A (0:00)

Some truths are so enormous that words cannot convey them. The smallest and the greatest things can only be conveyed in silence, since they're too grand to be able to talk about them. That's how I feel about what I know now. I've seen something so enormous that it's like the sky is a different color now. But then I run into normies who still see the world in the old way. They can't understand that their own worldview just doesn't work. It's a false reflection they've made that doesn't make sense once you start pulling at the different threads that tie it together. When I was a teenager, I still belonged to the blue pill world. I had never thought much about the blank slate. There was nothing written on the differences between men and women or different races. Yet people didn't talk about so many things and we lived in ignorance through emission. It's really remarkable how arrogant we were and how we thought. We had total knowledge on how the world worked. We were controlled since we focused on the little things that don't matter, which allowed us to ignore the big picture things that actually do. The big picture involved everything that really did matter between our sense of identity, religion, economics, mating, or the direction of our society as a whole. It was stolen from us as we were told to focus on making money in hedonism instead. In the last seven years, since I graduated high school and I'm 24 now, I went through a very important journey. I gradually deconstructed how the entire world we all used to live in for our whole lives were false. None of this is real and it's all a lie. This story feels very important to me, but there's not an archetypal frame to explain it in our society. So I don't really know how to articulate it to most people I talk to, which is why I don't. In short, none of this is real and it's all a lie. This is a theme I've spoken about in several previous videos, with some prime examples being the Greatest Lie Ever Told or my video on the rise and fall of the blue pill about how the 20th century built a Plato's cave of comfortable illusions. Lots of people can understand that in certain topics, like politics or with trans, that we've been deceived. But what I've found is this goes so much deeper. Once you flip the log over, you'll find it's been completely eaten out by worms and insects already. This is a video to dissect our rotting basement of a worldview and show why the entire old world we've spent our lives Zen was all a lie. One of the biggest lies in our reality is that we're past the age of war. War still captures the minds and imagination of many who play war games and possibly the best war game out there is the epic online game War Thunder. War Thunder is the most comprehensive vehicle war game ever made with more than 2500 different planes, tanks, helicopters and ships that you can use in the most epic Combined Arms PvP battles. Every vehicle is completely modeled down to its component parts with designs from the 1920s to the present. What I find especially cool about this game is that there are no hit points. The vehicles take damage to their crew and parts, creating a really immersive experience. War Thunder is one of those timeless games that's available Everywhere, be that PC, PlayStation, Xbox and even on your phone with all the new mobile version so you can take the game with you wherever you go. Join a community of over 95 million players. Those of you that are new or returning after six months on PC or console also get a massive free bonus pack. So try War Thunder today and use the links in the description to get a free bonus pack featuring vehicles and boosters Part one A Failing of Human Nature before we get started, I want to clarify what I mean by the word worldview. In German philosophy, the word worldview carries all of the connotations which make sense in their culture which we don't have in an English speaking context. For example, the German concept of worldview is an all encompassing vision of how reality works which will vary by civilization. This is where the term Islamic or Western world comes from. This matters since it changes what the term world even means. A lot of people perceive the word world and I find that funny because word is an Old Norse word for destiny. So it's sort of the destiny of the world, which is how worldviews work is it shifts from the end of the world, meaning the end of all human life, to the end of a sort of civilizational vision which you could see with the fall of the Greco Roman classical ecumene or the known world. Alternately, I will reference the modern versus early modern or medieval worlds for each of these they inhabit often the exact same physical areas as different worldviews, but had such wild, wildly fluctuating ideas on how the world worked that in some ways they're almost different fantasy novels. We really underestimate how the way most people in history perceived the world is significantly closer to the Warhammer fantasy universe than our vision of the world today, we project nihilism onto other eras of history unconsciously, since it's so prevalent and all consuming for our society. I think the history of psychology and consciousness has the potential to be something of profound importance. Importance if done correctly. The way humans perceive the world has changed radically over history and often in very brief time periods. I mean, think of how much our vision of the world has changed within the last century or the last lifetime and then magnify that over thousands or millions of years. There's a really brilliant book called the Passion of the Western Mind by Tarnas which breaks down the course of Western intellectual history into a three part segment and then tries to explain the core contentions and way each worldview worked. He splits it into the Greek, medieval, Christian and modern worldviews. For reasons I explain in this text wall, we often radically misinterpret how ancient or medieval thinkers understood the world through not comprehending the context their mental frame came from or what their language actually meant. The reason I'm articulating this here is that we know from history that we can invalidate and move on from old worldviews. This is just part of the process of human history where mankind develops as a species. Our minds have to evolve in unison with our material level of development. This is a philosophic point that I really cannot justify the modernist world's not understanding. It's just utterly insane. We haven't hit this philosophic threshold yet where we can't realize that if previous eras of history could be wrong, so will our era of history be. And we need to judge ourselves by the standard of what has already worked in history. Our era of history combines both profound self loathing and delusional arrogance at the same time, which is the worst place to be. Instead, you should aim towards confidence and humility. The self loathing is obvious in which the west has developed into self flagellation as its predominant religion and is now attempting to commit suicide. Both sides of the political spectrum, between left wing environmentalists to right wing traditionalists, openly hate modernity. At the very same time, the ego stems from thinking that we such a superior age of history, that there is no value in studying history. Academia has literally made it taboo and refuses to publish books on using history to study the world today. All the major authors on this topic are either based outside the western world or from there, or are self published non academic authors. No other era of history has ever been this arrogant in that they always valued the opinions of their ancestors. This is a very, very important philosophic point which changes how you frame the entire world. In our current society, the way we actually operate is that the ruling authorities will fund scientific research to benefit their own self interest. In most cases, these scientific experiments are never replicated. And if you know how there are so many ways to skew data to whatever point you want, then the media and academia who are part of the same system of control, enforce this on the public. Science is not our society's dominant code, but rather pseudoscientific ideology is. This is completely obvious once you compare all of the intellectual or academic information, as I'm excited to do so in this video. The reason the idea that every era of history can be wrong is so important to since it's a bulwark against our own foolishness and arrogance. In practical life, none of us are this foolish. We use common sense and reality filters in order to live. And you have to do the same thing on a macro geopolitical level. What nations say in their documents aren't who they are. Their actions dictate