The Greatest Lie Ever Told

For those that don't know, the two topics I've studied the most are anthropology and history. These two fields have gone on radically different trajectories over the course of the last century. For history, it stayed relatively objective, barring a few obvious fields like colonialism. History hasn't faced the plague of obfuscation, which completely destroyed the field of anthropology. Anthropology is a pretty barren field now. I was just checking Amazon's top recommendations for books on anthropology since I was cross-referencing it with my own favorite books on that topic. I went through the list and realized that, unironically, three-quarters of the top books in anthropology were literal pseudoscience. When I say pseudoscience, I don't mean this as the political attack it's normally used at, but rather from the actual scientific definition, in that pseudoscience is the replacement of scientific falsification for circular arguments based off what's basically faith. In this case, belief in inherent equality, the noble savage, and the blank slate. The irony is that the people involved project pseudoscience onto their opponents and use that as the dominant vector to control the discourse. I've invented a term named SAW, which stands for Studies in Ancient Wisdom. As I will explain later, I believe the 21st century has already seen a scientific breakthrough on a vastly unparalleled level, which we are yet to have recognized. I think said breakthrough will create a completely new paradigm and will completely change history beyond what we understand now. What SAW started to find in about half a dozen different fields is that the 20th century pulled off something absolutely incredible. The 20th century, an era of history with freedom of speech and press, with the most information of any era ever up to its point, with the most advanced intellectual institutions, was able to seduce its populations into believing the most absurd lie ever. The thing that really shocked me as I stumbled upon this myself is the sheer enormity of the lie. It's so vast that anyone who discovers it themselves feel insane in that they just sense that it can't be possible. Let me show you how we've all been complicit in the greatest lie ever told in human history, something our descendants will laugh to themselves that we fell for. What does the future hold for business? Ask nine experts and you'll get 10 answers. It's a bull market. It's a bear market. Rates will rise or fall. Can someone invent a crystal ball? Until then, over 42,000 businesses have future-proofed their business with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one cloud ERP, bringing accounting, financial management, inventory, and HR into one fluid platform. With one unified business management suite, there's one source of truth, giving you the visibility and control you need to make quick decisions. With real-time insights and forecasting, you're peering into the future with actionable data. When you're closing the books in days, not weeks, you're spending less time looking backwards and more time on what's next. If I had needed this product, it's what I'd use. Whether your company is earning millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you respond to your immediate challenges and seize your biggest opportunities. Speaking of opportunity, download the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning for free at netsuite.com slash 102. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com slash 102. netsuite.com slash 102. One great lie we've believed is that the internet is secure, and only recently have we come to realize the danger of having your info online. That's why I use Incogni, the sponsor of today's video. Data brokers collect all of your private information, like your address, birthday, online activity, and even your financial information and social security number. This information can be sold to companies and government agencies or put on public search sites to be available for anyone who wants to look it up. All of this happens without your knowledge or control. The good news is that you can request for this data to be removed, but the bad news is that it could take years to do so manually. That's where our sponsor Incogni comes in. They make the process of taking back control of your information quick and easy. Their service will work on your behalf to contact these data brokers and request the removal of your information, while keeping you informed and in the loop the whole time. You just create an account, grant Incogni the right to work for you, and sit back and watch them work. They'll even handle the objections for you. Incogni goes above and beyond to give you back control of your personal information. For my fans, they're offering you 60% off an annual plan for anyone who clicks the link below and uses the code WHATIFALLTEST. They offer a 30-day money-back guarantee, so there's no reason to not click the link and start using Incogni today. Part 1, How I Stumbled Onto This Realizing the sheer scale of this lie might be the most important event of my life. In some ways, one of the purposes of this channel is to share my own personal journey of trying to disentangle how big this lie is and how I personally tried to intellectually and psychologically cope with it. Having this audience helps keep me sane with just the sheer scale of it. One half of my brain forgets there's an audience for this journey, while the other half tries to monetize it. Human nature can be funny sometimes. Let me tell you how I figured this out, although I'm not the first person to notice it. There were probably some super-based people who knew this whole time, with my guests being old-school European aristocrats like Amaury de Riancourt or Hermann Hoppes being the first, but the people who were my biggest influences were Kurt Doolittle and Edward Dutt, who really showed the structure of how it happened and what went wrong, although I don't agree with said authors on everything, since they're significantly further right than me. The way I found this is that, in high school, I could tell adults weren't telling me the full truth about the world. Both of my parents were conservatives by the time I graduated high school, and I had been reading a