THE GREAT LIE

What is the great lie?

Let’s start with an illustration. Here is a hint: it is woven from the fabric of modern ideologies, and there is no singular great lie unless one considers ‘modernity’ per se, and hypermodernity in particular, as the great lie itself.

Let us say one is working an hourly job at fourteen dollars per hour in the year 2000 with an average of 2300 hours worked per year. According to BLS numbers, the CPI estimates inflation over the period from 2000-2016 to have averaged about 2.5% per year. The total rate of inflation in that period is about 46%. Thus the person in this example would have to be earning over twenty dollars at the end of that period for their earnings to remain roughly equal, assuming the rest of the compensation package and average hours remains the same. If we assume that other forms of compensation diminish, then their wages would have to rise even more.

This is just an example. If one wants to find numbers relevant to the field one is in, one can do so; if one wants to adjust the time period slightly, one can also do that. We should also note that the CPI is deliberately crafted to downplay real inflation. If you take the CPI and fudge it up by about at least 20-30%, you’re getting a more accurate picture of actual consumer price changes. Things like medical costs, college or university tuition, rent and housing, and stock prices have risen the fastest since 1985, with all of these things rising between 300-500% during a period where official inflation figures are slightly less than half of the upper bound (~235%).

What one will find in this example, is that most workers in 2016 (or 2019) are underpaid if one looks at historical wages and adjusts for inflation even based off CPI numbers, and it gets more dismal when you add a fudge factor to bring the CPI closer to real inflation. If you presented this data to employers, many or perhaps most of them would balk at paying employees the same real wages as they were 20 years ago (or in the case of 2016, a mere 16 years prior). This either means that employers are pocketing the difference that workers lose to inflation, or the economy is worse than most indicators present and they are actually unable to absorb the costs now of the real wages they paid in the past.

When one adds that the stock market for the past 40 years has largely tracked monetary and credit expansion and that there is, in fact, very little (if any) genuine economic growth, things start to look even worse. Real growth comes from a number of factors, those being largely increases in available energy supply, technical innovations, demographic growth, and the diffusion of extant technical-engineering solutions. The thing with demographic growth is that while it does grow the economy, those people have to be employable in the economy that exists. Expanding the money and credit supply, unless it is a means of driving incentives for some change that can move fundamental growth, only results in rewards for whomever receives the monetary ‘stimulus’, for purchasing power of inflated money/credit decreases as it is repeatedly spent in the economy, and ultimately there is price dislocation over time. [1]

Thus I get around to naming the first great lie: the myth of endless growth and prosperity.

To expand on the point on demographic growth, this is worth elaborating because I don’t think that many people sufficiently understand this. At all points in history, there is essentially a behavioral-cognitive work fitness curve. What this means, is that to be suited for certain tasks, one must meet certain criteria of, for instance, punctuality and intelligence. Smarts as proxied by IQ is really the most important single trait, since it correlates with all sorts of other traits weakly or strongly, and best evidence so far is that an IQ of around 115-120 (along with physical attractiveness) is an indication of general genetic health. Intellect is a polygenic trait and deleterious alleles often hamper IQ. An IQ of 140 or above is highly exceptional and there aren’t any sub-populations which have an average IQ that high. Similarly, world-class intellect is limited by a confluence of genetics and upbringing such that even in the best of cases very few of these people can be made.

In agricultural society, the IQ floor of most work was fairly low because most work available was directly or indirectly tied to farming. Those who were more capable were often pushed to managing more land, or into crafts and trades or religion and state. This meant that full employment was possible in a population with an average IQ of 90 and a normal curve more or less like the European one, and I mention the shape because in reality the shape of distributions of populations sometimes differs. Outside of famines and other major stress events, almost no one wants for work in the pre-industrial society.

If you jump ahead to early industrial society, for instance most of Western Europe 1800-1900 (but particularly England/US), what you find is that IQ 90 population will start to experience some amount of frictional unemployment. The IQ floor rises enough that full employment is impossible even in the best of times. By the late industrial society, or hypermodern state, one finds that more and more people are completely incapable of finding a place simply due to their cognitive-behavioral traits. There is only so much work available for the left side of the bell curve, and frankly those on the right side are far more flexible in the types of work they can do and their readiness and effectiveness at work [in general]. Indeed if automation goes half as far as its advocates wish, it will effectively result in permanent frictional joblessness for most of those below 115 IQ. (Note: this is neglecting resource limitations and political conflicts for the moment.)

This makes for an interesting point: you have this rising curve which is essentially a supply-demand curve but fitted to the work available, both in terms of variety and volume. Once you add widespread automation, which at a certain point largely targets the left side of the bell curve, it becomes worse for those of submarginal intellect. Once you add in the additional actual policies of mass migration and migrant work forces, you further displace those largely on the left and middle of the bell curve. The thing is in this case we are not necessarily talking about a third-world country in isolation or a theoretical construct; this fact is true essentially everywhere the hypermodern economy takes hold, and especially everywhere the whole hypermodern globohomo policy suite dominates in full. Western countries have largely displaced those native born or founding stock folk who fall on the left side or middle of the curve by automation and outsourcing and migrant workers at the exact same time as the so-called developing world looks to shunt its excess population to any port in a storm.

Obviously, if your population has a worse set of cognitive-behavioral traits, they are less useful in modernity or hypermodernity. Frankly positive cognitive-behavioral traits are just generally useful and highly adaptive (but costly), even before the industrial revolution; but the industrial revolution introduced dysgenics and frictional unemployment by the end of what I called ‘early industrial society’, which would be marked around 1880-1900. By that time (1880-1900), reproductive success is no longer tied to cognitive-behavioral or physical traits as much as it was even a hundred or two hundred years before, and the IQ floor on work was constantly but slowly rising every generation. The frail survive, but so too do the stupid – in fact those who are most fruitful for the past hundred and some years are those with the lowest IQs and often lower general genetic fitness in terms of the ancestral environments.

As a brief aside, I do have a problem with the first-, second-, and third-world terminology; as I’ve discussed before, it refers to spheres of influence from the Cold War, where the first-world was the US and allies, the second-world was the USSR and allies, and the third-world were unaligned countries. Third worldism, especially Maoist third worldism, became a vehicle by which China expanded their influence in fact and useful idiots in the West were exploited by Chicoms to this end. Moral loading of third worldism is a device and no one outside the useful idiots are wedded to it. I’m not going to go into this here as I’ve treated this multiple times in the past directly or obliquely.

Aside from the direct human factor, there is also energy availability. Note that it is more important that it is available for use than that the raw material merely be there somewhere. Coal, oil, and uranium have been around for far longer than human society, but it is only within the past 250, 150, and 80 years respectively that these materials are prospective forms of energy for performing work, usually in the form of internal combustion or steam.

I touched automation above tangentially. In some sense everything from draft animals to windmills and watermills can be seen as forms of automation. These technologies allow men to perform very labor intensive work, for instance plowing or milling grains, with input from beasts or the environment which allows for men to take their hands elsewhere. These types of solutions are often cost intensive up front and may have limited spaces where they can be effectively built; and in the case of draft animals, the cost is borne more over time and in having to set aside farmland for fodder. What should be noted is that energy and work came from either living things or the environment, and there wasn’t really any ability to store energy.

Chemical energy sources upend the earlier forms of automation which were all highly labor intensive even as they were labor-saving. These chemical sources all require more specialized machining and technical expertise, as well as a wide division of labor capable of supplying all the necessary components – consider the materials that go into a steam turbine or internal combustion engine – but once produced, the amount of labor necessary for a kilojoule of work is far less than the primitive automation and can be harnessed to a wider variety of ends because of the ability to scale. It is also important that one can build these newer work-performance devices with interchangeable parts and mass production, where other devices were all generally craft-made. Chemical energy encompasses all of the primary energy sources of late (1880-2018). Energy storage, efficiency, and scalability are the critical factors, as the first coal-powered steam engines were used in mine pumps, but quickly men saw the wider set of uses possible.

I should note in passing that we do have modern sources of environmental energy, for instance solar panels and hydroelectric turbines, but these things all rely on a supply chain made possible by the chemical energy sources. If oil and coal were to disappear within five years, the solar panels and hydroelectric turbines would fall apart within twenty to thirty years as upkeep could no longer be performed. At the moment, there is no ability to replace chemical (largely fossil fuel) energy entirely.

For the third factor, we have innovation. In technical innovations I include both engineering and basic science. They are both tied to the other in a positive feedback loop. Engineering or applied science enables further basic science research, and vice versa. What we see in the past one hundred years is, over the course of that time the pace of basic science has slowed dramatically and progress thereof is relegated at this point largely to a few domains where brute force quantification and automation makes the most sense and the most gains. It is striking that, for instance, basic chemistry and physics changed far less between 1950 and 2015 than between 1885 and 1950. Areas like computer science and robotics, genetics, and astronomy continue to see year-over-year improvements where many others are if not stagnant certainly moving far less. The same is true obviously of applied sciences, but the decline is not as obvious in applied as in basic science. [2]

There are a few explanations one can make for this fact which seems to be obvious and less controversial as we get further into the 21^st century. The first is the exhaustion of low-hanging fruit. The second is that we are merely closer in present models of reaching approximate truth, and in conjunction with the first, every incremental gain in improving present models requires far more effort, insight, or capital than one or two hundred years ago. The third is that modern science is rife with institutional rot, the same as everything else, and the rot has gotten worse along with bad incentives. The fourth is that, tying in with the last, science in 2018 is as bureaucratic and hemmed in as everything else is, and maybe more so; whereas science in 1900, or especially 1800, was far freer and less subject to the rigors of institutional and international politics.

No one of these explanations is mutually exclusive with the others necessarily, and I think there is probably truth in all of them. One should note that the fields moving most are those which are essentially new fields where low-hanging fruit may still lie in wait, and where the bureaucracy is far less entrenched than in the legacy fields. Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. It is also highly bureaucratic and regulated, but modern advances in astronomy are moved largely by heavy computerization and automation along with improvements in radio and visual light telescopes. Young scientists in 1800 often struck out on their own with a mentor’s guidance; many failed to achieve much of note, or merely moved the bounds of their science a fractional step. Nonetheless, the loss of that independence and the enthrallment of the modern young scientist is as noteworthy as the rest.

Although very important, social technologies are another thing which stick somewhere between innovation generally and the men themselves. Social technologies will determine group cohesion, trust, and forms a large part of the environmental stuff that goes into making someone who can live up to their genetic potential. An obvious omen of decline is that social technology has either fallen by the wayside or has become a tool of degeneracy. I believe to some degree both are true – that social technologies, by which I mean institutions and cultural customs and the like, have become a tool for social control and disintegration of the Western Faustian man rather than tools to keep him good and to insure the chains of past to future. It's also obvious that social technology has not kept pace with other forms of technology, especially transportation and communications. Most people do not spare thought to just how much rapid transportation and fast wireless communications alter society, and we have clearly not developed any social adaptations to these new pieces of tech.

The last factor is tied to the third, and it has to do with the diffusion of present technologies. When something novel is discovered or invented, it takes time to diffuse throughout society, and in some sense the act of diffusion is growth. Indeed, the economies with the most growth over the past 40 years have been those which have sufficient human and social capital that they aren’t unmitigated disasters, but otherwise started out in the early-to-mid part of the 1900s struggling to catch up or outright undeveloped. It is far easier to spread present knowledge and solutions, especially with outside help, than to strike out somewhere new.

If one cannot understand the fundamentals of economic growth and how it ties to all of these more basic elements, it merely seems that growth ‘happens’ or it doesn’t. In some sense, it becomes more a magic than emergent phenomenon. Let us say for argument that social technologies have decayed, and applied and basic science have largely stalled and most improvements now are engineering ones which are generally confined to a handful of domains; let us also say that demographic growth has stopped or reversed among the people that matter, and within the next ten years there will start to be a mass die off as what was once a generational pyramid has been inverted; and let us say that the energy supply and natural resources more broadly are stressed and several vital resources among them will reach the point of breakeven cost within ten to fifteen years, and even more will reach that point over the next thirty years.

