The Labyrinth

Brenden

exploring the simulated enigma brendenslabyrinth.substack.com

  1. 7月9日

    Peter Thiel is the anti-christ.

    I’ve been doing a long term project that has Peter Thiel in my view. I saw that he did an interview. He said… Douthat: It seems very clear to me that a number of people deeply involved in artificial intelligence see it as a mechanism for transhumanism…for transcendence of our mortal flesh…and either some kind of creation of a successor species or some kind of merger of mind and machine. Do you think that’s all irrelevant fantasy? Or do you think it’s just hype? Do you think people are raising money by pretending that we’re going to build a machine god? Is it hype? Is it delusion? Is it something you worry about? Thiel: Um, yeah. Douthat: I think you would prefer the human race to endure, right? Thiel: Uhhhhh…(followed by an uncomfortable silence). Douthat: You’re hesitating. Thiel: Well, I don’t know. I would—I would… Douthat: This is a long hesitation! Thiel: There’s so many questions implicit in this. Douthat: Should the human race survive? Thiel: Yes. Douthat: OK. Thiel: But I also would like us to radically solve these problems. Which problems Peter boy? Huamnity itself? Do you see humanity itself as a problem? Anyway here are some snippets from this episode… And here’s what I want you to sit with in this episode: how often, in our current moment…in the way our institutions behave, the way Silicon Valley corporations talk, the way billionaires posture and position themselves, there’s this underlying assumption that their vision of the future is not just likely, but right. It's inevitable. It's correct. That it’s supposed to happen. That the world is naturally bending toward their plans, their desires, their aesthetic, their software. It's all naturalllllllllll. (We are told) But look closer…that “inevitability” they preach—it’s not a prediction. It’s a claim. A flex. A power move disguised as foresight. They speak as if the future were already written, when what they’re really saying is: "we should be the ones who get to write the future. I can't have you normies realize it because you'll mess it all up. But shusssssshhhhhhh let me cosplay my insecurities in the form of me being your daddy overlord." Thiel is the example of my new category…the bishop. The one who hides behind the scenes, mostly, not always, hence he did an interview and look everyone thinks he's a psycho, so he's not being a very good bishop. But he's a bishop. It's the guy that guides a bunch of priest to say and do all sorts of really dumb things. That’s the mindset. That’s Peter Thiel. Watch his interviews, read his essays, and it’s there—not even hidden. This quiet but constant esoteric entitlement. He thinks he's God. As if he is participating in some divine order. As if his role is not to serve the world, or even influence it, but to shape it in his image. And I find that deeply concerning—not just ideologically, but spiritually, and…you know…societally. Also, i find it concerning for everything involved in space and time. Super low stakes. ** Because this isn’t about innovation. This isn’t about progress. Thiel is not here to tweak the code of liberal capitalism…he is here to run the final update. His vision is theological in scale and totalitarian in ambition. He doesn’t want to improve the system. He wants to end it…to replace history with a willed narrative, and to replace us with what he thinks should come after us. He calls it perfection. I call it a billionaire tantrum after a psychotic break that had a touch of schizophrenic paranoia. It’s not conservatism. It’s not libertarianism. It’s not even transhumanism in the sci-fi sense. It’s the quiet, deliberate engineering of a post-political, post-human, algorithmic future. Stay curious. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brendenslabyrinth.substack.com/subscribe

    31 分钟
  2. 3月25日

    Red Scare: Aesthetics, Nihilism, and Vibes Over Values

    So this started with a Substack note that semi-blew up, and it pushed me to expand on something I’ve been thinking about for a while: rebellion, aesthetics, and how edginess functions as a kind of political currency (or all of those combined do). I talk about Red Scare. But this isn’t just about them. It’s about the death of irony, the collapse of aesthetics into ideology, and what happens when leftist politics forget how to maintain an edge in favor of an oversimplified and marginalizing ethic. I talk jouissance (Lacan and stuff), performative rebellion, reactionary grifting, and the slow shift of “edgy” from leftist cultural critique to right-wing nihilism. I touch on why moral posturing turned the liberal left into the new status quo—and why Dasha and Anna’s (Red Scare ladies) vibe shift might be the most revealing political litmus test for our current cultural and political moment. This episode is about how rebellion gets hollowed out, how irony can curdle into belief, and how our politics are increasingly built not from principles, but from vibes. Are you ruled by reason…or by desire, rage, and the need for transgression? Is that really a base for a moral framework? Anyway…i’ll have more stuff around this idea. I need to further develop how nihilism is at the heart of the rot…. Stay curious. Article that I referenced in the episode: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brendenslabyrinth.substack.com/subscribe