lot of history. It was obvious to me that the things our era of history believed were in a clear, massive disjoint with the rest of human knowledge over history, although I didn't realize the sheer scale of the lie until later. In high school, I had a series of questions about the world which got me into studying history and anthropology. Talking about just these would probably be a good video in of itself if you folks are interested, but some of the questions are Why is Latin America or Mexico poor while America is rich? Why did my home state of Pennsylvania go into decline so harshly? Why hasn't Southeast Asia achieved more as a civilization? Why did the West rise to global dominance? Or why doesn't the Middle East have black people? If you're interested in my answers to these questions, look at this text wall. In the process of trying to answer these, I ended up learning the things I needed for this channel. However, one of the biggest black pills I got out of this is that current academia has no interest in actually explaining how the world works. In the process of trying to answer those questions, questions that should be the most underlying variables of global anthropology and human geography is that it was incredibly difficult to find the answer. I had to read a variety of different books and put the answers together myself. If anthropology was a genuine field, there would already be a bunch of books explicitly written on these sorts of topics that entry-level college students would have to read in the first year. What I consistently found instead is that academia ended up pushing for non-falsifiable political narratives. For a frame of reference, the purpose of the scientific method is to create tests in which the result of the test proves one paradigm and disproves another. For example, a study on which group of white Americans has the highest income. By showing Italian and Jewish Americans have higher incomes than English Americans by looking at the statistics. From this, we can make the assessment that America is no longer a WASP oligarchy like it was a century ago. What I consistently found is that anthropology departments were predicated upon answers which it was physically impossible to break out of for an example of this and we will go through a lot the belief in human equality was never tested wait that's wrong it was tested dozens of times and turned out to be wrong no one in academia actually used any evidence to see if people are all inherently equal in the same ironically taking the faith-based argument from Christianity but starting with different first principles even if these people loathe Christianity instead of saying that life is good in the world is rational under God's plan it moved to equality and not judging others to be a statement of faith under which all other assumptions are predicated the thing that really horrified me here is that for all of these basic assumptions they were just never tested and when they were the results were thrown out in fact I believe that this is intentional given that when said assumptions were tested it turned out they were wrong the implications for this are truly enormous in that what you believe about human nature determines every single aspect of human life whether what you prioritize as an individual person what you hold sacred what you teach in school how you organize the family workplace governance and anything else you could possibly imagine in short the left just made stuff up about human nature and then used it as a bludgeon to completely reconstruct society according to their fantasies as I like to say if you're not basing your assessments of the world off history you're just making stuff up the first place I stumbled into this was seeing that academia had no interest in explaining the questions above a lot of them they literally just didn't care for why Pennsylvania had failed so hard I legitimately did not find a real explanation and instead had to rely off basic folk wisdom around where I grew up in Philly this is important because over a hundred million Americans got screwed over by the collapse of the Rust Belt and if academia was honest they would try to figure out why so it wouldn't happen again same with why the Middle East doesn't have black people for Latin America's poverty and the West's civilizational dominance the authorities told me that Latin America was destroyed due to extractive colonial systems and the West rose to dominance due to oppressing the third world as I study those topics myself I found this hard to believe due to reasons which I explain in this text wall what I consistently found is that every single thing in the leftist paradigm leads back to the same conclusion that being that the oppressed could not be held responsible for failure while the oppressors or successful always had to be held responsible for any negatives it's just an intellectual shell game in which you have to rationalize every single aspect of the world in order to reach that result this is argument from faith as I've said a few times before it's literally in direct contradiction with the stated purpose of the scientific method the great irony here is that the people pushing this claim to be the science and anyone who contradicts them is pseudoscience even if people who contradict them use the scientific method more than they do one of the things I found which basically resulted in me stumbling into creating the acronym saw or studies in ancient wisdom is that I realized over 99% of history agreed on a series of rational precepts and starting points that our society disagreed with horrifyingly our society had made this completely taboo and often in much of the Western world illegal to question things that were just completely obvious for all of human history to break down some of the beliefs almost everyone else in history had except us and took to be completely obvious which are taboo to question today the first being that there are inherent biological differences between men and women next is some inherent biological reality behind class race and ethnicity that progress is not some natural law of the universe but something that only occurs under certain incentive structures which are rare over history family community and nation is the bedrock of social life