Quickly, ‘breakeven cost’ means that it costs a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil out of the ground, or that one is paying the spot price of a metal to dig it up. After one hits breakeven, one will rather shortly hit the downward slope where extracting oil, gold, aluminum, or lithium, will all cost more to find and get than they are worth at present. At that point, one is effectively stuck with what one has on hand. At that point, either the cost of minerals rises enough to cover further mining or cost efficiency must rise. ‘The generational pyramid’ means that normally there are more people in the zero to thirty age bracket than in the fifty-five and over bracket. This is not the case among people of European or Northeast Asian stock pretty much anywhere – hence an inverted pyramid.

So if all of these factors have substantially slowed, stopped, or outright reversed in the past hundred years, how can there be fundamental growth? Well, there really can’t be. Further, there are two very obvious problems with endless growth and prosperity: entropy and resource limitations. Every single one of those factors presumes the recent availability of resources. More worryingly, the present rate of consumption of these resources is made worse by grift, waste, and the attempt to develop the whole planet. Mass consumption market economies are themselves an inherent problem, as most of the economy is geared toward volume production rather than producing enough. It isn’t profitable for most businesses to only sell people what they need; production and consumption must be constant to drive the economy. Entropy is rather obvious in that any system experiences energy loss, usually in the form of heat or light. Therefore there is, all things equal, less energy present on Earth in 2020 than in 1700. Ostensibly this fact is true of the universe as well, and even if the universe is a completely closed system it may be the fact that some forms of energy are lost to time and cannot be recovered once that energy takes a certain form or scatters widely enough. [3]

I will note that there is constant input from outside the energy system of the Earth by cosmic debris and the Sun. Yet while the Sun is seemingly immense and endless, projected over a long enough timeline it is in fact finite. Cosmic debris also fails to supply enough stuff to replenish that which we use, waste, and cannot at this point economically recycle. Crude oil and coal take thousands of years to produce from organic material in geological strata, and those thousands of years of geological production can be consumed by the modern economy in a span of five or ten years. [3.5]

This doesn’t really touch on environmental degradation, and I’ve only briefly noted the socio-cultural decay aspect as well as I’ve gone at length on that elsewhere. These are tied intimately with hypermodernity just the same as current geopolitics and mass migration. The Post-War International Order is kept orderly by bribes of money and the daughters of Westerners to foreign elites, as well as the promise that one has a safe bank and safe haven away from potential vengeance at home. Thus the corrupt Gambian or Nigerian leader banks in Switzerland or the Caymans and vacations in Marseille or Barcelona. All while the daughters of Westerners are turned out as street whores and pornographers (a different form of whoredom), where in combination with degenerate Western tourists the image of the West is indelibly degraded. The Western woman in the eyes of the rest of the world is at once the beautiful actress on film, the naïve touriste, and the whore spreading her legs on camera.

Mass market economies are a problem in themselves for the reasons above – combined with a drive toward asymptotic or at least exponential growth, it quickly becomes absurd. There simply isn’t enough stuff on the planet to give everyone a million dollar lifestyle the way that Western millionaires circa 1980 could enjoy it. The raw materials aren’t there, and when you combine that with the insufficiencies of humans and systems, particularly non-Western men and systems, things become still more dismal. Copper wire for instance can be substituted, but all of its substitutes are limited, as optical fibre wire can transmit light data but not electrical energy and it is expensive to produce and lay, and the other substitutes which are electrically conductive are almost all more expensive per unit weight than Cu. (I will note here that much of the communications lines are in fact optical fibre or in the process of being switched to that.) One finds a similar phenomenon with oil, where many individual substitutes can be found for petrol products but they are often expensive, inefficient, or lower quality, and none of them has the versatility of crude oil.

Resource depletion is something that should worry every thinking person. We aren’t really that great at recycling all sorts of materials, and resort to landfills, exporting waste (in the case of Western countries exporting certain plastic waste), or burning the waste outright. There is not much effort or priority placed right now on recycling materials as much as possible, even as we face the fact that most of our strategic raw materials will be sharply limited in supply, namely for oil and mineral reserves. We also face issues of path dependency, and we are seemingly stuck with all sorts of shortcomings rising from decisions made in the past from expediency or money interests that damn the longterm viability of the industrial system. A good example of this is the reliance of Americans on automobiles as basic daily transport, something which came about to stimulate auto manufacturers and mass consumption, but which makes no sense in a world where oil prices are ever rising and land and housing are no longer cheap. This has also resulted in an incredibly overstretched network of physical infrastructure which cannot be properly maintained, as most infrastructure repairs and improvements are funded by a combination of federal and local or municipal debt, and the debt crisis is starting to hit home as the bond ratings of numerous cities, counties, and states are being down-graded. [4]

One of the resources in short supply is not a natural resource in the sense of a mineral or chemical which we can mine or extract from the Earth. It is healthy young people. Military recruiters in the US especially, but elsewhere as well, lament the lack of healthy young recruits. Many are barred from military service by obesity, health issues, or history of mental illness. All of these things have had secular increases. In the early 20^th century, autism prevalence was estimated at less than 0.5 per 1000; since 2010-12, it is estimated to be about 16 per 1000. Autoimmunity has shown a less marked increase in that same period, from less than 2% prevalence before 1960, to 3.2% between 1965-95, and a further increase to at least 8.3% more recently. Comorbidities complicate both neurological or mental disorders like autism, which has a correlation with various comorbid neurological disorders including types of retardation and cerebral palsy, and with autoimmune disorders which also have relatively high rates of comorbidity between some autoimmune conditions and certain others (with autoimmunity, certain comorbidities cluster). These autoimmune disorders include such things as Crohn’s, celiac disease, psoriasis, rheumatism, and diabetes type 1. [5]

The most common explanation put forward for the rise in autism is expansion of diagnostic criteria. This probably plays some impact, but even if we would expect a thirty to fifty percent increase, nonetheless we should note several things: one, autism was sufficiently rare before about 1940 that it did not warrant epidemiological study. Two, that few individuals were ever noted as being characterized with autistic traits. Three, it was not sufficiently problematic to warrant notice and the increase is over twenty fold. Edward Dutton characterizes these disorders as spiteful mutations. That is a partial explanation for these secular rises in these disorders; industrial society has an increased mutational load as a result of decreased selective pressure. Just the same, 4-5 generations is enough for some of these spiteful mutations to become manifest in individuals and in certain sub-populations, but not enough to become commonplace or express a twenty to thirty fold increase in a particular disorder which was once rare and bordering on nonexistent and is now fairly common.

Lack of immune stressors is another explanation for autoimmunity. In an excessively sanitized environment, especially one with high antibiotic prevalence, it is probable that the immune system will target tissues. This is a partial explanation. [6] Antibiotic usage for infants is a potential partial explanation for autism, as it disrupts both gut flora and immune development. In utero exposure to high levels of testosterone seems to be another correlate for autism, and it should be noted that prenatal testosterone levels and later post-pubescent testosterone levels do not really correlate. Environmental toxins are another potential and likely partial explanation for both autoimmunity and autism, as there are plenty of vectors for toxins to influence development and longterm health. Some areas have substantial air pollution (e.g. O₃) that aggravates pulmonary conditions or can lead to chronic toxicity given longterm exposure. Most people in developed countries are exposed to food grown with petrochemicals as fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides. It is likely that plants grown in this manner uptake synthetic compounds into root and xylem structures, and moreover that many do not sufficiently wash away surface pesticides and herbicides. Additionally, factory farm meat is given feed largely in the form of soy and corn (laden with petrochemicals), and is subsequently dosed with antibiotics on a preventative basis as well as synthetic hormones. To put it another way, some large portion of calories in edible farm plants and animals come from petrochemicals. 

The burden of environmental toxins get worse as plastics themselves frequently leach high amounts of xenoestrogens and other toxic compounds under adverse conditions (e.g. 160 C heat, sunlight), and many or most leach at least some of these compounds even under nearly ideal conditions. The problem is that the hypermodern global supply chain integrates petrochemicals at so many stages, including in logistics, that plastics are used to store and transport food and water. Many residential pipes are now made of polyvinyl chloride. Plastics degrade as a function of weathering and time. Microplastics are common in Western water supplies, especially America, due to the presence of these PVC pipes, microplastic beads used in bathing products and cosmetics, and degradation of other plastic containers (frequently food and drink containers); indeed there are few aquifers in the world where one can find no microplastics. Some areas even suffer airborne microplastics. Xenoestrogens are found not just in plastics, though plastics are some of the worst sources, but they are also found in water supplies due to hormonal birth control usage and naturally in certain foods like soy. [7]

The overall picture is that median health is severely degraded as a result of a combination of factors: increased mutation load and advanced parental age, decreased immune health, environmental toxins, poor social and cultural habits, and endocrine disruption. Among the poor social and cultural habits I include ‘automobile culture’; reliance on automobiles as daily transportation correlates with obesity. Relative abundance of calorie dense food, and aversion or simple lack of physical activity including walking or physical work, are other correlates of obesity which I still lump under that category of ‘poor social and cultural habits.’ I highlight obesity because it and obesity comorbidities like sleep apnea and diabetes type II are major epidemiological issues, as obesity and its comorbidities drastically increase health costs and reduce life expectancy. Endocrine disruption is a result of the aforementioned xenoestrogens, meaning that puberty in adolescents does not proceed per nature, and after puberty all sorts of abnormalities tend to become more frequent (things like ovarian and breast cancer as well as lack of sexual development, overproduction or underproduction of certain genital tissues). If one has the impression of being poisoned by elites and by short-sighted corporate interests, one is entirely correct and justified in this impression. It is not merely humans who are affected either, as environmental toxins like xenoestrogens have disrupted reproduction faculties for various lower animals from frogs to birds.

Down-graded bonds foreshadow insolvency. All great debt bubbles must either burst or be sustained by means outside the bubble itself. The hypermodern mass consumption economy, which grows in proportion to indebtedness, would try to grow until it has consumed everything. In a catabolic fit, it would then eat itself and everything under its decrepit wing until there was nothing left. Thankfully, I do not believe that things will be that awful. Merchants lack that sort of apocalyptic power at this point, though they be powerful, and there are enough people who put up enough resistance to the system even if much of it is token resistance or measured noncompliance that it doesn’t always get its way perfectly. Moreover, the various problems above seem to be hobbling it, and we see the first deep cracks in the Post-War International Order forming as we approach the first fourth of the century.

In the past, they often dealt with debt crises not by soaking the poor, but by soaking the creditors with a debt jubilee, or forgiveness of current debts. That there hasn’t been one of these in most Western European countries or the colonies in over 200 years is a marker of stability. Just the same, the levels of debt are hitting historical levels and foretell that something is going to give; either you reinstate a form of slavery for indebtedness, to which I foresee a massive amount of popular resistance, including material resistance; or you actually allow limited or wholesale debt reliefs in the not-too-distant future. If one thinks a debt crisis and subsequent jubilee is imminent, one might as well use debt to finance asset purchases and put off repayment until such time as the debt is forgiven. In other words, you end up with real things – say, food, clothes, or tools (land property and transportation don’t work as well because of how foreclosure, eviction and repossession work) – and they end up with an empty bag.

To wrap it back around to the example of the worker I started illustrating, one is told to expect to keep going up. One should always earn more and more money. To be fair, one would have to see annual wage increases of at least 2.5% per year to hope of even staying at the same real wage, and really that would fall somewhere short as something more like 3.5% would be necessary merely to check average annual inflation. But one is a failure if one is not receiving raises, bonuses, and better compensation packages; if one cannot improve one’s lifestyle substantially every four to five years, one is clearly failing or doing something wrong. The reality of course is that even in the West, not everyone can earn six figure wages or better; if everyone did, it would be because their money would effectively be worthless and they would be the equal of Zimbabwean billionaires. At some point, the mask has to be peeled off the lie of mass consumption, endless prosperity and growth, and that vague thing hyped in media as “the American dream.” Most people should expect to get by, not to ‘make it.’

Striking it rich, like the American dream, is a slightly smaller lie that keeps people going in the hypermodern grist mill in order to feed that first great lie. Endless growth and prosperity sound nice, but it’s ultimately unsustainable and impossible, and those who win most in the longrun over the past hundred or so years have been plutocrats and merchants. Inequality is a fact of society and yet the modern West is subject to some of the most striking socio-economic and power inequality ever in human history.