that going forward. I'm going to refer to our current worldview or paradigm as the MAP or modern materialist academic paradigm. I'm using this to describe the general vision of the world which our current ruling class, between academia, the government and the media all share. When I say that we can't trust the information we know. Now this is an example of what I mean. Imagine trying to explain electricity or computers to an ancient Babylonian. Keep in mind the idea of using rationality to explain the world stems from the ancient Greeks, as did the hypothes, or even the concept of the laws of nature. For the Babylonians, their entire worldview was based around gods with intentions willing reality into existence. The idea that you would study natural laws to gain mastery of them and do things like the industrial revolution simply would not be comprehensible to the Babylonians. This is why I refuse to have clear opinions on UFOs or a lot of physics. I'm sure there is some underlying principle here that explains these things, but I'm highly doubtful that our society either has the mental models or the tools to understand how the world works completely. Imagine trying to explain the theory of evolution to someone in the 17th century where you'd also have to articulate lots of concepts like that the world was not made by God 6,000 years ago, that mankind is a descendant from the apes, or the principles of genetics and heredity. Imagine trying to explain World War II to someone in the 15th century who'd have to explain Germany unified you had the industrial revol. Evolution, you'd have to explain what science was. It's just the world changes a lot. And remember that the universe doesn't owe you anything and is however complex and absurd as it wants to be. I'm always shocked. This is such a difficult concept for thinkers today, in which practically no modernist thinkers broach this idea. This concept has just been intuitive to me ever since I was a child, that this era of history is not the ultimate arbiter and we will make mistakes in the same way that every other era will. This is why I developed the concept of saw, or how frequently modern science from the 21st century matches up with ancient wisdom. It's often opposed to the pseudoscience of the 20th century. Alternately, a concept I invented is the universal scholar, which is if you put Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Isaac Newton, Carl Jung and Muhammad, just to name a handful of widely respected thinkers around the world in history into a single room that if they can agree on something, you can assort that it's probably true. Those thinkers are more intelligent than me and I am not smart enough to understand all of their thought processes. But as a sort of probabilistic bet, if they agree on something in different contexts, not aware of the others, it's probably true. If 99% of human history believes something, it's probably true. But the crazy thing is that modernity in most cases is opposed to what almost all humans in history believed. I find the idea that the universe has to be rational and logical stemming from some warped view of medieval scholasticism descending from Plato, has done an enormous amount of damage to modern people trying to understand the world. People want the world to be neat and to fit into charts. When things don't fit into charts, whether the complexities of human nature, the genome, the subconscious culture, or quantum physics, people get angry. But that was never the point. Life is not reasonable. In fact, it is frequently profoundly insane and disturbing. Life is only beautiful and worth living due to its chaos, as above. So below for a brief frame of reference, and this should probably be a topic of its own video in its own right. But practically all societies in history before the modern world believed that heredity was at least a large part of sex, race, class and other things. They believed in the divine and a great chain of being which stretched from lower forms to higher forms, where it was our duty to move upwards. They believed that things like tradition or the nation or culture were necessary bulwarks against a fallible human nature, that war and other unpleasant things like plague were Just part of the simulation. And we had to accept them and do our best to compete in these systems. They saw history as fairly cyclical, where you see patterns continue again and again. And they saw the entire universe as a place with meaning built into it, where it was our duty to live out that meeting as much as possible, where the material exists to serve the ideal, where there are these broader archetypal principles which God created and humans have to live out these archetypes like goodness or evil, or higher or lower forms, or justice or tyranny, or these things. Again, these societies that would have agreed with this include all of pre modern European history, Greco Roman, classical civilization, the major Asian civilizations, the major tribal peoples in prehistory, where modernist people do not understand how separ they are from the vast majority of people in human history. And if we're totally unwilling to investigate if over 95% of people in history were wrong in their worldview, that is profoundly dangerous. A really good example for how you end up with the silliness of the current map paradigm is that people today like to build a series of logical arguments which can then be added together towards the end result they want. Think of Karl Marx, who built a theory. Assuming Hegel's theory of the historic dialectic was correct, then assuming that only economic or material variables propelled human nature or history, then that there was a natural arc of history which bent towards the lower classes after this, that all of human nature was innately equal, where the only variable in economic progress was the upper classes oppressing the lower classes. Finally, that the culmination of this process was the creation of an anarchic totalizing state through revolution that would just work because it was destined by history to work. I call this method adding as if clauses like coding. People seem to think that the more as if clauses, the smarter they are. They think they're building Legos on top of each other to make a beautiful structure, while in reality they're just building Jenga. Where the more clauses they add, the less likely the final endpoint of the argument here is correct. The issue with arguments like this is that if one link in this chain of logic is wrong, it means Marxism as an ideology will not work in the real world. I hope you notice that with the way I write my videos, I try to minimize as if clauses as much as possible and I try to understand the real context of a situation for what it is. As if clauses are a pretty serious issue, since this very chain of logic was used to murder downwards of 100 million people. The way Our worldview became a lie was through this trick. Another element here is that for most of these ideas, when they were tested they were proven to be demonstratively incorrect, or they never tested these ideas in the first place, or they built structures to actively avoid testing them. Marxism or Freudianism are great examples where built into their implicit structure is that anyone who tries to falsify them are either class enemies or repressed. This means they're stuck in the closed loop where they use definitions which say they're correct by definition since they defined their terms that way. Modernity's great issue is confusing the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself. This makes our culture profoundly gullible and silly, that since we will build an entire worldview off foundations that are just incorrect and then invalidate the entire project. This is one of the things I see the map paradigm does, which just makes me face the map paradigm will demand an enormous amount of effort and willpower in order to attain goals that don't even make sense. For example, the entire communist experiment, which again killed like 80 million people, was based off economic principles which anyone with any degree of knowledge or wisdom knew were totally incorrect at the time of Marx wokeness or Nazism as examples are just based off objectively incorrect principles or ideas, and thus any attempt attempt to reach them will always backfire. You can't have an incorrect idea and then be shocked that it doesn't work. Nietzsche said that overwork was a symptom of modernity, or using constant busyness as a way to get out of the two or three major things that really mattered to the course of your life. In the ancient or medieval worlds, your life was naturally organized around the things which would give you the most meaning. That meant that through the process of living you would