that war is a nasty part of the human condition that we have to accept equality doesn't really exist and some things are innately better than others that the highest levels of beauty achievement and greatness are pulling from the divine while the lowest levels are pulling from demonic forces that these do not exist physically in the way we describe but are underlying archetypal principles or forms that operate over physical matter that human nature is inherently corruptible and requires social traditions to keep us in check that there is a spirit world and God that the human soul and consciousness is a force in its own right that human life and happiness is predicated less upon material wealth and more so upon social relations or values that the universe is a self-reflective emergent phenomena which adapts to different situations to frame this literally everyone else in history besides us believed all of that stuff even the most educated people in the West at the start of World War one believed most of the stuff I said above literally every other era in history besides that believed in them I have a mental heuristic that if someone put Isaac Newton Christ Confucius Buddha Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle in a room if they agree on something I'm just going to assume it's true as a baseline that since these people were the greatest geniuses often coming from civilizations with zero connection to the other figures I use this principle since I don't have infinite computing power in my brain and I don't have infinite knowledge given I am NOT God thus I have to develop different mental tools that operate under the assumptions of my lack of information one of the methods to do that is to find other thinkers more brilliant than I that I cannot understand the depth of their thought and then if I can get them in different contexts to agree on something in a nearly scientific way I can make a probabilistic bet that what they agree on is probably true this should just be complete common sense but our society hasn't thought of it yet the thing that terrifies me is that our society has no interest in knowing that we are literally the only people ever who believe in this stuff that fits the literal definition of madness one of my friends like to say that if you're the only sane person in an insane asylum that makes you the crazy one crazy people don't put a sign on their heads that say I'm crazy the way to find madness is to find a person who has no interest in seeing the outside world showing the fantasies in their minds to be incorrect one of my friends is a beautiful quote that madness is the unhealthy obsession on a single topic to the detriment of everything else for our civilization I think we have a variety of mental illnesses at once something that probably deserves its own video God I must have promised to make hundreds of videos by this point however the unhealthy obsession which is stolen our world soul is the idea of equality every single idea must be processed with how it relates to equality how we must organize our society religion philosophy corporations art and literally anything else must pander to our obsession with equality and the abdication of responsibility for the defeated the problem is equality by itself is completely antithetical to reality we are stuck in a horrifying Darwinist jungle where the strong eat the weak without remorse the lion is not equal to the deer and the chieftain to the foot soldier as time began to pass and I read more I realized the people in charge had literally no idea what they were talking about I cross-referenced the scientific information which everyone including leftists agreed with against the regime's right to rule and I realized the disconnect is truly enormous let's look into what the science says today about these sacred cows part to follow the science when I was growing up the school system was borderline obsessed with increasing knowledge or interest in stem or science math and tech topics this was partly a Cold War remnant and also a materialist society which saw no value for the wisdom the humanities teaches the irony is that I'm not particularly that good or interested in science however I do have a policy of trying to read at least a few books on any given topic and keep up with the scientific consensus of any given academic field is however even with all that effort the public is thousands of miles away from what the science says the people who say follow the science have no clue what the science even is I find it funny how much the educational institutions have failed in this regard this wasn't that hard for me to research none of the things I'm about to say here should be controversial this is stuff if you interviewed an important academic in any of these fields unless they felt like their job was on the line or they'd be socially outcasted they tell you immediately You can pick out these sorts of politics in how academics deal with each other, in which under certain contexts academics can be incredibly honest when they think just the peers who know what's up is listening. The easiest example of this is the nature versus nurture debate. The blue pill era was entirely predicated upon the idea that nurture was the complete determinant value while nature is irrelevant. The thing is that when we actually studied this, we found that it was completely incorrect. Strangely enough, the vast majority of human traits tend to cluster around being half genetic, and we think intelligence might be even more genetic, between two-thirds to 80%. Other traits that are at least partially genetic are levels of religiosity, charisma, what music you listen to, how fast you drive, and a variety of almost everything else. At this point, even legitimate socialists like Sapolsky, Katherine Harden, John Haidt, amongst all others, agree that human nature is heavily genetic. I have read multiple books written by socialists about trying to rationalize the new genetic evidence within a socialist framework. We've found this partly through twin studies, in which we look at genetically identical twins separated at birth. They often have chilling similarities, like marrying men with the same names, having the same kind of dog, or going to vacation at the same places, and a bunch of other stuff