The second great lie is boundless human ingenuity and the general myth of progress. What does this entail? Well, the precise nature of this lie is difficult to pin down, but basically it states that the mind can achieve anything and that we have been on an arc of progress since the dawn of man.

Let’s start with the second part and wrap around to the first after. The second part is about the arc of progress, essentially a linear conception of history introduced by Judaism and the Hebraic faiths. Christianity took this Hebraic conception and perfected it with a vision of the first time and the end time. In the Christian worldview, the world is on a track from creation to the final revelation and the second coming of Christ. So-called enlightenment liberals took this view and turned it into a historical and political conception; rather than the world beginning in perfection and ending in horror, it was essentially the precise opposite. Outside of Rousseau and his followers, liberals viewed early man as primitive and suffering, where the more modern men are enlightened and joyful. The world would not end with rapture but with ‘the end of history’ as first spoken by Hegel and renewed repeatedly since – essentially a permanent stasis once liberal secular society reached its zenith of enlightenment.

This stands in stark contrast to older views of history and older religious views. Indo-European religion viewed the world as series of epicycles, and we see this theme present both in Greek philosophy (e.g. Ptolemy) and in the Dharmic faiths. You also have the myths stated by Hesiod. This view was shared by most of the other major world philosophies of the time from the Near East to the Far East. In the northern most Indo-European [Aryan] ways, that of the Germanic folk, the world began in fire with giants, cows, and Old Gods and would end in cold and chaos with most of the men and most of the gods perishing in the course of Ragnarok. These themes – a cosmic or galactic cow, ancient giants, Old Gods, and a cycle of birth in fire and death in ice – appear repeatedly in part or in whole in Aryan cosmological myth.

Repeatedly we hear of a golden age in the past. This marks either the time before civilization, or during the formation of the Aryan tribes and then their spread throughout the world. You then had a silver age following, where the Aryan tribes settled and consolidated rule, and the last of them spread into the furthest corners. Then one has an age of bronze, and after Bronze Age one of heroes. Lastly, there is the Iron Age – the basest of all ages, where common folk and king are both baser than those in the last ages. These ages in Greek myth, spoken by Hesiod, correspond more or less to the Yugas in Dharmic religion where the Kali Yuga is the last and basest age before a return to better times. One should note out of interest the fact that the names of these ages given in Hesiod’s semi-mythic telling correspond to what archaeologists claim, and that the Germanic variant of the general Indo-European cosmological myth corresponds loosely to modern scientific conjecture. However, in the Dharmic variant, one should be wary not to perceive the cosmological time in which the yugas are supposed to manifest as being literal numerology (e.g. 6000 or more years for the Kali Yuga), as that has more to do with cosmology or astrology than the cycles of human civilization. My interpretation is that the Kali Yuga will last a long while, but an ultimately indeterminate length. Numerology will not yield the proper answers.

The course of historical civilizations seems to bear truth for the cyclical view. Technology has more or less linearly increased since the Neolithic with a recent slightly parabolic curve. Yet, we should note that this parabolic curve over the past 200 years is not constant; if my contention prior is true, then technical growth is no longer exponential and has begun to flatten back into a gradual linear increase. We should also note that getting bogged down in the appearance of progress via technics is a pitfall that one must avoid. Civilization since the earliest days holds to a rise and fall pattern, and some (i.e. Spengler) believe that even civilizations have seasons. The main purpose of technological increase since the Neolithic has been to increase carrying capacity and to gain advantage in war. Everything which does not enable increased carrying capacity or favor in warfare is to some degree a nicety, and to some degree extraneous.

            In 1650 BC or near about, there was a fairly sudden sequence of events which led to what is called the ‘Late Bronze Age Collapse.’ Most of the major Bronze Age civilizations of the Mediterranean either shrunk considerably or fell outright in a sixty to hundred year span. Most of the places which did not completely collapse would end up never recovering and come under the thrall of their neighbors in the next age. A similar but slightly less dramatic thing happened in Late Antiquity. Between 450 and 650 AD, most of the Mediterranean empires fell to outside invasion and barbarian kings. In the background in that period (450-650) was also a massive series of Völkerwanderung which affected virtually every corner of Europe and most of Eurasia as well. This is a longer span than the Bronze Age Collapse, but still a similar pattern emerged where by about 670 AD, the only Mediterranean empire left was a substantially reduced Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, as Western Rome, Sassanid Persia, and most of the client states of the Near East fell. Even China experienced convulsions in that period before the Tang dynasty.

We will note however that many civilizations, tribes, and kingdoms rise and fall even between these crisis periods. Prehistory and early history whisper of ghosts and tales of long dead peoples, the fate of these peoples either being total death and loss or cultural-linguistic replacement and assimilation to some larger or more powerful group. While the ethno-linguistic map of 800 AD and 1900 AD were fairly similar, there were large changes on either side of that period. Both the period from 100 to 750 AD and the period from 1900 to now had huge migrations of people and border shifts which completely altered the ethno-linguistic and political landscape. We still live in the midst of one of those eras of migration. The major difference is that many of the prior eras and patterns of migration were driven by our people, by the Aryans riding off the Pontic-Caspian steppe and their children. Those of today are driven essentially entirely by the Other, and to the benefit of the Other and the dispossession of the children of Aryans.

Boundless ingenuity is the other aspect of this great lie. I addressed before the myth that science is still churning as it once did. I believe there is ample evidence pointing the other way on that. The majority of cultural, scientific, and engineering feats are ultimately formed by a small intellectual elite of society. The largest shifts often come from world class geniuses, who, as I’ve discussed before, are rare in any society and their presence and productivity in a generation can only be fostered and encouraged, but their development is too unlikely to be forced or heralded. Other bright people who fall short of that mark still push the bounds, but do so in a largely linear and continuous fashion.

There are two obvious problems with the myth of boundless ingenuity: one, that not all peoples are capable of the same level of discovery and development; and two, that over the past hundred years, the influence of these people, that is Europeans generally but especially world class genius, in art and in the sciences has fallen substantially. I believe the reason for the latter is precisely the stifling nature of bureaucratization and social control, as well as the general rise of mediocrity and the lesser in all things. One must look at the background of artistic, cultural, and scientific developments, at the underlying things which enabled these developments in the first place. You don’t get great symphonic or choral works as we had from the late Renaissance through to the late Romantic and early Modern period without a culture heavily steeped in choral and marching music.

Again, tying with my prior discussion of science in the first section, we find a phenomenon I call “sciencefagging.” What this amounts to is using the semi-religious and magical mystique of science institutions and the aura of prestige of scientists and doctors, and bending results to service power. The “sciencefag” is essentially a court researcher, and in the quest for money and social rewards like status and prestige, they will doctor their findings to benefit the left establishment, and some of them are willing to outright fabricate results. The overall result of the array of sciencefags, the institutional gatekeepers, and moneyed interests is the elimination of open inquiry and discussion. Even those who don’t stoop to this low level often self-censor, and many are only willing to publish things in accord with the dominant semi-religious ideology of modern progressivism. It’s worth noting that modern progressivism is perceived by its followers and its court intellectuals as a scientific ideology, much like communism was in its heyday.

That is part of the social control of society as a whole and of the men and institutions of science. The left establishment rightly sees maintaining the illusion of a scientific foundation as bolstering its legitimacy, in combination with its allegedly sterling moral record. Some disciplines are worse than others, but we should note that there is a general replication problem in all of science. Some amount of error is expected and likely. Yet when some fields have replication rates between 15-25%, meaning that 75-85% of published work is either highly fraught with error or outright fraud, we have a deeper problem. The quest to satisfy money and power concerns, to obtain funding, to gain prestige and fame, and to find positive results with a high correlation and p-value (disparagingly known as p-hacking), stands against the truth. One cannot juggle that many-fold ‘quest’ and a genuine search for truth.

The replication crisis and academic fraud like p-­hacking are two aspects of sciencefagging. Laziness is one more insidious complement. Another aspect is that certain subjects are censured, or the way in which they are approached is highly controlled. All the best data suggests man causes climate change and I believe that the impact of this is fairly substantial, but climatology is being used by plutocrats for a decidedly political agenda and not to further truth. Egalitarian attitudes are promoted on the other hand everywhere they can be, in psychology, microbiology, medicine, and population genetics. This hurts the replication and truth value of research in those fields, and also forces genuine researchers to find work-around methods in how research is conducted and how it is presented as well. Theoretical physics has a problem too where many of those promoted to the top of the field aren’t necessarily top-class intellect, or innovators in science, but marketing and sales people with some knowledge of the field.

This should concern everyone. It is harder than ever for young men of worth to invent and discover new things. Many who would in another time and another, less sick society be pushing the envelope of knowledge forward, are instead servicing court ideology and creating useful fictions and gilded lies. Most of the technical innovation in the past 30 years has been in computers broadly, but especially in software and appliances designed to distract and entertain.

Given the lies addressed above, what could be next? My contention for a third great lie at the bottom of modern ideology is meritocracy of some sort.

To the degree that meritocracy ever existed, it is certainly not the case in the West for the past three generations at the least. The greater the financialization of the economy, that is the percentage of income and revenue generated by the FIRE sector, the greater the privileging of social networks and ties. It is fundamentally untrue that those who are wealthy today are the elect; the Rothschild family, like many Jewish fortunes from the Bronfman family to most of the Silicon Valley Jewish plutocrats, was built by dishonest means.

Nathan Rothschild, whose family was supposed to watch over the wealth of the Holy Roman Empire (essentially Austria) which had been secreted out of Europe during the First Napoleonic War, instead began issuing loans including one particularly profitable loan to fund the Duke of Wellington’s armies (with advance knowledge of the win at Waterloo), and thus built the seed of the Rothschild fortune with fraud atop the borrowed resources of European nobility. The Bronfman fortune was built by bootlegging and rum-running during Prohibition, as the elder Bronfman bought out a minor Canadian distillery (Seagram’s) shortly after the passage of Prohibition with plans to increase production to the (now illicit and tightened) American market. Seagram’s, under its new ownership, became one of the major suppliers of illicit booze during prohibition. Jews were instrumental in “American” organized crime during the first half of the 20^th century under the Syndicate, a largely Catholic and Jewish organization, and continue to steer organized crime from a higher position of power and from Israel. Most of the Silicon Valley plutocrats, Jew and gentile, built their companies based on cooperation with California universities (especially Stanford and the UC system), and with help from DARPA and the broader military intelligence sphere who saw an interest in putting money behind potential electronic warfare and surveillance-social control efforts. These public moneys were then converted into a series of “public”-private ventures where the profits were largely internalized and the “public” side was an ever-increasing range of surveillance and social control methods for intelligence apparatuses to employ. One might call most of these Silicon Valley companies public-private trusts.

Note with the Bronfmans: the Bronfman heiress has been implicated in the NXIVM cult. Jeffrey Epstein and Leslie Wexner were also tied to the Bronfmans and to NXIVM, as well as to a separate kompromat, prostitution, and pedophilia ring run by Epstein and the Maxwells (Robert and Ghislaine) and funded by Mossad and Wexner in cooperation with others in the Mega Group.

One finds this pattern recur across many wealthy people generally, but especially among elite Jews. Left progressives during the early 1900s found Jews useful as propagandists, financiers, and organized crime; by the second half of the 1900s, however, it became clear that the old Protestant establishment was on the outs, including the left Protestant establishment, to be replaced by a cosmopolitan-Jewish elite which was far more Catholic and far more Jewish on its face. Jewish wealth was built and secured by a combination of dishonest means as discussed above and aggressive social networking, where most Jewish ventures try to employ as many Jews at the helm and to serve important functions of organizations they run. This is true of everything from AIPAC, ADL, and SPLC to the Kushner family and various Rothschild and Warburg ventures. As I’ve discussed prior, average Ashkenazi IQ is about 105 to 107, and the claims that it is 1 SD above the European mean is riddled with problems including sampling bias. Thus claims that they achieved status through high IQ alone ring hollow.

