seems to be their plan/goal. Despite the objective and time-proven benefits, very rarely do you hear about a prepper's plan for creating a neighborhood mutual aid group, or a prepper commune.
I'm very glad you didn't conflate Asabiya with nationalism as many often do, interesting video, I don't agree with most of your views but you are likely the most tolerable atheist I've come across in a long time. I often don't like you guys but I think you would be interesting to speak with.
Ibn Khaldun also did not live to see the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, which showed us the possibility that we could crack the deepest mysteries of the universe and perhaps even succeed at liberating ourselves from the biological programming that makes us even need hierarchies and systems of governance at all. He was also unaware of the Eastern traditions that sought and claimed to have attained in certain extraordinary people a transcendent level of being. It took us centuries to build the physics and chemistry foundation to start unravelling the mysteries of the mind. But the mind is the reason why we are who we are, and its activity can be altered. Neuroscience is the reason why I no longer suffer from crippling OCD, a disease so horrifying that it turned me into someone I did not like for many years. That's not a good place to be if you want to contribute to society. OCD also showed me the incredible power of the mind to determine the reality you experience - how it determines the entire reality you experience, a truth so self-evident that most of us can't even see it.
Excellent video! And regarding the liberal enlightenment, it should be noted that the material conditions that allowed for that movement to gain traction necessitated centuries of authoritarianism. The Western intellectuals of the time wouldn't have come about without the wealth, access to education, and technological innovation that relied on a long history as a cohesive society. Much like how Marx argued that capitalism was the innevitable result of feodalism, and communism will one day be the innevitable result of capitalism, the anti-authoritarian values spread by the educated elites of the time were the result of a history of authoritarism, so ibn Khaldun is totally correct in my opinion. A civilization (of a certain size) cannot come about without one entity claiming monopoly of violence - but that claim can be disputed later in time.
Okay, I'm listening to this playing Elden Ring and there is a guy named Paul Atreides and I hate the coincidence lmfao. Back and loving the content, either way. Edit: Having just finished, I really feel like the acceptance of cycles as an inevitable thing is something I see in the way people will view certain cultural objects. Like the game I'm playing for example "moves in both directions" in terms of changing certain aspects about its traditional narrative format. Yet, in discussing it with others, I am frequently exposed to platitudes about how it's "just how it always is" when it's clear that a new factor or element of narrative explicitness is at play. I know it's probably trite to just say that's a conservative mindset, but I feel that given that material elements insulate people from the ability to think, even as I've lived moments of my own stupidity/ignorance which exists to this day... something I'm grateful for WAS an education, and the fact that most people seek pleasures but are materially cut off from things that could genuinely enrich their lives, it makes the words of people who speak for "success" much more potent. I saw a video about "why music is bad now" in just a thumbnail and the person's conclusion were that musicians just need to "do their research and try harder." It was so funny because I saw a material analysis just months earlier from Leon/Renegade Cut who talked about what material influence the music industry had on the way musicians had to operate. The removal of regulation and monopolies on radio stations. The way that incentivized singular artists and now dissuades bands from forming. I don't know enough to say if this is historically accurate/a meaningful observation, but the impression I have is absolutely that it's material. I feel that within the society I live in, American, I've just learned to internalize or resent the people around me. It feels like, to harken back to Mercuse, the things that should be benefits of society actively cause a regression where just a creative decision itself is viewed for its profit motive rather than as a "creative decision" alone. It's impossible to separate, but the mind becomes dull or numb to the idea of multiple decisions or "directions" being actively at play. What I want to say or to sum this up is, I think that it is dangerous, mentally, to settle on an answer that is simple simply for the fact that history itself is still being written, but a lot of modernity can force people into simple answers merely by the powerlessness they feel. Nothing new there, nothing that wasn't in the video, but I just feel it is contemptable and I think that the lower quality of life most people experience now robs life of the meaning it could have, that we could create, if people's lives were better. I don't want to see this as a cycle that would inevitably repeat, simply because we haven't actually been able to see factors in play that could enrich people's lives for the sake of them being better, and not for the sake of profits.