like that. At this point, genetics is completely irrefutable, and the evidence is getting stronger by the day. The genetic differences between men and women, between races and classes, have all been completely proven. I know five PhDs in genetics who all say that biological race and class has been irrefutably proven at this point, and again, every year, we realize more of what we thought was cultural conditioning was really genetic. We have significant scientific evidence that men and women are neurologically different on a genetic basis. This is something all of the science agrees with. While it completely contradicts our society's right to rule, the genetic data is a ticking time bomb, in my opinion, given it's become the new scientific consensus, and the old ruling class can only have so much time before this information percolates across the whole society. Twitter has become a huge vehicle in spreading this sort of illicit information. Our entire society is built in opposition to this, and thus it has mass political ramifications. The other worry is that wokeness has given a large part of the population immense resentment over racial or sexual agendas. Thus, the info coming out that there are significant racial and sexual differences creates immense fodder for a new wave of sexism or racism. My biggest fear for modernity is what I call the closed loop, or making a logical argument in which you're right by definition. On top of this, confusing the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself, which is using a definition to argue that you're right by definition. It's not an uncommon sentiment on the dissident right today to make a racial caste system based off race and IQ. I don't trust this sort of thing, since every time in the past we've tried to form a technocratic society based off science, the science later turned out to be wrong or missing a very important piece of context. What would happen is that after society was structured in a certain way like that, that decades later it would turn out the science was completely wrong in a very important way. I think a lot of this discourse is being done in a frankly very evil way, and that it's not taking into account humility or the fallibility of the human condition. When the left or a lot of the right debates, they're arguing out of this sense of humanity as a perfect creature who we engineer towards utopia. We learned in the 20th century that this sort of line of thinking will inevitably result in totalitarianism, no matter how it's applied. And when I look at a lot of this discourse about race or sex, I'm thinking, you guys don't see how the next immediate conclusion of this idea is something completely evil. And it's a hard point to convey because modernity can't think in anything except pretty autistic binary logical ideas without the necessary flexibility or synthetic thinking which the real complex world demand. And we really need a tremendous amount of mental flexibility and disarmament in this kind of discourse that we just don't have. And until we can move to that point, all of this discourse will end in complete disaster. At this point, to change topic, we have a tremendous amount of scientific study that men and women are markedly different. Men are less agreeable and neurotic than women. Men also systematize and women sympathize. Men care about things and women care about people. I want to use this as an example because saying men and women are the same is the thing the pre-industrial world would probably boggle at the most because they would see it as completely insane. And the fact that the blue pill era was able to get people to stand behind this point is a pretty good example to figure out how they argue. With this discourse, there was basically no research to determine whether or not men and women were the same. Instead, they used the argument from definition. The argument from definition is how the blue pill era was able to most easily get the population to believe complete absurdities. In that, for race or sex as an example, the logical structure of this argument is that race or sex have social constructions built around them. Thus, they are social constructs and thus they aren't real. For example, there are social ideas about the sun. Thus, the sun is a social construct and thus we could get rid of the sun if we wanted. This is exactly the intellectual structure they use. It's a really bizarre logical game that doesn't actually make any sense in that the underlying reality of the universe is that the world is real. If you don't do what the universe wants you to do, it then punishes you which is why we all work jobs and do things we dislike every day. Life is a struggle. I've taken a course in gender studies and literally studied this topic myself and this is literally what post-modernist philosophy publicly says. The problem is that this is just legitimately completely insane and I think we all really know that. I think this is the philosophic equivalent of a shit test or the left is pushing something completely ridiculous that we all know is completely ridiculous and they're doing it as a power game to see how much they can get the population to submit to a legitimate absurdity. The next mental trick the blue pill involves is that studying history is of no use for the world today and that we're so different from the past that nothing in the past is a useful precedent for us now. Again, this is something they never tested or even provided an argument for. I've never seen a valid argument for this but it's completely taken over academia and that there are basically no western academics who have tried to use the patterns of history to study the world since the World War II era. In academia, it's literally against their policies to use books written before let's say 1990 since they're outdated. This creates a system where insane new ideas can never be falsified. What I like to say is that if you're not using history to understand the world, you're just making stuff up. That's what happened where instead of a legitimate study, what the blue pill era did was project the fantasies they wanted to believe onto the social sciences. Thus, they believe that cultural or anthropological differences don't matter anymore since that contradicted the leftist