Even before Jewish domination, meritocracy was questionable. Those who won in the railroad business in the US between 1870 and 1910 were largely those who acquired favors from various legislators, both national and regional or local. In the arms business, state contracts were as important if not more important than private sales, and the most successful and most viable arms companies basically from 1880 to the present are those with the highest portion of sales to states, whether for security and law enforcement agencies or militaries. It’s important to note that the quality of a product or service was often about as important as ties to state officials who could ensure fair hearing, and sometimes the latter is far more important in determining who wins a bid for a contract.

The increasing regimentation of society since the 1880s and early 1900s has many side effects. One is that many aspects of it are dreadful. It is great when public services run on time, but having to accord one’s whole life with clocks and schedules is grueling and soul-crushing. With all of the associated ethnic and socio-cultural problems I’ve raised here, and will bring in later, it’s not really true that we can expect timely and orderly products and services as a matter of course. Another side effect is to reduce social mobility and help build a sort of social stasis. Someone who falls catastrophically or unexpectedly ill with net income under $200,000 per year or net worth of less than $100,000 is usually devastated. Similarly, long periods of joblessness cannot be sustained. Thus pressure on middle and lower class people is largely further down, especially as they go deeper into life, as the probability of “breaking through” or “making it” or “striking it rich” are very slim, where the probability of costly bad luck is far higher. Those in the elite caste, and the managerial class more broadly, are shielded from error and bad luck both legally and financially, and thus live in a world where they have far more freedom in fact than those beneath them because there are few consequences to nominally criminal acts and few consequences for debt or insolvency. The 2007-08 TARP bailouts, the S&L crisis of the ‘80s, and various other ‘economic stimuli’ served in fact to deepen social inequality by transferring wealth and assets from the socio-economic middle to the top.

The modern FIRE economy and the merchant-managerial class which runs it subsists, in effect, on a glut of rents from productive people. No different on that front from elites from 800 to 1700 AD, they acquire resources first from taxes and subsidy, as inflation is a tax in effect, and then most of their business or “labor” is either directly collecting rents or managing productive people. We should note that birth or worth in human capital terms have very little to do with social status anymore, as status is determined mostly as a function of income and net worth.

Harvard is the most egregious example of a Jewish-dominated Ivy League school. The Ivy League is technically a sports federation between private schools, but it marks the most prestigious private schools in the US for some time. Basically all of these schools from Harvard to Princeton to Yale have a very marked overrepresentation of Jews. Even accounting for an average IQ of about 105 to 107, Jews should make perhaps 3-6% of most of these schools as they are about 1.5% of the US population. Official numbers are hard to come by, but they are about 25-30% of Harvard’s student body, and a similar number of faculty and administration, and in most of the other Ivy League schools Jews are between 10% and 30% of the student body. This is at the same time that white (especially Protestant) students, whose forebears founded most of these schools are dispossessed and essentially prevented from attending these places (only one of the Ivy League schools was founded for Catholics, and none for Jews or other non-Protestant religious groups). [8]

I don’t think that Ivy League schools make for good education anymore. I don’t think most universities generally make for good education. An Ivy League degree does two things: it signals that you are likely part of the elite political consensus and have been trained on how to be a good manager or functionary, and it gives one access to high dollar social networks which one can leverage for opportunity. What an Ivy League or other university education does not do, anymore, is signal that one has a good educational foundation like liberal arts degrees circa 1840 to 1900, where one would have been steeped in history, math, literature, and the classics (i.e. Ancient Greek and Latin). It also doesn’t mean that one is scientifically or technically competent.

To some degree, one might consider themselves spared by the fact that they are excluded from these ‘institutions of higher learning’ and the debt and pieties to power that entails. Nevertheless, I must reiterate the aforementioned point; Jews have co-opted these traditional elite institutions and bent them to their purpose.  

In order for meritocracy to work, there would have to be mechanisms to determine one’s competence. Experience is one thing, but it is clearly possible for fairly inept and mediocre people to gain much experience. Yet demands on experience, including for entry-level positions, has roundly gone up. The average entry-level job demands between two and four years of experience now, where thirty years ago you could walk up to a manager and get a similar entry-level job with little to no real experience. Aptitude tests are another metric, as is education. The problem with aptitude tests is that one cannot [legally] discriminate for employment or school placement based on IQ, or on race; the problem with education is that there has been a clear decline in the quality of education per se and credential inflation. Thus a bachelor’s degree today is worth less than an associate’s degree fifty years ago, and to get the equivalent value of a bachelor’s degree fifty years ago, one must obtain either a master’s or doctorate. This at the same time that university costs have far exceeded inflation, so one is sinking two or four more years and likely somewhere between five and twelve times as much money in real terms to obtain the same value as that old time bachelor’s degree.

All of this so far has not factored in the exact extent of white displacement. The left’s punish-reward tactics come to the fore here: diversity programs, affirmative action, and anti-discrimination laws all service the left’s clients and punish founding stock of various Western countries. To some degree, once you have built up effective universities, it becomes a zero sum game. One can only expand university enrollment and university teaching by degrading quality and increasing cost. Much of the modern economy is this way; rather than “growing the pie” as naïve libertarian economist hacks purport, the left establishment takes past and present wealth and divvies it out to their supporters and denies it to their political enemies in a series of zero sum games. That they win more seats at universities and at middle to high wage jobs does not mean that there are more opportunities for whites, but rather that there are on net less – and less not in proportion to what they take, but beyond what they take as systems degrade by their very presence. It’s also important to note that these punish-reward tactics have no expiration date.

One also has to factor in aforementioned dysgenics into so-called meritocracy. On a whole range of traits from intelligence to health and attractiveness, the average American and average Westerner more broadly is akin to a degenerate dog scrambling amongst the ruins of their betters. We find that g has declined likely by the equivalent of at least ~10 IQ points in native European populations at the same time as the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect was a combination of nutritional and educational improvements which have since been exhausted entirely, and the Flynn effect is less noticeable in g­-loaded subtests. Health and attractiveness are obvious, and the basic contention here is that people who would have died in past eras are kept alive and often reproduce, and as I noted before, the less intelligent, less attractive, and less healthy people are the most fertile in hypermodernity. This is potentially also an indicator of increased mutational load as mentioned prior, as deleterious mutations which would have washed out three hundred or more years ago [sometimes] now linger. [9]

IQ has a fairly good correlation (.3) with general success and income. It has very little correlation (.1) with actual wealth and net worth because of mean regression. Building a high net worth and massive wealth relies more on social ties and luck than smarts and talent.

Thus dysgenics, white founding stock displacement in economic and social terms, and Jewish-cosmopolitan privilege all doom the myth of meritocracy. You cannot merely obtain skills and have smarts and talents and somehow rise to the top, especially in an economy where the managerial class and elites are hand-picked rather than cultivated, and one needs prior social ties to rise to that level which are impossible for most people to acquire. Most people have neither the ability nor the potential if they wanted to, to gain favor and climb from the lowest rung to the top.

America has a bunch of founding myths. Some of them were myth basically from shortly after the country’s founding, and some of them have been formed in the past hundred years. What we see is the character of these myths have changed over time, and the lies and distortions have grown in proportion to the fading of the hour and memory, as well as the need to press ideology as unifying force in lieu of ethnicity and religion.

Every country or nation needs founding myths. Some are truer than others. Some are useful fictions. Thus the ‘founding myth’ is our fourth great lie.

What is said of early America is an odd mixture of fiction and truth. At one time, the first settlers were seen as brave and hardy souls breaking a nearly untouched land. Now we are told that they would have died but for Amerindians in the Thanksgiving myth, and that early America was built on the corpses of Indians and labor of black slaves and Chinamen. The land which was held in natural splendor was ruthlessly exploited later. The peaceful Native was mercilessly slaughtered by heartless colonists. In reality, it turns out that “indentured servitude” really tended to be more akin to white slavery, and this form of servitude or white slavery was common practice in most of the original 13 colonies up until between 1760 and 1800. Some estimates are that between 1640 and 1740, as many as half to sixty percent of everyone in the colonies wound up there as slaves of one fashion or another. The original telling was also frankly truer as regards the settlers. [10]

The reality of settlement is that it included a mix of corporate interests, criminals and pilgrims, and white slaves. Black slaves were of little import anywhere north of Virginia. By the time that English and other NW Europeans arrived on the shores of the East Coast US, the Indian population was decimated and would not rebound until the mid-1700s. [11] Yet even in this relatively depopulated state, Europeans had fairly frequent contact with Indians, and this contact was decidedly mixed. For the largest part, it consisted of trading and keeping distance outside trade, but communication breakdowns and raiding did occur, and this would usually lead to punitive raids until one side was too bloodied to go on. The general pattern was that Indian raids would often result in the slaughter of a small village, or of a group of families who lived on a common plantation, and in response to the murder, rape, and mutilation, the Europeans would retaliate by either destroying their Indian neighbors outright, or killing so many that they could not pose a threat.

Even in the colonies and later states where chattel slavery was more common, black slaves were only a substantial portion of the population in the Carolinas and the Deep South; even Virginia was majority white from the colonial time through to statehood, despite its large slave population toward the latter antebellum period. Black slaves were largely farm labor on large plantations (largely cash crops like tobacco, indigo, cotton, and sugar) and domestic servants, where white slaves and poor white workers did everything from forestry to trapping and tending farms (largely foodstuffs) and livestock to militia and military duty. Blacks, for obvious reason, were not routinely armed. They also did little in terms of trade and craft work. The extent of miscegenation has also been overblown; American blacks are about 1/5^th white taken on the average as a population, and this is considering the 20^th Century black and not blacks of the 1700s and 1800s. It is worth noting too that most of the ‘accomplished blacks’ as inventors, activists, and so forth have tended to be half or one-fourth black. Less admixed blacks are over-represented in crime, social dysfunction (incest and crime/drug ‘culture’), and groups like the Nation of Islam (ironically founded by a mulatto, and its most famous members are mostly mulattos) and Congressional Black Caucus.

(Note: I cannot find reliable numbers on the internet for Amer-Indian deaths in North America from 1620 to 1880, nor of settlers in that same time period. Most of the estimates of Indian deaths are preposterous in terms of the base population estimates or include deaths from transmitted disease, and there were no estimates available of white Europeans killed. It’s likely that the population of North America was between 1 and 2 million in 1480-1490, and the population of South & Central America and the Caribbean were between 6 and 10 million.)

The Europeans had the benefit of a more robust tradition of warfare and a supply chain that stretched to England and the northwest shores of mainland Europe. Tragic though they were, losses could also always be shored up by settler births or new arrivals from Europe. American Indians (or whatever name one gives them) did not, with lower birthrates and no outside support base to tap at the ready. The claim that American Indians were great stewards of the land was a false narrative from the mid-20th century, and one can merely look to their current holdings and to anywhere they were numerous to test that lie. One can even look to the fact that it is likely that the American Great Plain was greatly expanded by repeated intentional burning.

Amer-Indian accounts of this history (1600-1780), or of later history (1785-1890) should be disputed by any thinking person. Many of these tribes assimilated mythology surrounding animals and crops they acquired in the Columbian exchange; we know that American equids were extinct since at least 12,000 BC and that their stories and mythology involving horses dates entirely from after about 1520-1650 AD depending on the tribe and location. Phylogenetic study of horses have also yielded that they were initially domesticated in a single area, the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, and [slowly] spread from there to the rest of the world after about 4000-3500 BC. Most tribes were also illiterate until Christianization and heavy Western influence, and even those who had literacy such as in Mesoamerica yield fairly little in the way of contemporary documents during Spanish and Portuguese conquest in the southern part of the American continents. One should note that because of the relative population density of Central/South America as compared with North America proper, the Spanish and Portuguese advance through their part of the Americas was actually far slower. By 1600, Iberian settlers and colonial administrators had firm grasp on coastal ports and those immediate coastal plains but tenuous grasp of the vaster hinterlands, and less welcoming terrain such as hills, mountains, and jungles. By 1700, they had established nominal control over most of the land area of Central/South America under the flags of Iberia, but this involved leaving many Indios alone for the most part and with relatively little administrative pressure.