naturally cultivate meaning, so you'd be happy on your deathbed. In the map paradigm, the world is organized, organized around the most meaningless things first, like hedonism or comfort, while totally ignoring the concept of meaning. This is why we have a suicidally nihilistic society before we get started going through the evidence later in this video. If you're wondering how this happened, the short answer is that MAP is like a student who just keeps making an equation larger and larger, pouring huge amounts of effort into it. But the thing is, the math is just wrong, so it doesn't matter. Modernity never checks to if its assumptions are even correct. There is no quality control. This is ironic since science, and especially so after peer review which emerged after World War II, should have done the Opposite. But this has clearly not been the case in Applied Reality. We made a false imitation of the world as our worldview and then didn't check the relationship between our simulation and the original. One of the points James Burnham made that's so brilliant in his prophetic book called the Suicide of the west that was written in 1961 was that when you interact with the progressive, you're dealing with their mental projection of the world, not the reality. When the left thinks of black people, they have their own mental image of blacks as progressive helpless babies, which bears very little resemblance to actual living black people. If their economic policies fail, it's always the Right's fault, since their worldview was designed to have no feedback loop to reality to disprove it. That since the left is built off the abdication of responsibility. The reason we did this was several fold. The first is that the staggering wealth and progress of the last few centuries in the Western world made delusion very easy. The title for this segment is a play on words that this false worldview is both an outcome of an understandable failing of human nature, that any population which experienced as much success as the west did would have an ego issue. The good thing is that the west largely did not use this power in a totally proletarian manner to lord it over the world's inhabitants, and made the decision to pull back and try to be more moral at the same time. The core lie of this false worldview was the misunderstanding of human nature, which I discuss in the Greatest Lie Ever Told. The counterintuitive nature of a lot of real science meant that people could use sciencey sounding terms to pretend that the sky was red somehow. I mean, if you talk about physics, most of it does not make sense to normal people or math, and so it's easy to convince them that the world itself does not make sense. Secondly, the rise of democracies and mass societies alongside the huge scale of the Industrial Revolution meant that there was a large incentive to believe things that sounded pleasant and placated as many people as possible. Once you get into large enough groups, the incentive is no longer truth seeking, but rather it becomes placating its own hive mind. Unlike earlier eras of history, which were aristocratic, in our society, the ruling regime needs to use science to maintain their right to rule as technocrats. Thus they have to control and indoctrinate the population to stay in power. Part two let's make a checklist. When I say that this entire worldview is fake, people normally don't believe me. However, until you really Add up each bit, you don't realize how bad it is. It's not like we've just had scientific malpractice and instead there's been a very pre planned worldview which was forced down our throats against our consent. Let's start with the area where I know the most, or in the humanities, as I've alluded to before, the core issue we have today is our concept of human nature, which is totally incorrect. Thomas Sowell covered this very well in his book A Conflict of Visions in which he talks about how the left and right are divided by a core contention about human nature. That being whether human nature is perfectible or not. Not. In retrospect, it's really remarkable how naive the Western intellectuals have been. To a frankly absolutely dangerous degree. The Western intellectuals since the time of the Enlightenment have surrendered all of the core pillars of their civilization's worldview, even when they were objectively correct, out of fear of looking nerdy. The core contention that human nature is perfectible or not determines every other detail in that society's social structure or worldview. As I've mentioned in other videos, In a world where human nature is not perfect able, then society and traditions have to be built in a certain way to offset the failings of human nature. These have consistently been the structures which have worked the best over human history. Every religion has been a way to grapple with the failings of human nature and develop standards to offset them. The American political system was very overtly designed by its founders to decentralize power as much as possible in order to prevent the centralization of power, power which would create tyranny. It's not a coincidence America is the most successful society ever in human history, as were Britain, Athens or Rome, whose founders did the exact same thing with their constitutions. As a side note here, the reason that the founding fathers had a view of human nature which was fairly accurate and the French revolutionaries had a worldview that was not, and they lived within a generation of the other, is that these were gradual trends which took over the and encapsulated certain social classes faster than others or certain areas faster than others. As an example, in France, which was governed by the managerial class into the Lyncien regime before the French Revolution, they took on a lot of these mechanistic atheist, materialist ideas because it was in the interest of their ruling class. Meanwhile in the Anglosphere these ideas took longer to grow because they were still dominated by the nobility and the merchant classes who were ground in reality or tradition to a greater degree. There's a whole different discussion about when the map paradigm started and through what origins. And that should probably be its own video in its own right. Watch my Death of God video on history102 if you're curious, but I like Tarnas's answer of what he calls the Descartes, Spinoza, Galileo axis, where in the late 17th century you saw philosophers develop a worldview which utterly separated the scientific from the divine and the subjective which siloed religion off from the evolutions in the society, while making science utterly soulless and separated from human intentions. And that's where I think this started. And it gradually grew outwards from there, starting around France. However, back to the topic at hand. Capitalism, science and democracy are all built off the notion that human nature is innately fallible and that the one thing you can trust is that humans follow their own self interests. The reason systems built off these principles work so well is that in each of these structures, whether the mutual competition of capitalism or democracy, alongside science's fact checking mechanism, you have an inbuilt mechanism to offset the negatives of human nature with some objective standard. Meanwhile, when you look at the structures built off the idea that human nature is perfectible, an idea that was far too naive for anyone in history except modernity, you find unanimously the worst tyrannies ever. The Soviet Union, French Revolution, Nazis, Mao and the modern woke were all founded off these ideas. In each society in which human nature was seen as perfectible, the next reaction, which as Steven Pinker says is the obvious logical conclusion from the blank slate, is to try to use force to engineer the people involved into being saints. In the world of the blank slave slate, not using total power to reach utopia is immoral. Too bad they're wrong. There's been a significant amount of research on this and the blank slate is just wrong and scientifically disproven at every level in this point. John Haidt is one of my favorite authors and covers this in a lot of his books. The Elephant in the Brain is another great book on the topic. The scientific data on this is completely unanimous now on almost every vector. Being a blank slatist today is like being a flat earth. The real nail in the coffin which we have now that we didn't have a century ago are DNA or genetics data which proves that around half of human traits are genetic, alongside the Internet search data which is pretty damning. Personality, science and neurology, all of these point unanimously against the blank slate. A tipping point for me and a lot of other people for Realizing that this is all utter garbage, was