ideal of the whole world moving toward a unified communist state. It's remarkable to see that even studying anthropology has become socially taboo. If I want to read books on the cultural differences between the Chinese, Indian, and western civilization, I need to read books at least 70 years old since nothing has been written on that topic since then. At the same time, there are no recent books on the anthropology of America. I basically had to rediscover the field of the entirety of American ethnic breakdown since no authors had covered the topic recently with the exceptions being conservatives like Thomas Sowell or David Hackett Fisher. This is important stuff. Whether or not Wisconsin is German or Missouri is Anglo determines how people live their lives today and their identities. The reason studying anthropology, which should be completely innocuous, is taboo since it contradicts the left's faith-based argument for global unity. If the historic precedent isn't useful, it opens up to the injection of leftist faith-based arguments such as progress being innate or progress just naturally happens and doesn't require incentives to occur. from Hegel or Marx that wasn't tested. Same thing with the honest studying of war as a natural part of a human condition, alongside equality being good for its own sake. In each case, by removing the historic reference, they were able to inject their religion as the dominant assumption. One of the more primal areas where the science doesn't lead to our current paradigm is that our current vision of the world is that society is based off the mechanistic, pure materialist worldview. In general, we exist in a strange zombie culture in which the society has a 100 plus year lag from the science itself. The great irony is that modern physics sounds a lot like the traditional philosophy of magic. Quantum entanglement sounds a lot like the law of sympathy or a magic principle from the middle ages that the universe has these strings connecting different parts of the universe. Modern physics is insane with space and time being the same, which can rip apart. With chaos theory, we've found that we can't predict the movement of particles since it's almost as if the particles are making a decision in real time that we're not privy to. Some particles go back in time and others just jump in and out of existence. There's a significant amount of scientific evidence that consciousness affects reality. The last Nobel Prize in physics says that reality is not locally real or that the universe does not exist independently from perception. This is stuff pretty similar to what the esoteric schools of world religions taught. Any honest physicist will admit that we have basically no idea what's going on. Our society is philosophically still stuck with Marxist materialism or the philosophy of 200 years ago that the universe is made up entirely of physical atoms. Ideas don't really matter and the only thing that drives history is economics, which leads us to progress. Again, this is another example of the left pushing what's a Marxist, faith-based argument that they never tested. Scientists today agree that consciousness is real and can affect the world. Thus, the world cannot be purely materialist by definition. This materialist vision of the world is predicated upon a warped version of Newtonian physics, which has also been dethroned over a century ago. Our philosophic view of the human condition is dominated by Skinner's behaviorism and rational choice theory. This is an idea that humans don't have innate nature and that dopamine incentives craft everything. Rational choice theory is that humans are innately rational and thus choose whichever choice is better for them economically. What science has consistently shown recently is that humans are basically monkeys. Human behavior is a reflection of primate behavior to our very core. How humans have politics, wage war, mate, make art, have friendships, and almost anything else can be found in our ape relatives. This gets to a really scary degree where human rituals like hugging or saluting or certain ways we mate or show political subservience can all be found in chimps, gorillas, or bonobos. Humans aren't the little robots that respond to stimuli that our society thinks, but huge, very complex beings who have subconsciouses who go very deep. The subconscious makes up something like 90% of our mental power. We've found in studies the two things that make people the happiest aren't wealth, but instead religion and community. The human mind evolutionarily massively wires us towards love being a huge priority. Love is a physiological need for humans and all other mammals. Without it, our brains and bodies literally start to wither away. This is in direct opposition to how modernity is structured to prioritize material against the spiritual or social. Humans are motivated enormously by sex, more so than money. Expecting humans to be rational about sex is like expecting a dog to be rational about steak. This is another thing modernity gets wrong. You'll never see a history book talk about sexual, physical, psychological, or emotional needs, but we know that those drive human nature to its most profound core. Humans are controlled by vast subconscious forces that account for 90% of the population. For 90% of people, they rationalize whatever their emotional state is. Only around 10% of the population makes rational decisions. Humans are self-interested, but we're rarely rational. From studies, people make a decision first for subconscious reasons, and then their conscious mind is a tool to rationalize the choice to make them look good to others. The book The Elephant in the Brain talks about this, and it's one of the best anthropology books I've read. All of this completely flies in the face of the idea which underlies our society, that human nature is naturally good or perfectible. The science finds humanity is very, very flawed. An example of this, and one of the most absurd lies of the blue pill era, is that tribal peoples are peaceful. This is especially ridiculous to me in that all the European and other peoples with records who arrived at any given tribal area said that the peoples there waged war. However, the left had an active conspiracy to hide that tribal peoples are