Some Americans also have an imaginary picture of the Revolutionary War, where it involved American regulars and militiamen taking the British alone. The cause was onerous taxes and legislation. In reality, the war occurred at a singular moment of vulnerability in the British Empire. Onerous taxes had some contributing factor, as did an increase in British administrative presence following the Seven Years’ War (known as the French and Indian War in the States), but an upstart domestic merchant elite and a fading common bond and interest with England were also important factors. The American merchant elite saw their opportunity and seized it. French assistance, largely in supply and breaking British naval superiority proved pivotal. The Continental Congress was ultimately forced to inflate the paper money to nearly worthlessness and incur huge amounts of debt and liability to finance the war. The French supplied materiel and credit. So bad was the Colonial scrip that most soldiers were never fully paid during the war or its immediate aftermath, and the bonds which soldiers were issued went unpaid for several years until Hamilton and several of his banking cohorts connived to buy them from war veterans at a discount and then make good on them at last.

Note that this mythic view of the American Revolution is basically a post-WWII construct. Before WWII and before the Cold War, a more accurate picture was better known. Even now, among historians and well-informed amateurs, this more accurate picture is still more-or-less the norm. But the popular history is that simple, storybook narrative leading in a linear path from the Boston Massacre to Lexington and Concord and then to the British capitulation after Yorktown. Amusingly, the Boston Massacre is also distorted, as in reality several of those in the potentially riotous crowd had weapons ranging from cudgels to muskets. Unfortunate as it may be that the garrison fired upon them, one can easily see the logic and it wasn’t simply coldhearted butchery. Indeed, the soldiers were acquitted at trial, and they were defended by an American lawyer (John Adams) in front of an American jury.

The merchant elite is an important aspect of the American bedrock. Part of that is also a deeply Masonic tradition. For anyone who questions the impact of Masonry as perverse and of merchants as a class beyond their rightful scope, this undermines that foundation. One cannot look at the American founding documents or founding principles and take them wholly at face value or wholly from interpretations handed to us. Indeed, from a reactionary view, any constitution is fundamentally inadequate, but the American constitution and founding tradition has particular flaws which allowed the rot of hypermodernity to fasten quickly and deeply.

One might counter that Masonic institutions were merely a means by which the revolutionaries organized in private, and maintained group cohesion. This is likely true. Yet the Masonic lodges continued strong after the Revolution and after the founding. They only petered out in influence and scope substantially after the 1960s and ‘70s, having essentially achieved most of the stated goals. [12]

The Civil War has also become part of the founding myth. Abraham Lincoln, it is said, was fighting a righteous war to keep a nation together and to end slavery and indignity. He was living up to the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic.’ In reality, Lincoln was more concerned with unity per se and with maintaining or expanding federal power than anything else. Ending slavery was a means by which he sought to undermine the logistical and economic system of the Confederacy. His tentative post-war plans were to send the vast majority of American-born black [ex-] slaves to Liberia to live thereafter.

Lincoln and the new Republican Party represented the first major consolidation of federal power over the separate American states, leading in a few generations to a point where the ‘states’ became less a series of federated but independent entities to governing provinces dependent on the federal state. The Republican Party was a consolidation of the old Whigs, but with a broader coalition from abolitionists to industrialists and plutocrats to urban upstarts of all types. They followed the broader Whig tradition in the rest of the English-speaking world, and espoused many of the same policies. The Democratic Party circa 1850 was the party of Southern planters and slaveholders, immigrants, and farmers who were not ideological abolitionists. The election of 1860 was highly charged and fraught with tension, and the election of Lincoln was one of the moves which put the country on the path to civil war.

One should note that abolitionism was pushed largely through certain organizations and churches. I suspect that Masonic lodges were loci of abolitionists, as well as the Episcopal and Methodist churches. There were also a mix of motivation behind abolitionists. Some were nutty racial egalitarians similar to the sort we see now, only with a heavy Christian evangelical fervor behind them. Most were opposed to the ‘scab labor’ and the element of the Other which slavery represented, and wanted negro slavery and the slaves themselves gone from the land to raise wages of farmworkers and to remove that racial problem. There was also the fact that slavery represented a massive concentration of wealth in the South, where Southern plutocrats were virtually all slaveholders, many of them massive slaveholders with enormous plantations, and a disproportion of those were Jews. Judah Benjamin was a Jew installed in the cabinet of the CSA and represented Jewish interests; during that time, most Jews in America lived in the states of the CSA.

In proper fashion, the next of the founding myths is the progressive era and the Great War.

The Progressive Era is supposedly a time where the excesses of the ‘Gilded Age’ were confronted, and various plutocratic interests were overcome by the power of the people. The people received assurances and benefits. The system sees itself in the following light: We’re not socialist, nor a social-democracy – we’re just realists who see that there’s no other way to do things. The Progressive Era from 1895 to 1939 saw the establishment of national parks, the Social Security system, and greater public works efforts to alleviate poverty in the midst of the Great Depression. In all, it was a time of flux and occasional hardship, but the end results were worth it.

The reality is that the modern US is a social-democracy, as well as plutocratic and deeply corrupt. The roots of this plutocracy, corruption, and social-democracy all stem to around the Progressive Era. Corruption was rife following reconstruction but really flowered during Prohibition, which also coincided with a marked rise in Jewish and Catholic power. Bismarck pioneered staatssozialismus in an effort to erode the support for communists and socialists. This gambit worked fairly well. From the late 1880s until the turmoil of the erosion of the Deutsches Kaiserreich in the wake of the Great War amidst the creation of the Weimar government, socialists were effectively controlled by aligning their interests with national interests. Most other Western governments followed suit in the next twenty odd years. In Britain the Liberal party coalition broke, and the socialists formed the Labour Party under the banner of Fabian socialism.

The US followed a similar path. The Republican Party formed the spearhead of the Progressive coalition, but by 1920 both the Republican and Democratic parties had been brought into aligning substantially with plutocratic interests. Plutocratic interests explicitly included Progressive causes. There were still naysayers, dissidents, and wayward elements in both parties. These would be brought into line over the course of the next twenty to thirty years. By 1950, both parties were expressions of plutocratic power and interest, and represented a bipartisan consensus.

Theodore Roosevelt had affinities for early English and [English-] American conservationists like Madison Grant. Roosevelt was a big hunter and adventurist, but clearly saw preservation of nature as an important expression of European progress. Thus was the conservation movement and the Federal Park system born in that era. Yet he was also a Morgan man and worked at least partly on behalf of plutocrats. Thus the pretense of ‘trust busting’ was to reduce the influence of these plutocrats under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, whereas in reality it gave them license and means to expand their operations. All of the anti-trust efforts of the 20^th century were deliberately compromised, as we can see that firm size exploded from between 1900 and 1990.

To be fair to the plutocrats of that era, including from Reconstruction (1867-1876) to the end of the Progressive Era (1939), they were far more publicly oriented and expressed a far healthier attitude including a noblesse oblige than those of the present day. Part of this can be attributed to social attitudes. One was expected to do things with money other than aggressively pursue self-interest. The modern plutocrat may contribute vast sums to “charity”, but it’s worth noting that most of the latter-day charities are combinations of slush funds, political interests, and social or virtue signaling bubbles which achieve little effect by way of their nominal mission statements but nonetheless gain substantial wealth and employ high dollar individuals. I think there is also an element of degeneration – that the grandsons or great-grandsons are not worth the same stuff as their forefathers – and the fact that so much of the cosmo-Semitic elite is Other, which is to say in this case, Jewish.

How do I mean? Foundations started by industrialists, robber barons, and oligarchs from that time (or whatever one’s pet name for them is) donated funds to found museums, churches, botanical gardens, and genuine anti-poverty efforts including infrastructure improvements. You see essentially none of this in the past two, or perhaps three, generations of oligarchs and plutocrats. The mere act of conservation of extant power, or extending it if they can, combined with the carnal pleasures takes all of their concerns day and night. They have made Holocaust museums and contributed to Jewish and politically left charities – indeed leftist activists turned out the Ford and Carnegie foundations after the deaths of those men, converting them into de facto leftist causes – but most startling is the lack of contribution to genuine culture, preservation of history, or improvement of infrastructure or other things that improve the lot of the everyman.

Wilson was also a notable progressive. Theodore Roosevelt barked from the sidelines, baying for war from its outset in 1914; it was resisted initially likely not due to deep objections, but rather because the war was unpopular and some maneuvering was necessary to gain entry. A true jingo, Roosevelt and other jingos of that era never saw a war they didn’t like, and unlike modern ‘chicken hawks’ of the disproportionately Jewish neo-con variety, Teddy put his money where his mouth was and fought on the frontlines during the Spanish-American War. His son, Theodore Jr., would also fight in both World Wars and was noted as being a brave officer, and he made the rank of general before his death.

Moreover, one thing we should note about jingoes of the classical variety: they advocated plentiful war, but at least some of them had the potential of being in national interest insofar as empire-building, opening markets, and gaining resources. The recent crop of jingoes do not care about American welfare, or American wealth, or American national interests; they are wholly disposed toward their personal or cliquish interests, namely Jewish affairs, and toward the national interests of Israel. (If I’m being too subtle: the old time oligarchs were better stuff than the present ones, full-stop, even with their problems and failures. The Roosevelts were one such oligarchic family.)

The narrative on the First World War is that America stood on the sidelines, praying for peace but that Germany was eager to take on the world. America was dragged in against her wishes by events spurred chiefly by Germans and was forced to join the eventual winners in 1917. Like the other founding myths, this is total hogwash. Wilson was clearly won over to the cause of war by mid-1915 at latest and the subsequent years were spent trying to find a casus belli and not on agonizing about how to steer away from war. Wilson allowed munitions and other war supplies to flow across the Atlantic under various flags, sometimes American flags and often British. The important thing is that American supplies and credit were going almost exclusively to the Entente powers and not to the Central Axis powers.

By 1916, Germany was finding the war increasingly costly and desperate. The Eastern front was an almost sure victory, but the Western front was a quagmire. Verdun consumed hundreds of thousands of lives for little strategic advantage on either side. This was to some degree intentional, as from the beginning it was conceived as a battle to strike at a symbol of French prestige and force them to commit to a battle of attrition. The problem was that the battle went too long and some German officers (including a prince) lost sight of the initial strategy. Other battles that year proved no more decisive, the front moving less than 15 km in the span of a year-and-change. By the midway point of Battle of the Somme, it was clear that it too was doomed to be an indecisive battle which only contributed to the charnel house. New tactics were showcased on the Somme, with Canadian and German units pioneering storm trooper and infiltration tactics; chemical weapons were deployed plentifully, but this wasn’t particularly new; and tanks were deployed for the first time there by the British and shortly thereafter by the French as well.

As I mentioned in an article on military strategy, the problem with Germany is that time wasn’t entirely on their side. If every battle ended up in a bloody game of attrition and losses were at or near parity nearly every time, they could not keep up as long as the Entente powers could. They had conceived several gambles to address that shortcoming. The Schlieffen plan was the first, but it was outdated by 1910 and should have been abandoned; unrestricted submarine warfare was the second, but between the inability of Germany to field sufficient numbers of subs and the deployment of merchant marine convoys, the impact of unrestricted submarine warfare was diminishing quickly as 1917 wore on to the point that it had almost no impact by the latter half of the year; and the Spring 1918 Offensive was the last gamble. It had major operational successes, but the Germans ran into two failures; namely, their depleted manpower and materiel reserves, and a wholesale collapse on the Austro-Hungarian front.

Viewed in this light, things are more complex. The problem is that to a large degree, perceptions in the English-speaking world are still horribly tainted by war-time propaganda from the World Wars. Even after the Lusitania was sunk in 1915, it took a further year and a half for war propaganda and political leverage to combine in an effective declaration of war. At the point when war was declared in April 1917, the war was still deeply unpopular in most of the country outside of portions of the English descended upper class and the new Jewish bourgeois. Jews and their propaganda arms were vital to moving public opinion in both wars, but still the general public had to be dragged into both world wars kicking and screaming.

We see that modern political ideologies are essentially post-Christian. By this I mean that they at their root developed largely from various Christian strains. One might call this a perversion of Christianity and the proper or true principles – but nonetheless the one is the outgrowth of the other. I am not calling into question Christianity as a whole here, which I’ve done previously. I am casting doubt on the modern adaptations thereof; that is the modern progressive forms of Christianity and the modern secular religions which stemmed from the liberal tradition.