looking at how the regime, regime argued that men and women were exactly the same and for trans, both of which, if you live as a human in the real world, are just madness. If you talk to men and women, it's very clear that they're different, which stems from long lasting biological differences which go back at least hundreds of millions of years. Every society in history thought men and women were different and built their lives around it. Furthermore, the idea that you can genetically mutilate yourself and take drugs to switch from one gender to the the other just makes no sense. And the regime pushed this with total certainty. So if they're pushing this with certainty, what else are they lying about? Because this is really the canary in the coal mine. What we've also found with all of these various methods is that biological sex, race and class are totally real. Almost every single trait is hereditable. Between your music taste, your political party, your social class, religiosity, porosity, eye color or noise sensitivity, everything is around at least half biological. Which is a total sucker punch to the modernist notions of firstly, the blank slate and secondly, equality. It's physically impossible from the scientific evidence to believe in equality today. However, equality is the greatest founding myth of our culture. I have read multiple books by socialists writing about how we should still believe in socialism even after we've disproven equality. They don't know that won't work yet. You can't have socialism without equality. This is just the first step here. But the removal of the blank slate followed by equality will destroy this current world. The only things that have stopped this have been that no one reads a book. But these genetics have been popularized through the general public by X already. We can't go back to the blank slate world. However. However, just this will destroy the raison d' etre of our society's ruling class, who appeal to equality and social engineering to maintain their power. Even at the tops of academia, people don't believe these things anymore. Both of Harvard's top anthropologists, Joseph Heinrich and David Reich, are firm believers that genetics determines a huge part of human nature and the existence of biological race. Secondly, the idea that culture really matters matters and that culture is meshed with genetics have been totally normalized by current academics and these thinkers. The idea that all cultures are interchangeable and you can just import infinity, Mexicans or Algerians without social cost cannot be defended intellectually in a world where anthropologists have loads of metrics which show that cultural differences are very deep, highly context based Cannot be erased quickly and are often tied to genetics. The thing is that if the dominant intellectuals don't believe in the ruling myth of a society, that means that at one point or another, within a generation or two, that ruling class is going to collapse As a sort of natural law after human nature and biology. Let's get into history. This is the field which was hardest to empirically falsify. In that history has these grand events which you can't just forget, like the French revolution or the Roman Empire, which are widely known enough by the general public. This is how I noticed the lie itself, in that as a teenager, I wanted to understand how the world worked. I considered studying science, but there weren't many science books around me. So I learned history from the older sort of books they kept around Philadelphia. That's how I got an older vision of the world. The lies around history are mostly on the edges with certain very clear biases which these sort of academics need to keep around. I can say this as an expert, but history, out of all of these, is the least falsified. People are questioning the history narrative on the 20th century, which was a period of a staggering amount of just historic information. The American revolution or slavery are other events which had a lot of propaganda around them, but they just can't be changed. Marxists have a big bias against conservative regimes like czarist Russia, Victorian Britain or medieval. They have an enormous bias towards left wing regimes, which is why the horrors of the Marxist bloc have not gained wide scale social currency in the western world. It's still socially acceptable to be a Marxist in a way. It isn't for Nazism, which killed less than half as many people in recent history, Especially where we have lots of records. The regime's lies are mostly issues of frank framing. For example, saying that the west arose due to oppressing its colonies. Well, that was really a side effect of the west being ascendant for its own internal reasons. There were African kingdoms before colonialism, but the left makes them far more humane or advanced than they truly were. The left really has an issue making tribal peoples better than they are, which you can see with the noble savage, which is their foundational myth that they need, need. If you see human nature as innately perfectible, Then you're going to have to find perfect humans somewhere in the world, which the regime projects onto tribal cultures. They projected these traits onto tribal cultures, which they called peaceful, egalitarian, feminist, sexually loose or simple. Well, none of that was true. Tribal peoples are sexist, hierarchical, enslaving, warlike Religious, superstitious and brutal at the same time time. These are nearly universal traits. The left pretended the Native Americans were peaceful, noble savages living in harmony with nature. But they alongside other tribal peoples had a death rate in war of 20 to 40% of young men each generation. Most civilized populations are 1 to 2% at most. The left needed the tribal peoples to mimic their own moral intuition traditions to make civilization look like a mistake. But said tribal peoples had a lot more in common with conservatives. While the left are statistical freaks, anthropologically, one of the more insane things the establishment pushed was that there were no tribal migrations across early human history. I watched a documentary as a child that said that the Anglo Saxon migrations never occurred. With the Celts peacefully taking taking Saxon language and culture. That just doesn't make sense if you know human nature. There were also wide scale theories for decades that the Aryan invasions never happened. Which would mean that a majority of people in the world's languages are invalid. With a region stretching from Bengal to Ireland just not having their culture alongside a very purist interpretation of the out of Africa theory. For decades, the idea that tribal peoples left Africa as a single migration, migration with no mixing out was taken as a doctrine among archaeologists. I spoke to an archaeologist who said that the idea that tribal peoples migrated into others land was insane. What we found with genetics data is that prehistory was a constant migration with around half a dozen genocides and ethnic replacements in ice age Europe. This was obvious to someone who understands human nature. On top of of this, different human populations have intermarried with non human species to differing degrees. And we now acknowledge that humans did not cleanly evolve in Africa. With migrations back and forth and different groups of humans evolving in isolation. Questioning any of this in the late 20th century was taboo. Asking if Neanderthals or other groups of Homo like the Denisovans mixed with humans used to be taboo. Taboo until the genetics evidence came out. The thing I can't stand was the staggering arrogance of the older order. Political science and sociology are also utterly falsified as fields. Sociology fits with everything we've said so far, but political science is. Since there's no actual analysis of what works politically, people will make rationalistic sounding arguments. To be frank, there's no analysis where socialism in the long term lies works. You have some European socialist countries which look good on paper now, but they've still witnessed the continent slide into irrelevancy. I mean most political scientists are statistically either Marxist or sympathetic and that's a completely failed political Ideology by any metric. I very rarely see political science try to explain the world or tackle causation in that they're very reactive and emotional. Emotional. Trying to treat geopolitics like a school playground where each side needs to follow the rules given by the UN or the adults. Politics is treated as a clean game in which it is the very opposite. As a brutal Darwinistic battle for survival in the jungle. My friends who work in politics tell me that when they meet political science majors, there's no understanding that