violent, hierarchical, misogynistic, and other things. The degree of lying that went on here is extraordinary. The left claimed for decades that the Yanomami peoples of the Amazon were peaceful. In reality, 40% of the male population dies every generation in war, making the Yanomami one of the most violent peoples ever known in human history. Similar lies took place over a variety of peoples, and in most cases, in tribal groups between 40-20% of young men die each generation in warfare. Humans, like all animals, are stuck in a brutal Darwinistic competition for survival, in which violence is the norm, not the exception. One of the best anthropology books I've ever read is Lawrence Keeley's book War Before Civilization, which covers this. It's such a good book given it goes through the evidence of tribal warfare from both current anthropology and archaeology. In so many places, the left got caught with a completely ridiculous lie. For example, saying the Mayans were peaceful, while the reality, when we started looking at Maya art, is it's mostly about war, sacrifice, and genocide. They said Native Americans were peaceful before European contact, and then we find archaeology of mass Native American genocides and mass graves of hundreds of dead people. They said Native Americans were peaceful before European contact, and then we find records in archaeology of mass Native American genocides, burning cities, and mass graves of hundreds of dead soldiers. When I was in elementary school around age 10, my school textbook said that the Iroquois were peaceful. The insanity of that is that the Iroquois jagged a 1,000 mile stretch of the American Midwest from Buffalo to St. Louis in order to take the beaver pelts of that area. That's legitimately insane. At this point, I've seen the left lie so massively on a variety of topics that I have literally no faith in any of the other things they say. An example of this is when they found the genetics of the first inhabitants of Britain, the scientists said they were black. The reality is that they had copper skin like most modern Mediterraneans, but they changed this to be black to mess with racists. 23andMe openly admitted to adding fake black ancestry to the results of white supremacist figures to mess with them. The left feels literally no remorse for lying and has been caught on records doing it dozens of times. Need I remind you, back in the 1940s, the left tried to suppress any information about the atrocities coming out of Stalin or Mao's countries. And leftist anthropology believed that we all migrated out of Africa 50,000 years ago, and then there was no prehistoric migrations or major wars. And that's just legitimately ridiculous to think that for all of human history before the rise of the Europeans, everyone stood in their little place and no one fought each other or moved around. And once genetics results came out over the 21st century, we realized that that's completely ridiculous, where genocide and war is the norm, where for example, Ice Age Europe was genocided seven times over. Another really jarring example of this is that the most popular anthropology book of the 20th century, that being Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa. Margaret has later turned out to be a CIA asset, a theme which we'll tease out later, but she wrote about Samoa being a sexually liberated paradise, Samoans would sleep around without jealousy. we knew for over a century up to that point, is that Samoa was the opposite. A society obsessed with sexual purity. A woman's d*** would be publicly checked on her wedding night to attest to her virginity. Adulterers would be publicly clubbed to death. Margaret Mead was basically openly lying, something she probably knew and didn't care. For the final two examples of horrible lies which personally affected me as a child, the first is that when I went to school, they taught us in class that the healthiest food to eat was carbohydrates and that lean meat was the least healthy. They also said that fat was the main cause for obesity while sugar was fine. It later turned out that the sugar and wheat industries were in bed with the US government and academia. They had paid for the results they wanted and then the government education pushed out those results onto the public. What later turned out to be true is the exact opposite. Lean meats are one of the healthiest foods someone can consume. Fat is fattening but it does actually fill someone up while sugar is the opposite, keeping you hungry. What all of this covered up was the rise of seed oils and high fructose corn syrup. Due to getting the wrong advice, obesity skyrocketed vastly faster in America vis-a-vis other Western countries where this didn't happen. Again, the elites massively lied. I grew up in the Rust Belt. It was an area that used to be the wealthiest place in the world and then as factories moved to Mexico or China, the region went into rapid decline. Philadelphia has a lower population today than it did in 1950. This was something that was completely obvious to me growing up and I saw the decay everywhere. The elites said that the free trade was good by definition and would cause progress for everyone. This was an economic position held with religious certainty where it was a definition from definition. You weren't allowed to question it. However, when the Rust Belt crashed and the quality of life for the average American collapsed precipitously from 1970 onwards, this is what the elite did. Firstly, they said that it wasn't happening. Then they said they would fix it, which they didn't. Then they said you were a bad person for noticing and you should be grateful that you helped progress happen. I have a friend who invented a term I love called pinkerism or since there are more toilets in Africa, thus progress has happened and thus the complete collapse of American society is fine. The elites completely lied about the decline in quality of life for the average American until Trump and COVID forced their hand. Bringing up any of these questions at the time would make you socially shamed and outcasted from society. I still run into lots of very educated people who think that quality of life hasn't declined since the 60s. Then they said anyone who noticed was a bad person. For a very recent