Original sin is a doctrine which started as far as I can tell with Christianity. In Judaism, the notion of the chosen people takes precedence over any general fable of a fall. Judaism is at heart a belief structure in service of the collective ‘I’ or collective ‘self’ of those people, and not toward any universal notions. Christianity in many of its forms and denominations states that the fall of man out of the primordial golden age affected everyone; in the Catholic tradition, no one receives grace but by penance, belief and works. In the Protestant traditions, works are less important or trivial, and grace is given by God alone to his flock.

Modern original sin is different. It has to do with historical grievances, and a measure of whose ancestors did worse – allegedly. I put that modifier there because, frankly, the Other is both lacking in self-reflection and unwilling to self-flagellate. Thus the Christian and descendants of European and formerly Christian lands and peoples are the only ones afflicted with modern original sin. Every category of the other, be it Jew, Northeast Asian, Arab-North African, Sub-Saharan African, or Central Asian or what – is unmoved by claims of original sin, religious or secular. The Turk told that their ancestors committed horrible acts yields only silence or laughter, but not ground and certainly not self or national interest.

Original sin – old and new – is the next big lie.

I’m not the first to see this. It’s obvious really. Every form of hyper-liberalism, be it anarcho-capitalism, communism, or modern prog social democracy is informed both by the original liberalism and the general Christian and post-Christian worldview, even if the founders of that ideology are largely Jewish (as is the case, in fact, with many forms of hyper-liberalism). The reach of Christianity is everywhere in anything remotely Western. Even secular humanists or other atheists still kneel to various dogmas, some of them clearly influenced by Christian modes of thought.

The problem with old conceptions of original sin is that one is made to feel perpetually guilty for acts which likely did not occur in the first instance, and secondly even if they did one had no influence over their happening. Original sin is a way for rotten churches like the Catholic Church to keep asses in seats via a cheap theological trick. The only way to achieve grace is belief, penance, and constant reinforcement through works and rites dispensed by our Holy Father Church. As bad as that is, it at least has the benign side effect of keeping people more religious and more righteous even if by fear or bad argument.

To be fair, the allegory of the fall reminds one of the nature of man and the limits of dreams and utopianism. Even if it be fictive, it at least reminds one of truths.

New original sin is worse. One has to shop around for social approval or moral affirmation from the Other – that is, one is always dependent on non-whites for benediction from this new original sin. One is guilty by blood and no amount of belief can alleviate it – only the willful act of self-dispossession and ultimately suicide can atone. One must allow one’s natural rivals, enemies, and outsiders to gorge upon riches and the flesh in penance. To be frank, there is no up-shot to new original sin. Some make temporary wealth, but without weal; most however find that there is no reward but that the Globohomo gaze is cast elsewhere for a moment. They too will ultimately find only ruin and loss, but those things come atop their utter humiliation.

Indeed, one could characterize the rituals that surround ‘new original sin’ as a series of humiliation rituals. One is expected to be feal toward the most loathsome creatures, toward homosexuals, transsexuals, feminist harpies, spinsters, pedophiles, Jews, mestizos, and blacks. One is expected to debase in their presence, and to offer one’s things and one’s children. Note that thing here is used in the sense of material possessions and governing bodies. One is supposed to forget about notions of such silly things as prosperity, ethno-cultural interests, or a future for one’s family or extended kin group.

This ‘new original sin’ is both pure lies but also a weapon against Europeans, and there is nothing redeeming about the ideas represented therein. The same goes for other post-Christian ideas like a universal brotherhood of man, or total equality, or personal and subjective truth and morality, or atomistic individualism. The truest things in that list are the notion of a subjective truth, which while partly correct it’s also notable that there is a referent; and for atomistic individualism, the problem is the degree to which it is taken or its ideological pretense and not the notion of the self per se. Scientism as a whole, that is the formerly discussed partly religious nature of modern science, has contributed to this breakdown of community and ways of life. Science holds the principles of materialism, methodological individualism, secularism, quantification, and probability and fractional or provisional truth as all foundational to the method of science; scientism holds several or all of these principals up to be the basis of ideology.

The purpose of science is to construct increasingly accurate models of the world without invoking gods or supernatural elements to see how far one can explain things. There is nothing wrong with a general worldview engrossed in probability or certain foundational assumptions. Yet science cannot disprove God (yet – or possibly ever). It also doesn’t naturally form an ideology or tell us what we should do. The further problem created by all of the above is a paradox of atomistic individuals making better consumer and marketing groups and forming an easier group to rule, and as a consequence society composed of these units becomes stiflingly monotonous, tedious, conformist, and obnoxious.

What could be the sixth great lie? This shall be a short one, as I’ve explained in part in the past how it is fraudulent. I’ve gone into real and nominal power, and I’ve gone into the Post-War International Order. I’ve gone into various other lies and deceptions perpetrated for the cause of social control.

The concept of the “open society” claims that one is allowed free inquiry, and that the Truth is the foremost object of our intellectual efforts in society. The reality of course is that this is all exactly wrong, and that with the ascension of cosmopolitan-Semitic rule in the course of the 20^th Century, one sees that rule is conducted via deception, delusion, fraud, and force on the margins. All efforts are made to keep opponents of the cosmopolitan-Semitic elite fooled, embroiled in illusion and delusion, weak and divided, and to bring force whether legal or extra-legal against those who make efforts despite all means employed against them.

The lie here is that ‘society’ wants open inquiry, or that the rulers want actual churn. They want none of this. What they want is to set the tone of discussion, to tell everyone how to speak and behave, and which questions to ask; what they want is various types of churn amongst the middle and lower elements to keep them from challenging power on high.

Society wants nothing, but ‘society’ does – the difference is Society is the broad unsorted mass of everyone seeking to cooperate to varying degrees in the organism of civilization. ‘Society’ in scare quotes is a collection of push-pull factors from controlled court intellectuals, controlled opposition political parties, false consensus, and various means of exerting pressure horizontally or vertically on dissident or challenging elements. One tries first to get the nominal peers to get the problem in line, and if this doesn’t work then one brings force from on high.

One of the things I haven’t really talked about before is practices of disinformation. This includes controlling media and entertainment and seeding narratives one wants to bear fruit in that way. Only approved narratives and stories tend to gain traction. Another practice is the ‘limited hangout.’ This often involves planting misleading bits in stories whose secret elements have been compromised, and in any case it always means exposing as little as possible to light and keeping vital or important details out of the public eye. Examples of limited hangouts include the Church Hearings on the MK ULTRA program, the Pentagon Papers which ‘exposed’ the PHOENIX program, most journo and news media coverage of Jeffrey Epstein and the Franklin Cover-up or similar cases, and pretty much all of Seymour Hirsch’s ‘exposé’ work. The last practice is chaff (misdirection). It works on the same principle as anti-RADAR chaff, and it involves throwing multiple contradictory narratives with very little actual information in them for the purposes of generation confusion. Conspiracy and anti-war communities are rife with this sort of thing, as elites see an interest in signal boosting delusional and schizophrenic elements at the same time as they implant their own misleading bits.

If anyone believes that Gary Caradori or Michael Hastings died in the way specified on the death certificate, or that Seth Rich was killed in a robbery – you are hopelessly naïve and probably a helpless idiot. The establishment can kill a man blatantly, and then go through a few steps to cover up their death with fraudulent medical examiner reports or other falsified evidence, and present that to bleed away suspicion around that person’s untimely demise. Even if those who know better still know better, the vast masses of credulous dolts will believe most of what they’re told. The CIA isn’t supposed to operate within the US, but they do and have since their inception. They use combinations of official and non-official cover, where official cover means assuming the role of a ‘CIA analyst’ or embassy staff when one is in fact an operative of some sort, and non-official cover (NOC) means that the agent is given corporate/NGO or university credentials or a wholly different flag (posing for instance as MI-6 instead of CIA). They also do joint operations with other intelligence-surveillance agencies. Most of the CIA by volume are analysts whose job it is to process open source intel or whatever their department happens to be. Actual operatives or agents are a diminutive but important part of the organization. Whenever direct action must be taken, or HUMINT assets leveraged, operatives and agents are necessary.

One can’t overstate the extent to which the mass of idiots and fools which make up civilization are eager to appease power, whether unknowingly or with full knowledge. In game theoretical terms, it’s generally in the individual interest of members to do so – doing so confers temporary benefits in the form of socio-economic ascension and keeps one insulated from loss of wealth, status, or privilege. After all, it is largely elites who distribute these things. However the Nash equilibrium for a selfish strategy leads to overall group dysfunction, and allows the elites to do as thou wilt – but with very little consequence for antisocial behavior. Many people who are allowed to do whatever they want, more or less, but to have no ill effects for violating group norms can be expected to abuse this position to its maximum. This is exactly what present elites do. The result is a society which is rife with rot and the sort of corruption that might be more pernicious and soul crushing than normal banana republic or African dictatorship types of corruption.

Suffice it to say, politics is a way of avoiding war. It is negotiation over power and resources in society, about how civilization should be steered. When you isolate substantial numbers of people and deny them the ability to press or appeal their interests, and you deny any compromise or conciliation and demand that some continuously yield until they have essentially yielded themselves out of power, wealth, and being altogether; when you do all of these things you have subverted the raison d’être of the civilizational organism and make war inevitable. I see elections as extensions of opinion polls and ultimately another means of social control by wasting energy and managing dissent.

One might characterize the rampant abuse of our kultur and civilization both as chutzpah by the Other. They assume that the host is so cowed and meek that it will let the parasite fatten itself until the host is dead.

Our seventh great lie wraps around to something I’ve discussed prior. It is one of the core lies of various streams of hyper-liberalism, and of hypermodernity as a whole. It is, of course, the French revolution formula – ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité.’

Liberty is the first great lie. A robust conception of freedom is concerned with giving freedom to those who can wield it, and this means the freedom to be able to form brotherhood, work, to develop human potential, and in climbing social and power pyramids. In short, it is the freedom of the yeomanry which counts first. A perverse conception is concerned primarily about maximizing utils or hedonic pursuits; as I’ve said prior, it is more about license and upending social mores and stigmas against wanton hedonism or self-destructive behavior. It is ultimately about giving certain individuals the means to seek maximal pleasure free from perceptions of judgment or material impositions.

There are two ways one can pithily describe the latter case. They are either libertines or slaves to passion. The utilitarian concern is somewhat dissimilar, but ultimately comes from the same school of thought. Utilitarianism is usually one of two things: either an ideology in service to hedonism and the libertine mode of life, or it is in service of oligarchs and plutocrats wearing the disguise of “society.” Ultimately, utilitarianism can be an apology for both at the same time because it is generally framed as ‘maximizing happiness’ on the ‘behalf of society.’ Ultimately who determines what goes on in ‘society’ is disproportionately oligarchs and plutocrats. My contention is that the radical centralization of society through the course of the 20^th Century has led to an even greater distortion of social functions and of culture, to the extent that for the most part elite and managerial class influence is all there is except on the margins.

As with the sixth great lie, one is given the illusion of freedom without freedom in fact. This is the case as with the illusion of the open society. The illusion of freedom means that one is free to spend one’s life on trivialities, on being a wastrel, and on parasitic social causes – but one is not free to build social networks independent of the establishment, and one is not free to challenge the ruling elite. Perchance one does manage despite the odds to build wealth against the grain, one generally receives a buyout offer or demand that one be coopted into the system outright, and refusal to allow the buyout or coopting take place will result in financial ruin. One is not even truly ‘free’ to be a wastrel; there are all sorts of nominal prohibitions against drug use, prostitution, and other vice-related activities in most of the West such that one’s vulnerabilities can be tactically exploited and leveraged by power. Real crimes can be exaggerated and false charges can be invented for the purpose of leverage (the go to leverage for fictitious crimes employed by elites, ironically enough, is child pornography and drug possession). Virtually everyone is a criminal to one degree or another merely in the course of life, and the habitual crimes of some are worse than others. To actually make it to a position of real or nominal power, one is generally required to hand blackmail material over to higher powers in order to ensure that one will cooperate fully.

Equality is the second element of the formula. This is something that the new dissident right hammers repeatedly. The races, sub-species, population groups, ethnic groups, or gene clusters of man – these being all equivalent terms – have wildly differing sets of Gaussian curves for all sorts of abilities and factors which are distributed in that way. In terms of muscularity and physical strength, speed and flexibility, height and stature, fat deposition, sexual dimorphism, attractiveness, and cognitive-behavioral traits like IQ and empathy the races all vary in where they normalize and the breadth of a standard deviation.