    52 分钟
  3. 2024/11/20

    The Reckoning for Sam Harris and Liberals

    I listened to Sam Harris’s episode “The Reckoning”…. I have som thoughts… Here’s the key point I want to illustrate in this episode (which ties into our current political and cultural chaos): We need to understand how the internet has become a wasteland of endless information. Finding anything resembling “real” or stable truth online is nearly impossible, and I believe most people feel this deeply. So, what do we do? We focus on paying our bills, but when we want to make sense of the world, we turn to simplified narratives—ones that tap into primal instincts like fear, anger, and loyalty to our “in-groups.” The right has positioned itself as rebellious or populist, and they’ve quickly grasped that young men, in particular, have moved on from millennial political framing. Zoomers, raised on the internet, perceive the world through an online lens. So, when Biden talks about bringing back manufacturing jobs, it barely resonates. They want to be content creators, not factory workers. The content that sells right now is fueled by right-wing talking points. Elon Musk clearly recognized this when he reshaped Twitter. This generation doesn’t trust corporations, the media, the “American Dream,” or even their parents. Instead, they put their faith in individuals—the influencers who tell them they don’t need a 9-to-5 job, that they can succeed as content creators or finance bros. They’ve watched their parents struggle. They’ve seen millennials hyper-aware of corporate exploitation, with little to show for it—unable to afford homes, rent, or even the basics to start a family. Zoomers’ response has been to conform collectively while rebelling individually. In this climate, you try to secure your piece of the pie—and right now, conforming to the right’s cultural framing is the way to do that as an individual. The challenge? I want to find a way to convince people to resist that pull. Anyway… I’ve been trying to organize my thoughts about the current political and cultural chaos—especially how we reached the point of a second Trump term. This isn’t just another “here’s what’s wrong with everything” rant filled with low-hanging fruit talking points. Those have been exhausted. They feel performative and predictable. The left is due for a reckoning. This reckoning won’t come from recycled takes or comforting narratives that avoid the hard truths. It will require confronting uncomfortable realities. No, the solution isn’t a “progressive Joe Rogan.”No, Kamala Harris’s loss isn’t solely about racism, sexism, or even “wokeness.”It’s far more complex than that. Our media ecosystem and the internet aren’t just bystanders—they’re actively driving cultural and political shifts we’ve yet to fully comprehend. When Trump shouts out figures like Adin Ross and the Nelk Boys, while Dana White gives a speech during his celebration, it’s a sign that the landscape of influence has fundamentally changed. The left can’t dismiss these cultural signals. They need to learn from them, even if it means reshaping their framing of the world. Sam Harris is a perfect case study here. He’s emblematic of a liberal media cohort—figures like Ethan Klein and Bari Weiss—who want to critique the system without meaningfully challenging it. They represent a centrist liberalism that’s long dominated the Democratic Party, embodied by Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Kamala Harris. This faction has often operated at the expense of the voter base it claims to represent. Instead of empowering diverse, authentic voices that demand systemic change, liberal institutions often prefer controlled minorities—those who fit within a safe, curated narrative. In contrast, Republicans are embracing chaos. They’re opening doors to a new generation of wildcards, loyalists, and provocateurs. While this is risky and often reckless, it creates a sense of genuine expression and raw connection that resonates with many. This is where I use Sam Harris’s critiques of “wokeness.” Yes, wokeness has an optics problem. But Harris, like many liberal pundits, hyperfixates on it as if dismantling it will solve the broader systemic issues. It won’t. Woke discourse is just one piece of a much larger, reformulating puzzle. Kamala Harris is a microcosm of this problem. Her failure wasn’t just about “wokeness”—it was her inability to connect meaningfully with any voter base. In trying to please everyone, she pleased no one. Meanwhile, the media continues to thrive on spectacle, feeding tribalism and controversy. Figures like Trump, Carlson, and Musk dominate this space because they play to primal, simple narratives: us vs. them. The left’s challenge isn’t just to counter this messaging—it’s to resist becoming a watered-down imitation of the right. Instead, they must forge a new way forward, one that genuinely connects with people’s discontent and offers something more substantive than the performative politics we’ve grown used to. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brendenslabyrinth.substack.com/subscribe

    52 分钟

关于

exploring the simulated enigma brendenslabyrinth.substack.com

你可能还喜欢