they'll actually know something about politics. Politics. It's pretty clear that the American ruling class, trained in the best schools, has zero comprehension how the rest of the world works from our foreign policy failures. For example, the idea that China would just become a democracy as it became wealthier, that the Arabs would greet us as liberators for conquering them. The deindustrialization of America would be a totally positive move. Or that we should trust the Russians were all opinions. Opinions which the most educated political scientists totally backed. Furthermore, they backed these in the most arrogant, entitled and annoying way possible, where they shut down all criticism. Our political science establishment is taught to just rationalize whatever the ruling class believes with no understanding of the fundamentals that power. How the world actually works. I mean, for Christ's sake. As an example of profound naivete, an error. Arrogance. The idea of the end of history is so delusional. Where Francis Fukuyama wrote a book in the early 90s saying that liberal democracy was the endpoint of the human condition, and I heard some people say that his argument was misconstrued, but he did believe this was the start of a utopia. And he called it the Age of the Last Men. Which is funny because when Nietzsche invented that term, he meant it to be this horrifying dystopian society which would get totally crushed by the Uber Mensch. And that's just ironic. But even if Fukuyama was more intelligent, and I still think he was delusional, the Western elite took these ideas to mean that we had no major political issues left, that there would be no philosophic religious ideological shifts, and that they didn't have to govern anymore because their system was so self evidently superior to all others. Which means this incredibly naive and arrogant fury has been held onto for decades as a raison d' etre for the elite not to do their job. And that's just utterly ridiculous. And it's deeply evil in a roundabout way. I was once having a conversation with a fairly important academic. He was kind to me and I won't share his name out of respect, but some of you would know who he was and he told me that he didn't read books written before, let's say 1990, and he was shocked I was reading books from the World War II era. He also said he didn't make any art arguments which didn't immediately relate to statistical evidence, which doesn't really make sense logically. The idea that you just use statistics is an aesthetic decision which stems from the Rand Corporation in the Cold War. He's also an anthropologist too, which is strange since that field is built off understanding humans internally in a complex way. I was talking to a friend about this and his reply was they're doing this to avoid falsification. If you can keep your data input small for the type of information you accept, then you can manipulate the result. This is something which you see in economics where they refuse to look at the data from before World War II. That's utterly insane since the time since World War II has been less than a historic blink of an eye. I think the reason academics do stuff like this is if they were to look at the long duray of history, they would find conservative things like monarchy, religion or social traditions would work the best. However, we know the field of economics today must be heavily bunk just because it created modern monetary theory. Economics is one of the less demonically possessed humanities since it's more statistical, but that doesn't stop biases with framing. For example, Marx shoving in the labor theory of Valley value or Marxism into economics for the longest time, which are theories that do not work on any level with statistical evidence. However, a free market consensus has gradually emerged among economics within the last lifetime, in which practically every book on the topic will now admit that the free market is the ultimately correct way to run an economy, although many will say things like straight strong social services will further the results of the free market. That being said, the creation of modern monetary theory will forever doom the historic narrative around our era's economics. Modern monetary theory is the dominant economic theory of the world today, which believes that if we print infinite money, it will make the economy grow equivalently for basically magical reasons. The fact that serious economists can co sign on this, which is basically more madness that anyone can see, shows how morally bankrupt we are as a society. Everyone knows this is a terrible idea. You can't just print infinite money. The worst thing is that this is the culmination of Keynesianism who furthered mass government debts and spending under the auspices of helping the economy. However, each time it just pushes the average person further into poverty and increases inequality or inflation. To finish off the human sciences, psychology is a weird mix. Today, I think some theories of psychology have done a pretty good job of modeling human behavior and have the potential to be seeds for a coming new paradigm or breakthrough. Others are utter garbage. It really depends on the first principles, level of analysis for the human psyche that they're working with, also how much they actually look at the evidence. For example, the Freudians or most modern psychologists just assumes that if you analyze something or let go of repression, that those things by themselves will help you psychologically. Alternately, that all human behavior is motivated by sex. On top of this, 90% of scientific papers in psychology have never been replicated. So the entire field could be bunk and we wouldn't know. It's funny that Freud was seen as a very rationalistic, serious thinker where he'd talk about things like the Oedipus complex or penis envy, while Jung, which integrated psychology into the broader scheme of world religion and human history, was seen as an insane pseudoscientist. It speaks to the cognitive biases that a certain type of leadership class had for the last century. Finally, if the numbers of therapists have skyrocketed at the exact same time as mental illness has over the last few decades, without the therapists lessening the mental illness, something has gone very wrong where psychology isn't actually healing people. As a shared theme for all of this, what an effect of these factors are is that incorrect theories will mean that the attempt to fix problems will just fail in the general public. So you can look at the failures of public policy and then compare it to the failed ideas to switch from the humanities to science. Keep in mind that science is not my area of speciality. I don't really know anything about the topic and I pride myself on reading a few books on the topic, which is not enough. And I know there are lots of people in this audience who know way more than me, so feel free to call me out. If I'm being honest, I don't really understand physics. The thing is that I've gotten to the other side of the Dunnings Kruger in the humanities. So I realize that someone who's just getting into history will not have the correct comprehension on even basic topics compared to a master. This is why I'm careful about giving scientific opinions. One of the techniques I use is that since I'm a fairly good judge of characters. Character. I use that in academic fields where I don't have a lot of knowledge, where I will look for authors who are clearly honest and very intelligent. I then trust their opinions by delegation. My issue with physics is that these wise people are wildly contradictory. For every opinion from a smart person on physics that I hear, I'll hear another very smart person who says the exact opposite. Then they both act like their theory is completely self evident evident and the other side is an idiot. However, as far as I can tell, the debate in physics is between a minority who still hold the mechanical Newtonian worldview, which isn't even an accurate comprehension for Newton himself, who was a hermetic schizo who was basing his principles off alchemy, and then Einstein's school, which emerged around a century ago, which said that the laws of physics are relative based on context at the speed of of light or time varies by stuff like gravity or the scale. What I've also heard is that Newton's vision works better on a smaller scale within Einstein's. On the larger, however, there are several holes in Einstein's vision. The thing I find confusing here is that physicists keep talking about these intractable issues in their field, with Weinstein for example, saying the entire field is bunk and controlled by the regime. The thing I found confusing, and again, I'm just a historian Dorian, who's shooting off a shotgun