In terms of IQ, men have more variance than women as well as a slightly higher baseline and certain populations show the same trend as well; and the average IQs of populations are normalized at about 60 for Australian Aborigines, 75 for Sub-Saharans and low caste Indians (including Dravidians), 85 for mid caste Indians and Southeast and West Asians (including Mideast/North Africa) as well as Amer-Indians, 90 for Central Asians and Mestizos and Inuit, 100 for Europeans, 104 for Northeast Asians and 106 for Ashkenazi Jews. Brahmin Indians cluster around an average of 110. When one looks at national data for most of these groups, these trends hold give or take a few points from the broader average. IQ correlates with innovation, wealth (by means of income), health, and artistic and cultural achievement. One can ask whether environmental factors depress IQ in some of these cases, and in some they might; nonetheless, across the board IQ has a heritability by adulthood of about .5, and if environmental noise is not that substantial the heritability climbs to between .65 and .7. [13]

In terms of sexual dimorphism, you see that Northeast Asians and Europeans are most sexually dimorphic. With Amer-Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans, there is less sexual differentiation as compared with the above groups in women. With Jews and some other West Asians and Southeast Asians, there is less differentiation in men. The result is that in the first comparison, those groups appear masculinized as compared with NE Asians and Europeans, and this is because their women are less feminine. In the second comparison, those groups appear feminized as compared with NE Asians and Europeans, and this is because the men are less masculine. Sexual dimorphism is one factor in attractiveness, so these distributions also overlap with how the races are normally distributed based on aesthetic and sexual appeal. Europeans score most attractive (normalizing, say, at 6/10) with NE Asians slightly behind (at 5/10), Southeast Asians slightly below that (4.5/10), and Central and West Asians which includes Jews are somewhat below NE Asians (4/10), and Amer-Indians slightly below that (3.5/10), with Sub-Saharans falling between (3/10 and 2.5/10) depending on region, and Australian Aborigines and Australasians and related peoples being the lowest (1.5/10). The average difference between any one population and the next lowest isn’t that big, but it produces a huge impact on the margins, especially on for instance how many Europeans are bottom-rung ugly versus Sub-Saharans or Australasians (fully most Sub-Saharans and Australasians are ugly, and only the exceptional look somewhat attractive). Conversely, the number of highly attractive individuals is affected by this marginal or outlier distribution. [13.5]

One can plot curves for innovation and cultural achievements as well. [14] If one does this, one finds that European achievement objectively lies furthest ahead by leagues, and the only group that is remotely close are Northeast Asians and still they lag far behind. All other groups fail to even register as achieving much of anything in comparison, in absolute terms or in a per capita basis. As well, one finds differences between these groups in physical attributes. The tallest people in the world (on an average basis) are Europeans, and the shortest are pygmies followed by Southeast Asians and Indios/Amer-Indians. The physically strongest people in the world are Europeans, followed by Australasians and some Sub-Saharan groups (largely West African). The best sprinters are West Africans, followed by Europeans and East Asians. The best distance runners are East Africans, followed by Europeans and NE Asians. American blacks, both in the US proper as well as in South America and the Caribbean, also do well at running sports. [14.5]

This establishes that equality does not exist on basically any metric between populations. What about within them? The only thing we could have, therefore, is some prescriptive equality. Equality before the law is impossible but at least laudable; while there are always going to be legal benefits to power and wealth, holding this principle to some degree at least makes society less horrid. What we see in fact is that there is no equality before the law in the hypermodern state, and that this principle has been abused and thrown aside as bad or worse than others. Material equality is another potential prescription. While I have a problem with the degree of inequality manifest today, one will never find a real condition of material equality outside of the communist pipe dream. Even eusocial insects have unequal distributions of resources. Real communist and socialist societies have borne out inequality as well. It’s also important that I was speaking this entire time above about comparing group averages and distributions which inherently means that these factors, traits, and abilities are unequally spread across individuals in those populations.

An even worse outgrowth of utilitarianism is social justice. This was pioneered by men like John Rawls. Social justice seeks to use the basic frame of utilitarianism with an egalitarian and fundamentally anti-Western or anti-white frame. It thus forms one part of the equality lie. One seeks to redress present and past grievances through schemes of wealth transfer and adjustment of perceived social status. Thus the founding stock [white] men of the West who would normally form the top of the social hierarchy are instead pushed somewhere lower, quite artificially, as there is a checkered attempt to redistribute wealth and status. Of course, the oligarchs and plutocrats get to siphon off some of the wealth that goes through these redistributions, and they do not suffer any loss of status. Many things have to be adjusted on the basis of ‘disparate impact’, especially when it is disparate to various ethnic and racial groups, and this includes punishment for crime, wages, and government benefits. The so-called minority must be given leniency in criminal punishments, higher wages, and greater share of government benefits; indeed this invading ethnic must be allowed all of these things even if it comes to be a fiscal net drain.

Basically every assumption at root of social justice, like much of the utilitarian outgrowths, are fundamentally wrongheaded egalitarianism. It is assumed that man’s nature can be radically transformed, and that extant differences are largely a result of these historical circumstance. These historical circumstances lead to diverging socio-cultural environments, but ultimately the root biological potential of the two manifestly unequal humans remains the same. I labored above to show how this is false. Moreover, this is false not just between populations but within populations as well. Regardless of the ‘amount of variance’ which differs in any given trait, the fact is that two individuals within a population are highly unlikely to be equal on most traits. This likelihood drops even further if you’re comparing two individuals from different populations. Genetic similarity also drops, such that if one is using even 100 SNP loci to compare two individuals from different [self-described] races, the likelihood that they are more similar than two individuals of the same race is less than one half of one percent. [Note: a formulation of this argument about ‘variation within/between’ is known as Lewontin’s fallacy by the HBD community.]

There are a handful of points wherein the social justice advocates are not wrong. The first is that, as mentioned above and in other writings, the hypermodern economy is not good for most workers. Hypermodernity is rife with all sorts of dysfunction which is papered over by food surpluses and entertainment. The second is that mass migration from the so-called developing to the developed countries of the world results in a massive drain of the talent in these countries in terms of athletes and intellect. A third is that mass media which comes largely out of a few countries (US, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, and China) is detrimental to the norms and contentedness of populations in developing countries. All of these challenge the current global Post-War International Order, something which was an explicit political aim of the social justice crowd, and therefore when they mention these problems they generally do so to attack white, Western people and society rather than the political order or the attempt to turn the whole world into export and credit markets.

The biggest empirical problem with radical egalitarianism is that every good twin study, longitudinal study, and meta-analysis to date shows the opposite of the egalitarian lie. IQ, height, and other physical and cognitive-behavioral traits are all highly heritable. It is not the case that one can easily change human nature, and attempts at heavy social engineering, such as exists in the hypermodern world, usually result in wasted resources and paradoxically bad outcomes. Spending disproportionate resources on non-white school children, or pursuing intensive early childhood programs such as expensive pre-school, and most attempts to shore up the non-white achievement gap generally all fail to yield expected results. Benefits are always short-term and pale in comparison to resources wasted; by ages 9-11 any short-term benefits are gone, and by ages 14-16 the child is more reflective of their genetic potential and the unshared environment than they are of SES markers and the shared environment or of social engineering experiments such as these.

Another issue is the assumption that more equal representation results in better outcomes in sex, or in race, or in socioeconomic terms, or whatever the terms set for ‘equality’ are in a given context. In some part, this is a beatification of women or of the Other. To the extent that a given social space has problems, introducing more women, or more xenos can fix extant problems (rather than adding more problems). Some shills assert that economic inequalities, criminal abuses, and state misconduct (things like sex and pedophile rings, human trafficking networks, etc.) could all be fixed by adding more women and non-white representation in nominal and real power, and at high levels in corporations. The numbers of female chairs and CEOs in corporations has increased dramatically in the past 70 years, yet corporate corruption is at an all-time high. The same is true of nominal and real power positions, and of intelligence-surveillance agencies in particular. Women who often have tenuous holds in power are often some of the biggest lickspittles and lackeys, and they are willing to aggressively and eagerly service those above them. In many instances, women are more apt to abuse power and to abuse the people around them. Some women participate in these pedophilia and sex trafficking rings, as well as other criminal and immoral activity, and many more women are willfully blind to those activities. [15]

Brotherhood is the last lie in this formula. Given the prevalence of international and inter-ethnic violence throughout history, but even in the so-called “long peace” of the past 80 years, we see this cast into doubt from the start. Given data which suggests that ethno-cultural and religious diversity in an area reduces civic engagement, social trust, and general well-being, the claim of a ‘universal brotherhood of man’ is even more dubious. The fact that black and Hispanic (mestizo and Indio) population in the US, and Sub-Saharan and Mideast-North African population in Europe, all correlate strongly with violent crime and very high social dysfunction is more worrisome still. One must crown those doubts with the ongoing loot-and-pillage operation which seeks to strip European-descended folk of their wealth, power, and future, which is being committed on behalf of the cosmopolitan-Semitic elite and non-Western ethnics. This Jewish-led coalition hell bent on reducing our homes to ash casts the final and lethal doubt on the ‘brotherhood of man.’

No one is interested in this brotherhood of delusion except for ideologues and idiots. The idiots are used because the delusional poison allows them to be abused in a myriad ways without questioning the abuse or its perpetrators. These ideologies inoculate those who craft them against backlash and against upstarts. Anything counter to Jewish interest is anti-Semitic – frankly doing something a Jew doesn’t like is anti-Semitic – and there is no like term to describe something counter to white, European interests. Anything counter to white, European interests is something between kosher and fair game, and is encouraged and celebrated.

There is the line in the Schiller poem and consequently in the movement Ode to Joy, ‘Alle Menschen werden brüder…’ Much as I like Schiller and Beethoven, I don’t take these words as gospel and I certainly don’t take them literally. ‘Humanity’ is a taxonomic category. Race or sub-species is the outermost kinship group which means anything and it means very little to most people, only taking center stage when one is outnumbered and surrounded by xenos. The closer kinship groups get to the man, the more intimate one’s contact with them and the more they mean as a matter of course. This being the case, any dreams of uniting humanity as it exists with its ten major population groups and various smaller sub-groups and further divisions is a foul joke (one can divide humanity in as few as 8 major population groups credibly or as many as 13 depending). In its current state, humanity doesn’t have the genetic affinity or phenotypic ability to coordinate and cohere in a formal empire that stretches the whole world. The Post-War International Order is the closest thing, and it is an informal soft power empire which is showing the first major cracks and fissures which may lead to its undoing.

How many people have been thrown on the pyre of this deceit? How many have died or had their lives wrecked by non-white violence in the West? How many have sought to disprove so-called ‘bigotries’ and ‘stereotypes’ only to fall to depredation? I’m thinking in this latter case of tourists who go places they shouldn’t and rationalize away that instinctive sense of danger and thus put themselves in jeopardy, and I’m thinking of people who biked or hitchhiked through treacherous lands only to find themselves defiled and dead before their journey ended. I’m thinking of naïve activists who’ve been raped or murdered by the subjects of their pet causes in foreign and hostile lands, and whose parents and social circles cast their name and memory to the wind and allow similar things to keep happening in order to perpetuate lies. That is the nasty face of ideological zeal and the useful idiot – someone who would throw away their children or the children of their neighbors for the sake of social and virtue signaling.

The French Revolution was mostly a net negative in the final analysis. While there are aspects that I can appreciate, from the liquidation of corrupt elites to the rise of a figure like Napoleon Bonaparte and their repeated military success from the early revolutionary phase through to the Battle of Waterloo, I have to recognize that things like the UN and modern conceptions of ‘human rights’ are essentially continuations of the French revolution. These things have a decidedly non-European, non-white tinge, and a heavily Jewish head – but nonetheless they take clear and direct inspiration from the events and thought currents of that time. Two hundred and some years later, we are still battling liars who believe in this formula – or want others to believe in it for social control – and yet we seem to be further behind in finding truth than they were then.