I'd agree with the analysis of asabiayyah partially being a proto theory of class conflict, it states that without a diversification of power the state and disproportionately privildged oppress the minority through force, X) said thought there there needs to be a stable unifying agent, a theocracy and unanimous belief structure but Marx opposed this for universal direct democracy as he saw religion and theocracy to be inherently oppressive in nature. It also posits that the state will become authoritarian, bending it's rules to the powerful so it can maintain it's dominance, creating a hyper individualistic society which loses integrity and cohesion overtime, leading to a revolutionary period of dispair because more cohesive and unified forces are more efficient and determined. It's a good and accurate analysis, a theocratic version of proto marxism.
I'd love to know your thoughts on the use of AI images/videos as you do at 0:50. I mean, I can see it's supposed to be an Islamic scholar, but that shit looks as disturbing as some of the implications of the way this technology is used.
It feels like in the chapter “the cycle of civilizations” you do your best to avoid saying “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times” directly 😃
My point is that it is more than that. There is a whole dimension of Class conflict in Ibn Khaldun’s theory of decay that gets ignored by most people. I talk about it at the end of
Illegitimate hierarchy will necessitate Religion for the purpose of manufacturing hope so that justice may rationalize the delays in Social Justice until the people can overcome Separation or Scarcity. The problem lies where any form of Institutionalized Social Management can be corrupted by asymmetric power distributions that embeds justification for asymmetry in the potential promises of growth that enable a competitive advantage for tribal warfare. Liberation theologies and economic ideologies thus becomes an cultural attractor to those who seek to undermine solidarity in order to recuperate that privileges of unity without distributing the Social Good, which that unity can supply.
1. There is a research about biological foundation for tribalism. Since Khaldun operates in similar terms to Dawkins' Extended phenotype, I think it must rely on biology strongly. And biology says that only around half of population has the tendance to value group association. So modern science sort of disproves the universality of Asabiyyah. We certanly can create successfull countries without it. 2. And without religion of course. A lot of modern theologists agree that freethinking/humanist philosophy is effective at replacing religion and can be treated as one (functionnaly). So that must be applied to society-building ability. I think I can expand on it by noticing a) people do not need religion at all (I was born in a demographic group with almost zero believers, and never have I questioned the integrity of society, and that it can be somehow related to religion, before I first visited a more religious area). And b) Nietzsche's fear of nihilism is sort of out of date, since the society have just passed the phase to more modern existentialism philosophy, that manifests in low key nihilism in people, who still care for society, find reason to live, think, create art, and respect others. 3. One of the main idea of Leto was that nobility as a source of honour can (and ought to) create loyalty not through fear, but by offering loyalty to subjects. And Paul understands it even at highest points of being a dicatator. His people are loyal to him because he is loyal to them, not because they are afraid of his power (the holy war victims are on the other side of deep space; on Arrakis the civilisation is grounded in higher ideals, not in violence).
I would love to see you talk about the current spread of anti-trans legislation and why the current transphobic sadism goes so far beyond classic culture ware nonsense. It has been surreal to see transphobia becoming more of a selling point and hallmark of fascism than racism and i would be interested in understanding how this came to be.
Nice vid. But just want to point out how diff the book is from the film. Denis inserted Chani as a skeptic and the idea of fundamentalists, which I personally didn’t find gelled well with FH’s actual writing and themes. The North v South = enlightened skeptic v ‘fundamentalists’ in #Dune2 seemed very out of place/artificial/simplistic. It negates FH’s deeper themes of eco/sociological rootedness of ideology/religion, and the Fremen’s Khaldunian arc of asabiyyah w/o exploring the very binary split’s implications
A very interesting and well documented video. This made a lot of things clear to me about how so-called Christians in the United States are acting today.
like your takes a lot. and even it diverges from your previous aesthetics with your voice in the front i get why you want to show yourself. but.. i would think about the 'how' a little bit more. dont know if the green screen shown and you in the right corner is the right choice going forward
this is why i like god of dune the best and i think it could be a good movie but hard to do right the action is there dunken vs big worm e lol but it is the book were all you ask is answered
The imams are not prophets. The authority in Shia Islam comes only from descent from the prophet Muhammad. Also, the Mahdi is not a prophet. The last prophet, according to Islam, was Muhammad.