here, is how many of the seemingly intractable issues in modern physics that physicists keep complaining are impossible to solve were already thought through by pre industrial societies. The paradox of quantum entanglement was just called the law of sympathy in the middle Ages. The idea that there is a separate dimension which controls the matter in this one, which a lot of modern physics has depended on and they see as inexplicable, explicable is called the divine. The issues with particles jumping in and out of existence make sense if you believe the pre modern idea that reality is a dream by the gods. The experiments that showed that the perceiving of matter changes its structure is also something that every major pre modern culture believed that consciousness controls reality. The thing that I found curious is that these conclusions were fairly obvious to me, but I would never hear physicists talk about them. Marc Andreessen recently got information from the White House that the state has been purposely stalling research in physics ever since the early 70s. When I saw that around six months ago, I knew that the physics community would immediately start to say that consciousness determined reality. And lo and behold, around a month after that, one of the biggest physics journals was dropping that as their main source story. For context, what I find so funny in this is that within a month or two of the regime admitting they were holding this back, the physics researchers suddenly said, the thing that I thought was an obvious conclusion. It meant that the regime was explicitly preventing this result from coming out due to the implications. People like to think that belief in God or the spiritual is some low IQ stupid opinion to have, but you can be either an atheist or a religious person with the current physics evidence as it exists. Both of them are reasonable or educated. The thing is that the managerial class does not want you to believe in God, because if there's part of some broader plan, it firstly means that people should trust the plan, not the managerial class. And it also creates structures which stop the managerial classes and the state's growth of total power, which will be a consistent theme in future parts of this video. Part of the reason that the science can be so skewed today is that scientific innovations normally occur with one to three brilliant people developing an idea out of their own internal monologues. Creative projects become impossible with larger numbers of people like that, except with a hierarchy like in film studies studios, since the project becomes getting that many people to agree to something which you can't do for works of originality or genius. Another element is that science is a tool of power or legitimacy in our culture, and so academia is totally in bed with the regime for support or funding. When you have research papers with thousands of names on them alongside universities receiving enormous amounts of funding either from large corporations or the government, genuine innovation or truth seeking becomes a liability. You develop cultures of conformity which train people for their entire academic careers in self censorship. This is how you end up with some of the most educated people in history propounding the idea that a man can be a woman, or that ending civilization and printing infinite money is the moral thing to do do. The system gets off on making people submit to it to a degree in which it will kill the entire culture as an insane power move. This ties into potentially the most controversial topic of this video. But the entire purpose of science is to throw out ideas and test them. I don't understand this culture today where questioning taboo notions is seen as a moral failing. I never agreed to that moral code. In the grand scheme of things, this is not a hill I will die in on and something I want to stake my reputation on. I don't know if this is true, but we should at least check. How is not checking in line with Western values? Why are we just being turned into intellectual slaves? That being that there's a significant amount of research into the paranormal, which academia has not investigated at all. One example is that the decades of research the CIA put into spirituality reality, in which hundreds of people visited the spirit world in a replicable manner. And the army backed up this research independently. I made a video on the topic. The CIA also used remote viewers to spy on government military bases and to read statistically significant numbers in rooms on the other side of the country. The Soviets had similar research at the same time, which came to the same conclusions. Stanislav Grofsworth research with psychedelics and with a form of therapy in the Netherlands and Czechia found that humans share highly vivid archetypal maps of consciousness or the spiritual, in which he studied people in drugs or hypnosis and found they had very similar memories of what their soul was like before they were born, or they would go through similar stages of spiritual experiences, like Dante's tears of heaven and hell hell before reaching the divine. His research found that once you peel away the layers of individual personality, you find the spark of the divine within all people. Dean Radden, a Princeton professor, put a huge amount of research into studying the statistical correlations around psychics. He found on a large scale from like five different measuring systems, that the average person is like 1 or 2% above statistical average in guessing numbers. Psychically, that sounds unimportant, but when you're dealing with large scale of numbers, it becomes very statistically significant. Meanwhile, a tiny percent of the population, around 1%, had vastly greater abilities which they could use periodically, like an athlete's ability to make a home run or an artist's ability to make a masterpiece. Rupert Sheldrake has a degree from Cambridge and talks out a lot of similar stuff with archetypes of shared human consciousness, which we know must, must exist up to a certain point, since all human society is built off shared communal consciousness, which we can share with others. Then there's the recent podcast out trying to prove this stuff with autistic children, which I haven't had the time yet to look into to verify. The point I'm trying to make is I don't know if these things are valid, but someone should at least check. I mean, if it turned out to be true, it would be in line with what practically every society in history ever believed, that there is a spiritual dimension that certain people can access better than others. If every society ever believed this, questioning it should not be totally out of reasonable discussion. It would also fit with the existence of universal Jungian archetypes, which can be seen across cultures or manifest inside human behavior. It would also explain these strange phenomena you keep seeing across ancient culture. Cultures which know way too much about stuff we only recently discovered through modern science, which they learned through mysticism. Academia's main arguments against these is it's not verifiable under perfect lab conditions, but neither is practically the entire human condition. Love the formation of a nation. Religious experiences or euphoria cannot be realistically recreated in a lab on the spot, but they clearly exist in that they control human behavior. The reason is that neurologically and the modernist materialist worldview, we cannot see reality as permeable, since that's just not how our brains are wired. The idea that there are archetypes to reality, like order or chaos, higher and lower forms, or masculine or feminine, is obviously true since we live it. We obviously know that all things are connected to everything else and that within a given room there is a trajectory from the lowest forms or atoms to the highest forms or the planet, all contained within a single space. And that reality can be punched through on a permeable basis, which you can see with physics. If the current scientific paradigm does not believe in good or evil, or that some systems are innately superior to others, then that's a sign that the current scientific paradigm is failing or should not be the total directing power of that system society. Common sense has to be the guiding current of a society. Even if all that schizo stuff I said turns out to be true, we're still stuck living our quotidian lives. We still have to go to work, take care of our children and protect our nation. We can't use our theories to avoid the reality of human life, which is something our society is very guilty of. This leads to the next segment and sort of ties off the old one. Modern style Science's inability to spot the divine is a structural issue which