example of all of this, let's see how the Biden administration just added nearly a million jobs to the employment stats that never existed. That's a large enough numeric discrepancy that it has to be an outright lie, not a mistake. They had been campaigning off fake stats for the whole Biden presidency and then felt no shame when they were called out. Furthermore, this is just what we know about. What else have they been lying about? Something else I've thought of myself is how the rise in digital information about human nature will probably revolutionize the world. As of now, the internet and these cell phones create an unfiltered look at human nature that's not comparable to anything before in human history. As the amazing book, Everyone Lies talks about, people will share things they won't even tell their closest friends with Google search. The internet sees what poor people watch, how they react emotionally to things, what motivates or interests them. If they want to be even more predatory, these tech companies or the government could listen in on our conversations, hear the speed of your breathing as you sleep, or watch any moment of your life completely legally. I think this information will shed a new light on human nature in a way that's historically unprecedented. It will paint an unflattering light, but a real one. I think the ramifications on philosophy, the social sciences, and human nature will be the equivalent to the Axial Age or how Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and Socrates all lived at the same time. The Axial Age created a quantum shift in understanding of human nature and human society, which I think will happen soon. Part three, How the Lie Happened. The question I posited at the beginning of the video still bugs me. How come a society with the most information ever, with lots of people with very high IQs and freedom of speech, was able to push the most ridiculous lie ever told for nearly a person's entire lifetime? I want to remind all of us about this. Most of us were complicit in this lie in one way or another. I know I was. I believed most of these silly things as a child, as did everyone I knew. Once you realize we all accepted these lies, it forces you to look at the post-World War II era very differently. The short answer is I think the liberal West had more in common with Stalinist or Soviet Russia than we want to give justice, which was actually a European reactionary talking point. As Balaji likes to say, in the 19th century, faith in God was the unifying force in society. In the 20th, the state was. And in the 21st, it will likely be networks attached to the internet. We only realized this in retrospect, but the 20th century involved giving unelected bureaucratic authorities ludicrous amounts of power, which was almost always abused in absurd ways, which we only later realized through the networks the internet gave us. This is something that the historical authors I love to read from the World War era, like Amory de Riencourt, C.S. Lewis, James Burnham, George Orwell, Carol Quigley, Spengler, and William McNeill all agree on. That the West over the World Wars gave the bureaucracy enormous power without check, and they all agreed that it was the greatest danger to Western civilization of anything. What James Burnham and Sam Francis especially predicted is that the bureaucracy would start to warp and break society in their self-interest in ways that people at the time wouldn't be able to realize the true extent of. What both of those authors did very well was they showed how a society's religion, ideology, and how it processed the world is all a reflection of its elite self-interest. I'll explain it in this way. In the 20th century, the only way to coordinate was through the bureaucracy. The television, newspapers, and universities created an illusion of free information, but the reality is that these were all controlled by small cabals of certain types of people. Probably less than 100 people in 1985 controlled the flow of the vast majority of information in the Western world. This was an era in which that type of person was assorted by the college system and were overwhelmingly left of center. People would joke about how conservatives would talk of the liberal elite destroying society, but even the most radical conservatives probably didn't understand how crazy what was actually going on was. We only realized how powerful this was in retrospect and that the internet does the opposite. Let's look at the story about Venezuelan gangs taking over a town in Colorado or the Haitians supposedly eating cats in Ohio. In a pre-internet world, if the media chose not to cover those stories, people would just never know about them. One of the interesting things I find anthropologically is that people's concepts of places like Africa are colored by what vloggers say about those countries now. This creates a rawer sense of those places while we found the mainstream media in previous decades when they went to third world countries were very heavily sanitizing what they chose to show the public. An important point here is that for most of history, the society was racist and sexist and hierarchical and that stuff because that was a reflection of the people in those societies. While in the post-World War II era, the elites actively pushed against those things, which is why the society was less of any of those negative traits because it wasn't really about the people in the society. It was about a small ruling class projecting their social ideas onto the rest. This is why a suicidal cult that believes reality doesn't exist was able to take over the West while the vast majority of people in the West disagreed with those sentiments. We can see this in Western Europe in which, while polled, consistently three-quarters of Europeans have wanted no immigration, but since the Uniparty supports it, it continues to happen. Sam Huntington did a study of the social values of the average American in the 1990s. that if America was a real democracy into the 20th century, reflecting the public's desires, it would basically be a theocracy in which homosexuality would be illegal, Christianity taught in schools, and the state enforced Christianity since that's what most Christians supported into the 1990s, but a small