A serious society would address some or most of the things above. They would at least attempt to answer questions relating to the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ – that is, looming unfunded liabilities, debt crises, and economic malaise which combine to create a situation where pension schemes and state provided healthcare are not going to be financially viable in most Western countries within fifteen years. Part of this lies at the feet of demography, both the issue of importing shoddy xenos to replace natives, and the inverted pyramid described earlier. Pension schemes, like other constructions of mass consumption capitalist economies, presume endless growth in order to be sustained. A pension scheme where there are more recipients than payers is doomed from the outset. Large portions of Western welfare states will have to be abandoned within a generation or two hence; what remains will have to be scaled down. You can’t afford to import the aforementioned shoddy xenos and pay them just to breathe and breed forever.

This fictional ‘serious society’ would also try to address other things. The resource limitation issue is another thing which seems to evade notice. Part of the problem with tackling resources while trying to maintain living standards close to what we have now, is the fact that as described before we are locked into path dependencies which are not good going forward in terms of energy efficiency and maximizing use of scarce strategic resources. Another issue tied to that is the highly unequal asymptotic distribution of wealth and resources in the hypermodern world and the issues of a society which now fails to find places for the young and instead foists on them masses of debt and a lifetime of mediocrity. There is supposed to be a mutual obligation between generations. The younger are supposed to learn, work, have families, and care for elders who become infirm (obviously, not all necessarily at the same time or in the same person). The elders are supposed to teach, set good examples, care for youth, and provide resources and opportunities for all forms of success. This mutual obligation has broken down, and universities (and older people generally) do not see themselves responsible for wasting years of young peoples’ lives for poor employment prospects and massive debt, or conditions which generally hobble family formation.

What of addressing the Gordion knot of lies which forms mainstream modern ideologies? Both the nominal right and left are guilty of perpetuating lies which harm most of the people who genuinely believe them, but help to further goals of those who created these ideologies and lies in the first place. High-functioning and high achieving center-right or left people are high functioning and achieving usually in proportion to the degree that they disregard their ideological dogmas in practice. The nominal right is controlled opposition to the nominal left being the explicit marching orders given by plutocrats and oligarchs. Looking to either for leadership or resistance against these established interests is folly. As I said elsewhere, established religions and parties, and most of one’s elders (anyone over 35-40) are useless for the project of founding something new. Lies and deceit are made worse when tools of the intelligence-surveillance agencies leak out, for example malware and software used for deepfakes. Most of the high-grade professionally developed malware out in the world was developed by or for intelligence agencies, and deepfake software is another example of something which was likely used by the intel milieu before it proliferated. Spread wide enough, deepfakes will render all digital evidence suspect, and the threshold required for genuine digital evidence will be far higher. [16]

There is also the problem of secularism, scientism, and general loss of religion and the death of God which this ‘serious society’ would address. Secularism is not a stable equilibrium, and attempts at creating secular ideologies usually result in secular religions. What of the fact that one is prevented from speaking one’s mind and from basic social advancement by way of hypermodern constructions? One will be silenced by peers, or from on high. One will often be kept from high achievement unless one has certain tokens like Ivy League degrees or connections to the right high dollar people. The problem here isn’t just that meritocracy is dead and gone but that it’s a fake and malign lie at this point. Believing in the meritocracy blinds one to institutional and economic perversions which lie at the very heart of wealth concentrations. One must also keep in mind how much of the hypermodern economy is fake and fundamentally built atop scams and unproductive rents. 

Issues of political crises also loom: as I mentioned prior, politics is a way of mediating the civilization and avoiding war and constant bloody infighting. When the proverbial ‘you’ lock the vast majority out of power, out of politics, and out of any say on their future, you are not achieving this end of politics. ‘You’ might be maximizing your own take from the zero sum game of wealth and power distribution, but in so doing you are also assuring warfare therein. When one is told that mere existence is immoral and advocacy for vital self- and group interests are forbidden, terrorism, rebellion, and subversion become viable prospects.

It’s also worth noting that all of the worst aspects of hypermodernity are usually enforced by willing collaborators. Without their lackeys at various levels, the plutocrats would be naught but pompous windbags crying out for power. However, we find that they enlist help from police, NGOs, the administrative state, intelligence-surveillance agencies, militaries, financiers, and the arts-media-entertainment complex among others. They need not control all of these people, they merely need have grasp on enough of the critical actors in these institutions and organizations, and so long as they can set policy and have the underlings follow, they will find their will be done. Those underlings follow their policy, and in case of a critical event which involves their interests, they get to impose the standards of conduct. Ultimately, men enforce a feminized society which ruins education for the gifted and genius production, and which results in feminist laws and further dysgenics.

That is ultimately the place we find ourselves: xenos used as weapons against the founding stock folk of Western nations, and those founding stock folk have little to no power, little wealth, and no ability to influence the future by conventional means. Additionally, you have all of the problems mentioned above stacking. Even the anti-fragility of the system falls apart at a point; it’s a system which resists or adapts to shock until all of these factors aggregate into such a catastrophic series of errors that it cannot cope. That shock, or cluster of shocks, will end the global Post-War International Order as it stands. I cannot predict what that will look like. I can say only that empires do not last forever, especially ones as rotten as this.

The ‘great lies’ listed:

1.       Endless growth and prosperty

2.      Boundless human ingenuity and the myth of progress

3.      Meritocracy

4.      Founding myths

5.      Original sin – old and new

6.      The open society

7.      The French revolution formula, ‘liberte, egalite, fraternite’

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-gdp-5-latest-statistics-and-how-to-use-them-3306041

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GNP

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gross-national-product

https://www.investopedia.com/markets/

https://mega.nz/#!V4o1CQjT!KhHbEQvsvgN7nby75yHDPJLI41EzjIYSOy6FimMa_nk

(mega.nz link is a pdf showing a graph which I created using data from market tracking sites and FRED. If you’re leery of files, don’t get it, but I promise it’s a clean .pdf)

[2] https://www.accelerating.org/articles/InnovationHuebnerTFSC2005.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/259102

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0149206308321549 (same as above)

https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/declining-pace-innovation-lowering-productivity-growth

(important thing noted here by subject of this article: most of the ‘digital revolution’, that is computing and software, has relatively little impact outside of entertainment and communications.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3681?foxtrotcallback=true

(specifically on pharma R&D, but broadly applicable)

https://hbr.org/2017/03/is-rd-getting-harder-or-are-companies-just-getting-worse-at-it

(this article candy-coats something which is obvious: a static and calcified economy full of entrenched interests gets in the way of genuine innovation, because that sort of thing has the potential to ruin the dinosaur industries)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162505000235

(this might be a repeat of the JSTOR article, but it hammers the point home)

Peter Thiel and some other guys also have talks on this subject.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/4887

(this is about the institutional side)

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01649

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

https://e360.yale.edu/features/running-dry-seeking-solutions-to-south-asias-looming-water-crisis

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/yemens-looming-water-crisis

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-27/mineral-resources-and-the-limits-to-growth/

https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-limits-to-growth/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

(The Limits to Growth is a good read, and fairly accurate. Their predictions have held fairly robust since the ‘70s when they were first made. John Michael Greer admits we should be weary of their political motives, that is the Club of Rome promotes a global technocratic elite as a way of trying to mitigate economic and environmental disaster. Nonetheless, the data and framework for thought in Limits is essentially correct.)

[3.5] https://knoema.com/vyronoe/cost-of-oil-production-by-country

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

http://chartsbin.com/view/oau

https://www.businessinsider.com/timeline-155-year-history-of-oil-prices-2016-12

https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2015/12/28/prepare-for-a-dramatic-decline-in-oil-reserves/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/23/british-petroleum-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession

(all about oil: the basic picture is that peak oil already happened, and every five or ten years more and more oil fields are going defunct. The number of ‘reserves’ which are unproven either because they are technically unfeasible or horribly expensive to tap are fairly large, but economical oil under $100/bbl is a commodity with a limited shelf life.)

[4] https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/452968-marching-toward-a-debt-crisis

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-crisis-summary-timeline-and-solutions-3306288 (this is an overly optimistic picture, but it gives the basic framework of understanding)

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-sovereign-debt-crisis-with-examples-3305748

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/americas-hidden-debt

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/sovereign-debt-crisis/the-municipal-debt-crisis-begins/

[5] https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-looming-national-security-crisis-young-americans-unable-serve-the-military

https://www.stateofobesity.org/obesity-rates-trends-overview/

https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/an-epidemic-of-obesity/

(All of these address obesity)

[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4660050/

https://www.aarda.org/news-information/statistics/

https://www.immunology.org/news/report-reveals-the-rising-rates-autoimmune-conditions

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246960.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5373490/

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044318

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10473304

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332896/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783422/

(all of these articles deal with autoimmunity and/or autism)

[7] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/visualizing-the-prolific-plastic-problem-in-our-oceans

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873021/

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/tritan-certichem-eastman-bpa-free-plastic-safe/

https://besynchro.com/blogs/blog/12492461-xenoestrogens-plastics-dirty-secret

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18942551

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12456297

https://academic.oup.com/biolreprod/article/72/6/1344/2667099

(all of these deal with xenoestrogens and toxicity inherent to most plastics, and reading a few of them gives a good picture)

[8] http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/12/why-white-gentiles-cant-get-admission-to-ivy-league-universities/

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/272350/the-vanishing-ivy-league-jew

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/07/16/kevin-macdonald-jewish-overrepresentation-at-elite-universities-explained/

[9] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321627700_What_Caused_over_a_Century_of_Decline_in_General_Intelligence_Testing_Predictions_from_the_Genetic_Selection_and_Neurotoxin_Hypotheses

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404736/

[10] http://www.localhistories.org/amertime.html

https://americasbesthistory.com/abhtimeline.html

http://www.vlib.us/amdocs/

(On white slavery, two books are of particular note: They Were White and They Were Slaves and White Cargo. The former was written by a white nationalist, but the latter wasn't, and both are fairly well-documented and ultimately come to the same conclusion.)

[11] https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/colonialbostonpops.pdf

https://web.viu.ca/davies/h320/population.colonies.htm

http://www.phelpsfamilyhistory.com/history/america/population-colonies.asp

https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htm

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~webfac/cromer/e211_f12/LindertWilliamson.pdf

(above is not about demography but wealth, state-by-state in early US)

https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/PopulationofStatesandCountiesoftheUnitedStates1790-1990.pdf

(above includes American Indian population estimates)

[12] https://www.msana.com/msastats.asp

http://www.mastermason.com/wilmettepark/intro.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry

http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Essays/jdcarter.html

https://allthatsinteresting.com/skull-and-bones-society

http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/skull-and-bones-or-7-fast-facts-about-yales-secret-society/

(There isn’t much interesting said about Skull and Bones except that a bunch of high dollar people are and have been on its membership rolls. Hack journos either don’t know shit or aren’t willing to say anything.)

[13] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/National-IQs-calculated-and-validated-for-108-Lynn-Meisenberg/48d7843f6ce714a684a93530a0c8b7da65d185db

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.5865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf (Intelligence and SES meta-study)

https://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Practical-validity-800.html

[13.5] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00289/full

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491301100316

https://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103 (slightly gay article but still notes human sexual dimorphism)

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/the-evolution-of-sexual-dimorphism-in-humans-part-2/

https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2013/02/Conroy-Beam-sexual-dimorphic-2015.pdf

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1035-8

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment#Analysis

https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/2003-murray-humanaccomplishment.pdf

[14.5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-fastest-runners-by-country-2014-7

https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-evidence-raises-doubts-on-obamas-preschool-for-all/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ (genetics and intelligence differences)

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/estimating-trait-heritability-46889/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617178/ (correlation between height and IQ, heritability estimates for height and IQ also provided)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886910005933?via%3Dihub (Interesting find: some correlation between physical attractiveness and muscularity, and asserting natural inequality. In other words, SJWs and ideological egalitarians tend to be somewhat weaker and uglier on the whole.)

[15] https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3995507/

[16] https://www.lawfareblog.com/deep-fakes-looming-crisis-national-security-democracy-and-privacy

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3293002/deepfake-videos-how-and-why-they-work.html

https://internethealthreport.org/2019/deepfakes-are-here-now-what/

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/our-work/topics/deepfakes