we use to avoid a sense of human responsibility. It's not that modern science, which I feel disgusted referring to because it's not science anymore, it's just ideology can't find meaning in the world. Not since that's what the science says, but because we built a system that would avoid meaning by design. Part three Issues of forever framing People trap others in their webs. The founders of religions have webs that span millennia and continents leading back to them. Their webs become force fields in which entire civilizations can grow under their protection. Modernity is dangerously naive and we listen to bad people who trap us inside their webs for the purpose of consuming us. Most of the core issues with the current revolution reality aren't Strictly factual, but rather they're the use of deceptive framings that allow the regime to control people. You see, the most controlled population is that which believes its slavery to be just as an example of this, the lack of archetypes or the ideal in modern thought doesn't really make a lot of sense once you start deconstructing it. What I mean by that is that a materialist is someone who philosophically believes that all of reality is contained within physical matter that you can touch. Idealists think that reality is maintained by things you cannot physically touch, like ideal principles or God. Most societies in history were idealist, often with significant amounts of materialism also mixed in. The modern industrial world practically stands alone alone by being purely materialist, however, we're not really purely materialist. Where a concept James Hillman made that I love is called invisibles. And invisibles are things you can't touch, like happiness or God or truth or the state. And modernity thinks some invisibles are real, like the laws of physics or Darwinistic selection. And then it refuses other invisibles, like what they believed in the ancient or medieval worlds. The thing is that once you get longer into studying materialism, it makes less sense. Whenever you try to analyze the material, you need to use the ideal standards to do so. For example, the laws of physics, things which practically everyone can agree is real, are ideal principles which control reality. You can't touch gravity, but gravity totally controls materia. Darwinism is another example of an ideal principle or law which controls life. Life forms which resist Darwinism get crushed by it, which means Darwinism is more real to the world than animal species are. But again, you cannot touch Darwinism. You need universals or principles which exist outside of the given historic context. They stem from, for example, both us and the ancient Greeks had a concept of reason or justice. So societies which find a way to get their material existence to model the abstracts of reason or justice perform significantly better than those that don't, which is backed up by all the historic evidence. If you have property rights and rule of law, your nation is going to be rich. However, that's trying to align the materia to these abstract concepts, which you can do through policy or policing or whatever, whatever. Which sounds an awful lot like religion. Religion is the process of aligning your material life with ideal principles. At the same time, implicit in this concept is that reason or justice exist outside our perception of them as values given. A society which stops believing or caring in them will still suffer and get crushed by the laws of history. Those principles have the Ability to punish those who don't follow follow them. Isn't this sounding a lot like God? Furthermore, over the course of history, billions of people have confessed the ability to reach God or feel him. This fairly uniformly described force has been recorded to change the course of history through his followers. At the very least, once you get to this threshold and you can go further than this point, where is the line between someone like Jesus Christ, who can motivate billions to serve him after he's died for thousands of years, and the power of a God? Keep in mind, in the ancient world, a God was something of incredible power, not something that's highly moral and all knowing, like the Abrahamic God. By that logic, Julius Caesar, who had enormous continental power, could be called a God. This rabbit hole can go way further. But the point I'm trying to articulate here is that the modern worldview is not not a rational endpoint of humanity, but rather it was something thrown together by circumstance. Another example of this is that moderns have a tendency to not believe in intangible variables. For example, I have basically had to reintroduce the concept back into history, writing from the 19th century that the moral character of nations can change the course of history. However, this was universally known to be true and to fit the historical evidence with authors such as Ibn Khaldun, Will Durant, Aristotle, Polybius, the Bible, among so many others agreeing to it. Modernity never provided an argument for why the emotions or character of a people don't change history. They just assumed it and refused to debate it. The reality is the modern continent of Europe, on a highly material basis, was built by the collective unconscious of the European peoples. Consciousness created reality in this way. It's the same deal with the modernist taboo of using the patterns of history to try to understand the world, which doesn't make sense under scrutiny. The thing is that the things we believe are not the rational endpoint of science and reason. Rather they are the outcomes of a certain subcast of the population or the college educated managerial class who then used the institutions to rationalize their neurological biases, which they then forced everyone else to believe. They could get away with this because they were the connecting variable of industrial civilization and thus had ultimate trump power, God. That word has changed connotations with the Internet and AI. We don't need them anymore though, since we can coordinate ourselves asynchronously in a laissez faire manner manner. You know this to be true. Since this exact group has totally thrown away formal logic. The Greeks developed a higher logic which could transcend local cultural contexts and in the process made a mental revolution which has remade the world in its own image for millennia. The west ruling class were trained in the trivium, which included logic, rhetoric and grammar, which gave them a shared structure for human thought, which then allowed the west to become the most successful society in history. History. However, the current managerial elite completely rejects formal logic or causality. If you study modernist philosophy, you find that they openly say that reality is malleable and determined by the elites, that by controlling the definitions and institutions, you are writing reality itself. This is what Marx, Hegel, to a certain degree, the postmodernists, Nazis and Rousseau all believed. If you have an elite which openly says that their worldview doesn't have to correspond to reality, then why are you shocked when it doesn't? You should throw away all their work immediately, since they just straight up said they don't care. However, people are shocked when this is the case. And the work of men who say they don't care about truth is in fact not the truth because they are gullible sheep. My worldview is closest to that which was normal across Western hindsight, mystery or the integration of Plato, Aristotle and the Bible. This was a worldview in which the spiritual and meaning were already integrated into their concept of material reality, where the actions of our mundane daily lives had implications on the spiritual or the big picture of our society and world. This was the worldview that made the modern world and then the modernists murdered it, claiming to be the ones that built this reality reality and then went about destroying it. The fact that academia is totally unwilling to question why people 400 years ago might not have been correct in how they understand the world is very telling. They don't want to look because they don't want to find the answers. Academia isn't really open to debate anymore. The core issue here is framing. The map paradigm is so segment fragmented that it splits academia into distinct disciplines where no one is checking if the worldview itself makes sense holistically. This means that we can descend into utter madness as a society and no one will point it out. That since people are looking at tiny data sets and academic disciplines to avoid adding up each part of the equation together, this isn't just sloppy, it's dangerous to the point of death. To finish this, I have three points which might explain this equation more fully. The