agnostic elite meant that the cultural current went in the opposite direction. We've consistently found a lot of these were pushed by the CIA. Modern art, modern feminism, Margaret Mead, and other things were funded by the CIA. This is stuff the CIA openly publicly has announced as well. When we look at what the CIA was funding, they were consistently pushing blank slate-ist ideas. This was since for the government and people in power, the blank slate makes them more powerful since the engineering of human nature to perfection offers a perfect carte blanche in order to keep expanding the power of the state forever. On top of this, it removes the obvious fear that concentrating power in the hands of the government like this naturally leads to tyranny because human nature is perfectible and progressing. To see the other side of this exact equation, the CIA sat on their discoveries of the spirit world for decades. I know what I said is absolutely insane, but watch my video on the topic. This always shocked me, given if I discovered a huge spiritual dimension scientifically, I would want to share it with the public to create an enormous positive social spiritual revolution. However, even when the CIA did release Project Gateway 50 years after it was done, they removed the page on its implication for world religions, which the guy who ran the experiments had to release without their consent. That's since a world with religion and God is one where people need the state and the authorities less. When all's said and done, for something like this, we can partly believe that the authorities pushed this, while at the same time, this is a game that both sides played into. The public happily ate up all of these absurdities. That's since the public desperately wanted it to be true. It's no surprise that knowing human nature for what it is, that if a society had infinite wealth, it would then allow itself to become infinitely stupid. We wanted to believe that everyone is equal, that we were all blank slates, that the scary demons of the past didn't reflect anything today, that women were the same as men, that all nations were the same, and half a dozen other silly things. I'd like to stop here and give the West a legitimate amount of credit that when it became an incredibly wealthy society, rather than most empires, which spend that on luxuries and sex slaves and gladiatorial games and that stuff, the West used its enormous wealth to try to help people and make the world a better place and push for people's collective good. It horribly backfired and became a suicidal nihilistic death cult, but I do want to give the West credit. If you study the Old Testament, you find the consistent pattern that in hard times, men look to God. Then life gets better due to that, and then men leave God. Then the world goes to hell and the cycle restarts. This is just who we are as a species, and thinkers as far back as Herodotus, Abel, Caldoun, or Plato talk about this eternal pattern. We became such a wealthy society that we simply lost the desire to understand reality. We grew fat while the elite fed us the most ridiculous lies. It's funny, the world's a lot less real when there's not the threat of extinction at your throat. If I'm going to be perfectly blunt, the reason I went down this rabbit hole is I realized we were screwed if we didn't. I'm a young guy stuck in a society and collapse. Thus, I'm stuck here for a long time and have an incentive to figure stuff out. I can understand why an older person would just say, let me die in peace. My motivation to figure this out comes from self-interest, and our current elite doesn't have the self-interest to change since they're in power. Let's not pretend that if the world wasn't going to hell, we wouldn't all be stuck in Plato's rave. We are all complicit, at least somewhat, in the greatest lie ever told. I like the metaphor for Plato's cave, not rave, in that Plato was trying to convey how most people are stuck in the outward trappings of things, while being completely incapable of seeing the underlying forms of reality. I think that's a generally accurate summation of human nature over history, in which the general population has myths which act as rough approximations of their worldview, which can't convey the complexity of an underlying reality. However, I prefer a slight variation to this. Let's look at the Matrix. The Matrix was more real than its authors intended, or I think even understood, given the writers were leftists and later trans. The Matrix is real in that the 20th century was a false reality which the authorities enforced on the populace. The populace went along with it since it was so comforting compared to the reality. Anyone who questioned said false reality which the authorities enforced on the population would be outcasted from the system, either socially or economically, or even sometimes thrown in jail. The post-World War II West evolved into a greater social tyranny than the Catholic Church ever was. We are living in the Matrix and most people are still glued into this false reality that never really existed, a sort of parallel dimension. Rather than Plato's cave, we live in Foucault's cardboard box, in that the modern world isn't even cool enough to be a cave. It's a cardboard box to illustrate its artificiality, sterility, and boredom. It's crazy to read books from previous history, as recently as World War I. Back then people saw the world as incredible, mystical, beautiful, and heroic. Now our elite hates any genuine feeling, duality, mystery, or drama. Prove me wrong. Our society hates heroism, romance, mystery, honor, the mystical and dramatical. Believing in anything is cringe. The world that the managers push is an inhuman, cruel, controlled, and depressing place. A place where life itself is boring, sterile, and nothing is worth anything. Once we realize we're stuck in a cardboard box, beyond which is the whole world in all its insanity, is the day we truly start to live. Once we can move past the comforting lies we were fed, even if it's excruciatingly painful and hard, we will start to be able to truly live for the first time. It's getting to be less of a choice as the rain is starting to melt through the cardboard box. We'll end up wet either way, so why not make the jump?