In the course of the historical development of mankind, the ideas of great thinkers have been passed down to the next generation and enriched with "positive and negative" interpretations. Thoughts that were visionary and ahead of the times were exposed by the waves of the sea or disappeared as if they were drowned. It's like the natural order of change.

"Don't be in a hurry to take over the human body. Take over the soul. If you take over the soul, the body will not leave or go."

Thoughts born in people's heads that cannot be grasped or seen by the eyes have taken over the minds and brains of the masses. This will be a force to change the economy and shape the future.

Now, when, where, and under what historical circumstances were the ideas that define our lives born, how did they evolve and be exposed to us through time; who were the bearers of those ideas and what did they say? If we don't study in detail, compare and discuss them, it's the wrong way. We will "carry rice" for many years. For example, during the "socialism" period, any science, especially social science, was taken to the extremes of being "class and party", and it distorted the spiritual and philosophical history of Mongolians, caused great harm, and distorted all kinds of social relations. The ideologies of socialism and communism entered Mongolia, and after more than 70 years of efforts to create this social organisation, "we built the wrong socialism" and "K. Marx and V. I. Lenin proposed different things and different ideas." It's gone. This process did not stop after three or four generations of Mongolians were made "test rabbits", and the distortions of thinking leftovers from this society still exist.

Another example is when and how the concept of democracy originated. Did this concept originate 200 years ago? What is ancient Greek and Roman democracy? J. J. Rousseau asked, “What is democracy in the West of the XX century?” Even Stalin and Hitler talked about democracy. We need the ability to dig and understand the Mongolian concept of democracy in 1990 and what content and form it took 33 years later.

J. J. Rousseau is considered the founder of the intellectual revolution of France and the father of the modern democratic concept. He said that the government of the nobles (white bones) is better than democracy (government of the people), and only in small cities like Geneva, can citizens enjoy the right to approve and revoke laws simultaneously. Increasingly, it was believed that under an "expansion economy", democracy would fail and become a sham. Because as people get older, they get further away from each other, forgetting their common interests and breaking up. He said that only in small and compact countries, trade and economy based on morals (fear of what the natives will say) will arise. In a large society, troublemakers and consumers become "unsolicited and anonymous", so theft, selling low-quality goods at high prices, and extortion will become widespread. But can we judge J. J. Rousseau, who argued that if something is done wrong in a place where people know each other well, the community will not be able to live among the countrymen? J. J. Rousseau was a non-democratic aristocrat, a critic of French civilisation and culture, and it is doubtful whether he would have accepted the French Revolution in that context.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the struggle between the rightists and the leftists within the People's Revolutionary Party, later recorded in history as the "corruption" of the leftists and the rightists, did not occur on empty soil. It also originated from the idea of ​​building socialism and socialist society, which manifested from the concepts of ​​"liberty, unity, and equality", the slogan of the great French Revolution.

In order to build a bright future, he defined his policy as confiscation of property, socialisation, equal distribution, division, closure, imprisonment, revolution, leading party and irreconcilable class struggle, demolition of the old to build a new society, creation of new people, laws that serve the revolution, etc., led to the oppression of every section through the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

For another example, a study of Adam Smith's manuscripts, original writings, and debates; known as the father of liberalism and free markets, reveals an unrecognisable Smith, completely different from popular understanding. He criticised trade and commercial society and believed the British mercantilist attitude had created a powerful trading class. He did not believe the free market created modern commerce, rather, he believed that commerce had stagnated because of the absence of a free market. A. Smith supported J. J. Rousseau's conclusion that trade in the wrong conditions will lead to luxury and greed, and destroy morality and religion.

In general, when researching historical people and their ideas, they look at their ancestry, the environment they were born and grew up in, the people they were surrounded by, the books they read, the music they listened to, the games they played, etc. it is necessary to study in detail. It is impossible to understand exactly who, what exactly was said and what ideas were put forward.

One of the biggest mistakes we often make in social science research and political action is to polarise the content of new ideas. It is too clumsy to understand complex social issues in black and white, positive and negative, yours and ours. It is a clear example of distorting history to approach social and political relations by polarising them as either they will win or be defeated or destroyed. This kind of thinking leads us into a singularity trap. And, it is inappropriate to try to explain and solve the problem of the scale of mind and opinion in terms of war.

Any ideology contains many alternative forms, and which one prevails depends on specific historical objective and subjective conditions. Subjects that make any idea a concept, ideology, or propaganda tool, and anyone who does not accept the ideology of the authorities, become the target of a "witch hunt" and are calling for trouble. Let's not forget the history of the French Revolution of 1789, from democracy to idle chatter and gardens, from terror and civil war to the rule of a military junta, and then to the restoration of the monarchy.

The basic lesson drawn from the Great French Revolution is that gaining civil and political freedom through people’s revolution destroys society and country. In short, politics on the streets and social networks is bound to lead to destruction.

Throughout human history, human actions have produced unanticipated consequences, and the ideas of the author have been modified to some degree by his immediate listeners and followers, and have been read, revised, and reinvented over again through successive generations. Because everyone is not endowed with the "container" to consider that genius idea in the context of development and mass factors, the rulers strive to simplify complex problems and turn them into simple slogans and solutions following their narrow (broad) political goals. For example, we know that parties run elections with multi-page manifestos, but they simplify them to one "sexy" slogan. Simplifying complex problems as simple and normal, "they are the source of all your suffering", ban them, change them, turn them into ashes, crush them, frighten them, threaten them, force them all into one mould. "There is no other way" than this, "this is the way to clean up the society", and from time to time there is a great benefactor who protects my interests.

Be warned, if you're being told something with a ready-made answer, "it's obvious," or "it's apparent," think you're dealing with propagandists trying to brainwash you. Realise that this is a helpless tactic of propagandists to use you as a lever in their greed and lust for power.

Making history, ideas, and ideals a tool for ideological and political goals and propaganda is dragging our society into the mud. It is at this time that the voices of intellectuals and enlighteners are extremely important. It is at this time that the duty of intellectuals is to cultivate critical thinking; scrutinising, pondering, deliberating, and debating culture.