first is that the thing which sparked me writing this video like a year ago was reading a book called the Myth of Disenchantment By Storm. It went through the History of the concept of the idea of disenchantment which developed over the modern period in that we were irrevocably disconnected from God. We were living in a cold night, meaningless atomic world where our lives innately led nowhere. Life was a cruel joke. What storm found in this book is that no one actually ever made the argument for disenchantment. The only people who ever wrote about this topic were those who were arguing against it. People would say isn't it so bad that we don't believe in God? Or meaning is built into the world? But no one ever said why it was true. For the disenchanted, it was just self evidently true on a neurological basis. Much like why materialists can't argue for why the ideal exists since they built a system where since only the material is what exists by definition. Thus by definition you cannot use the ideal to measure the material he went through. Every major author and no one created an argument for why God or the spiritual didn't exist exist. In each case it was in a world in which we only measure the replicable or where we only value the material, then we don't have evidence for blint. The issue is that these are all as if clauses in which they assume a certain clause without explaining why we should believe it. For example, I can see that in science, only looking at the measurable is necessary for the testing method that is science. However, that doesn't lead me to believe that said testing method should be used as the society's only operating system, which is what none of the founders of science believed. Furthermore, why can't we use the historic record or common sense to also understand the human condition? For all of human history, tradition or religion have been necessary and their removal causes social constitution collapse. We can just look at that historic record and we don't need to replicate that in a lab. What modernity has done is crush humanity. I find in a lot of society today, the social engineers literally leave no place for human agency thinking. This is a specific task that someone with wisdom and imagination could do. Everything has to be a process for its own sake. We have given space for no humans to think or live. Our human desires or aspirations don't matter. If it's not in a spreadsheet, it doesn't exist. The issue is that they strictly control what gets into the spreadsheets. This is a form of logical argument which very easily leads to madness, where I will only agree to things which you can prove to me in the exact system I chose, which I control. Ken Wilber in his brilliant book Sex, Ecology and Spiritual said, one of the cores of modernity is the removal of the internal state that influences the world. That includes either how variables like culture or religion, power human history or the internal human subconscious. The reason we say men and women are the same is that they're not comparing how men and women think differently. Rather, they are the same from the perspective of the managerial, material machine that's trying to exploit them. The modern world views the entire human condition from the perspective of how easy it is for the machine to exploit it. Another thing Wilbur said was that there was a good and bad news to modernity. The good news was the removal of myths, which I would personally say is not good. But myths very frequently keep alive antiquated or dangerous cultural forms. So there is a positive. Modernity rejects archetypes totally, unless they're ones we embrace like Darwinism or the laws of physics. At the same time, he said modernity rejects transcendence. He calls the MAP paradigm Flatland fundamentalists in that they see the current human perception of consciousness as the only thing that could ever exist and totally reject higher forms of consciousness. Consciousness. These very obviously exist since humans have constantly reached higher forms of consciousness over our evolution. Just look at either our evolution from apes onwards or our intellectual progress over written human history. Why would that stop now? Humans only process a tiny part of the visual spectrum of matter, so why would that be ending now? He compares this to people who would only see in two dimensions assaulting those who believed in the third dimension. Our current society attacks any gaps in our current worldview's knowledge, while in reality these should be sources for adventure and excitement since they point for an avenue to new discoveries about how the world works or technology. I hope you can see how these lies are so profoundly damaged. Damaging. They isolate us from actual reality, thus stopping our various endeavors from working. If your worldview when you are making decisions isn't correct, then the choices you make stemming from it will be in vain. It stops people from reaching higher tiers of knowledge or consciousness since their elites tell them that they don't exist at all. If you could remove these lies and then replace them with an open search for the the truth. If we had the courage to admit what we don't know, then would create space for those who want to figure it out. And it would usher in one of the greatest breakthroughs ever in human history. What the decision to uphold this model of the world means is the artificial maintenance of the current ruling class in power. The final book I want to reference Here is by reputed neuroscientist Ian McGilchrist. Christ with his book the Master and His Emissary, which I think explains all of this. If you don't want to read a 600 page book, you can watch his pretty good documentary the Divided Brain, which is free on YouTube Premium. The thesis of the book is that the brain is divided between the right and the left hemispheres. The right hemisphere sees all of life as an organic process that's holistic with meaning built into to it. The right hemisphere sees context, gradation, love and human intentions when tested. It's generally correct, but it's humble and open to new information. Meanwhile, the left hemisphere is the part of our brain designed to manipulate dead things or wield power. It sees the world through binary flowcharts, does not understand things it cannot materially touch, thinks that nothing exists that it doesn't already know about, is both profoundly cynical and gullible, while it only sees the world through money or power. The left hemisphere isn't bad in itself in that it serves a purpose, but it is mentally retarded compared to the right hemisphere, where it lacks the wisdom to realize that the left hemisphere is separated from the world on purpose, since we need something that's not neurologically holistic to be able to focus on particular. For example, the right hemisphere can draw an entire image while the left can only draw half. The left hemisphere can only divide ideas and cannot synthesize them, while the left hemisphere is obsessed predominantly with power and control. This was an incredibly important book for me since it explains basically everything I've spoken about here. We're not a rational or scientific worldview today. We're one. One built to feed into the cognitive biases of the left hemisphere, which are not allowed to be questioned. We are a world trapped in the cage of our own minds, A cage that is becoming deadlier and tighter by the day due to the loving support of our elites. The thing I want to emphasize is that none of this is real. You can just say no, we don't have to live like this. This is our trap. Our own minds exist, exist in out of our own making. Our ancestors lived on the same physical earth as us with none of these issues. Since we wired ourselves to be nihilistic, our civilization is killing itself and our birth rate plunges to zero. Since we're trapped in the mental categories in society we built for ourselves. However, this is all totally preventable. We just have to learn to say, know the thing that will set us free. And this is a phrase I'VE developed that I love of Things are what they are. Reality is what it is. I am what I am. When you know that reality exists distinct from your mind and the mental categories you develop are mere imitations of a broader, highly complex, insane reality, you can take a step back and stop taking your own mental categories categories so seriously. The next task is how to get out of the addiction to our own rationalizations we've built our lives around. But that's a different story. All I will say is it can be done, and it's easier than it sounds. Peace. Bye Bye. Thank you to War Thunder for sponsoring this video. You too can destroy your enemies today. Play War Thunder on Mac, PC, Xbox, Android, or PlayStation. The battle awaits.