deepcuts

33 Degrees of Delusion: Why Professor Jiang’s "Predictive History" is a Far-Right Trap

In the wake of the war launched by the U.S. and Isr*el against Iran, numerous videos from the so-called Professor Jiang and his YouTube channel, Predictive History, have gone viral; as such, I would like to offer my thoughts and a formal critique.

I was introduced to him a few months ago and I found the first few videos of his Secret History series intriguing (most of which were released well before the war started). He touched on Kant’s theory of the noumena and the perception of reality; his so-called "predictive history" model based on game theory claiming "historical proof" for its projections; and how power and economics function in modern society. He also explored Nietzsche’s "knowledge is power" dynamic, the transition from polytheism to monotheism in the "God is dead" tradition (positioning science as the new God), collectivism vs. individualism in the West, and more. These are all inherently interesting and valid topics within philosophy and political theory.

In subsequent lectures, he proceeds with a framework that mirrors Spengler’s The Decline of the West, arguing that the transition from Culture to Civilization represents the final, dead stage of human history (I find that part plausible enough not to contest it). However, his train of thought quickly derails with references to Calhoun’s "Universe 25" Rat Utopia experiments. This study is frequently cited by far-right and "manosphere" circles because it supposedly provides biological "proof" for social inequalities and is often leveraged by conspiracy theorists to explain how a tiny elite controls global capital. According to Jiang, the cultural abundance once promised to the West has instead devolved into Calhoun’s rat utopia, with immigration waves cited as the primary driver of social conflict against native populations—the former supposedly benefiting at the expense of the latter. I can only assume that, for the Professor, centuries of Western colonialism and the resulting systemic exploitation of those populations are not considered significant enough historical events to be included in his "predictive history" framework. In a similar fashion, he remarkably argues that Native Americans "didn't put up much resistance" against the colonizers conveniently ignoring a g*n*cide so efficient it served as the blueprint for N*zi Germany and modern settler-colonial projects like Isr*el. All that to suggest U.S. history is somehow "less violent" than Russia’s.

Fast-forward a few episodes and the conspiracy theory fest finally begins. He covers the Moon landing, 9/11, and the JFK assassination—all of which I am familiar with, as is their origin in far-right circles (the validity of which I won't contest here). He then proceeds with a series of questionable—to say the least—rhetorical claims: that the JFK assassination scene "resembles a Menorah" (a sacred candelabra in Jewish tradition); that the atomic bombs were trialed in New Mexico and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because both are located 33 degrees from the equator; and that 33 is the "secret number" of the Freemasons who supposedly rule the world. In a follow-up article, he reinforces anti-immigrant rhetoric by presenting several conclusions without solid proof: claiming that Merkel’s 2015 policy led to 1 million refugees in Germany, a third of whom failed to "integrate" and rely on government handouts. However, the repercussions of systemic racism are left out of the equation, and the narrow, state-sanctioned definition of "integration" is never questioned. He further cites gangs of Pakistani men in the UK that r*pe white girls and rising gun crime in Sweden as being immigrant-driven. All of the above share a clear common denominator: anti-immigrant sentiment and antisemitism, both hallmark traits of the far-right and neo-N*zi ideologies.

In his latest Game Theory series, he goes further, citing conspiracy theorist Richard Spence to claim that communism was a weapon created by capitalism to conquer the world. He argues it was funded by Wall Street to dismantle systems such as monarchy, theocracy, nationalism, and democracy. Once again, there is no mention of the actual material conditions that led monarchies to establish colonies—benefiting massively from capitalism—nor how nationalism and anti-immigrant rhetoric serve as a last resort when capitalism is in crisis. Apparently, these are not "useful" in his "predictive history" framework either.

After Jiang "successfully" predicted Trump’s war declaration against Iran—as did other credible political analysts—his channel went viral. He was subsequently invited to join interviews with popular influencers across the political spectrum, from leftists (Zeteo) and liberals (Breaking Points) to far-right conspiracy theorists (Sneako). In his appearance on the latter, he expanded on his antisemitic tropes, claiming that "H*tler was just a guy who wanted to achieve national sovereignty," but because he "disrupted transnational capital," the latter conspired to wage war against him. Furthermore, he alleged that H*tler "didn't hate the Jews but just wanted to get rid of them," even claiming he collaborated with Z-ists to "send them to Palestine" and asserting that "we don’t have solid proof the Holocaust happened". The list goes on, but the conclusion is inescapable: we are dealing with a blatant Holocaust denier. These are not historical analyses or "predictive" models; they are schizo-conspiracy theories rooted in pure speculation and dangerous revisionism.

At this point, it is staggering how many people swallow this rhetoric without question; it proves, yet again, that in the digital age, critical thinking is more vital than ever. What is equally concerning is that some on the Left—including my fellow tankies—fall so easily for these narratives simply because of their opposition to Isr*el. While the opposition to the Isr*eli state is entirely justified by the ongoing g*n*cide, that opposition can never serve as a justification for adopting antisemitic tropes. Can we not agree that it is possible to be pro-Palestine and anti-Z-ist without falling into the trap of antisemitism? Can we not agree that Z-ism is a primary factor endangering Jews worldwide who oppose the state of Isr*el, and that it is equally important to protect them from such views? Many of the most vocal anti-Z-ist voices have been Jewish—from Norman Finkelstein to Gabor Maté and organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). Edward Said—a foundational figure in the Palestinian struggle and a fierce critic of Z-ism—refused to trade in antisemitic rhetoric. In his book The Question of Palestine, he acknowledges the immense difficulty for Palestinians to reconcile their own dispossession with the history of the Holocaust. Yet, he never denies that history; instead, he recognizes the reality of Jewish suffering and builds his critique on rigorous historical facts (if you haven’t read it, I cannot recommend it enough).

Presenting Jews as the "root of all evil"—as if replacing Jewish capitalists with Christian ones changes anything about the underlying structures of exploitation—is just not it. What it is instead is a redirection of labor's resentment into pure hate. Similarly with anti-immigrant rhetoric. That's not a critique of power (as a critique of Z-ism and its settler colonialism policies would be); it's just a refusal to engage with material reality. If your "predictive history" can't distinguish between the identity of the exploiter and the mechanics of the system, then you aren't analyzing the future—you're just hallucinating in the past.

"...I have the strongest belief that the historical and moral sufficiency of the Palestinian cause will finally outlast and outstrip any attempts to misrepresent it."

― Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine

Sources & Further Reading