The History Hoax – A Primer

Over the coming weeks I will be releasing a swath of material related to the History Hoax. I understand and appreciate that a few Full Members of this website remain incredulous towards the notion that ‘all of history is fake’. After all, how could all of the historians be wrong? Why hasn’t anybody told us yet? If history as we know it is fake, then what actually happened? Where do we come from? How long have we been here? And so on and so forth.

When I first got into the ‘alternative’/’conspiracy’/’truth’ (ACT) scene back in 2013 there were several content creators who I respected as legitimate researchers. Had any of them suggested that ‘history is a hoax’, I honestly don’t know how I would have reacted. It just seems so ‘out there’. I might have been repelled from them or possibly even begun to suspect they were ‘shills’.

Yes, I was once a conspiratard. I’m sure many of you can relate to the experience of falling into a few ‘truth n00b‘ traps when you first began your trip down the yellow brick road.

I no longer respect any of those content creators as legitimate ‘researchers’. In fact, I am not sure that any of them do any genuine research whatsoever. This is another matter for another day. Suffice to say that it was only by going beyond what was presently available – beyond what others were talking about – that I began to uncover clue after clue after clue which all indicated that something was very amiss with the field known as ‘history’.

Very amiss indeed.

If you maintain belief, to any degree, in stories about ‘Ancient Greece’ or ‘Ancient Egypt’ or ‘Ancient Rome’ or ‘Ancient China’, then I recommend you take a note right now about your current thoughts on this topic. Perhaps find a pen and paper and jot down a few bullet points. Maybe leave a comment in the comment section below. Do something to record your current view for the benefit of your future self who may look back and wonder what was going through your mind.

I strongly recommend it.

Within a few months at most you will be laughing at stories in which you used to have complete. Stories which seemed so reasonable until one day they didn’t, and you found yourself wondering, ‘how did I ever believe such obvious bullshit?’

I can’t guarantee it and I won’t guarantee it. I can and do, however, predict it. My evidence base is my own experience. I used to believe all of the stories we are told about ‘Ancient’ times. I now see the History Hoax as being more obvious, more ‘in-our-faces’, than many of the lower orders of hoaxes combined. This is no exaggeration.

It is no mere ‘matter of opinion’, in my mind, that history is fake. I didn’t come to this position second or third-hand. I came to this realisation by looking for the primary source evidence to verify the official stories. Hours upon hours of checking citation after citation, and finding that all roads led back, eventually, to the same dead ends.

And those dead ends are not nearly as far ‘back’ as one might assume.

Throughout the roughly two years I have spent compiling this research in piecemeal fashion, I have also been slowly but surely learning about the modern human and how he works. This has allowed me to push through barriers which might stop other would-be researchers from going down the paths my own research has taken me.

The fact of the matter is this: humans love stories. They crave them. When deprived of stories, they will create their own. Humans will believe and repeat the most fantastical and ridiculous of stories without pausing for a moment to consider if said stories have any basis in objective reality. This is because, in many instances, these humans have no conception of an ‘objective reality’. They have more in common with trained parrots than they do with the idealised version of man which many of us still maintain in our own mind.

Storytelling requires only repetition – it requires no thinking whatsoever.

This is one reason why history comes under relatively little scrutiny from so-called ‘researchers’: history is all about stories. Two or more people can argue about whose story is ‘better’: whose story is believed by more people, or whose story has been retold by the greatest number of fellow story-tellers, but all these people will be arguing about is whose story is ‘better’. This works out well for the storytellers because this is exactly what most of their audience want to hear: stories. Stories about stories. Stories about the people telling the stories.

It is right there in the name of the field: history. If you want to believe that this is a mere ‘coincidence’ then I won’t even try to change your mind.

These stories are so widely-believed, accepted and repeated, that few of us are likely to ever question them in any meaningful way. We don’t even see that we are in fact immersed in stories. In this sense, the History Hoax is necessarily going to be too hard for many to see, precisely because they have become numb – oblivious – to their own storied existence.

Put another way, ‘history’ is so much a part of our existential/epistemological framework that in most cases we don’t even know it is there.

If you have any preconceived notions about David Foster Wallace, please put them aside when considering the merits of his ‘two young fish’ parable.


It is my position that the same parable applies to our understanding of history. The fish don’t know they are swimming in water, the average person does not know he is immersed in stories.

Lately I have used the following clip from Dark City (1999) in several different pieces of content. If it were not already clear before, its relevance to the History Hoax might come into more focus now:


Detective Walenski later went on to jump in front of a train. Perhaps he could have used some more sunlight and vegetables rather than stuffing himself away in a dark, untidy room. I’m going to suggest to you that, if it is the case that ‘history’ as we know it is one big joke, this need not be sad or even ‘bad’ news. On the contrary, a genuine realisation and understanding of the History Hoax may lead one to a spiritual and psychological freedom of unparalleled scope.

My own personal view at this point in time is that this is all one big joke. We can either laugh or we can cry. After much contemplation and soul-searching, I have made my decision as to which is the most sensible attitude to adopt. This general sentiment is what led me to create Plate of Brass.

I’m going to be having fun with the History Hoax. If the ‘victim’ of a joke is the one laughing the loudest, then who is the joke really ‘on’ (if anybody)?

Stay tuned…

Production notes. Originally published to Full access members 5-Jul-2018. Made available to Part Members 3-Aug-2017. Released to Freeloader members 21-Aug-2018 as part of Welcome to piece. Made available to public 24-Sep-2019.


2 thoughts on “The History Hoax – A Primer

  • Yes, I like this one too.. I’m planning a response post, so I think I’ll add it here, to this piece JLB.

    All these ‘subjects’ overlap and interlace, and it seems to me, our current ‘reality’.. that is, the perpetual NOW.. is the ‘story that is being hoaxed!

    • To me it is a bit like those coin donation amusement spirals you sometimes see in shopping centres. The coin keeps spiraling in smaller and smaller circles as it falls towards the pit at the bottom. All of the topics seem to become more and more relevant to one another as I better grasp each one in isolation.

  • I used to be a “rock music reporter”, so allow me a “musical comment”. You sound like Lou Reed singing Blondie, and I used to be a fan of both artists, so I appreciate this kind of “musical contamination”. Nevertheless, a few singing lessons wouldn’t hurt, and I hope you won’t be offended by this observation. After all, both Lou Reed and Blondie would have needed them too. ūüėČ

    On a more serious note, I’m thrilled about all the new material about “history” you’re finally putting out. I discovered it a few days late, so I ask you: I know you have lots of things to do (now even a “normal” job), but I think it would be great if, every time you update the site, you could send an email newsletter to your subscribers. I would find it very useful, and probably others would too. Actually, I think I already received one a while ago – announcing new videos, if I remember correctly – but I’d really like a more regular (and brief, so it won’t be too much more additional work for you) email update.

    Thank you for listening, and hopefully granting my “wish”.


    • That sounds like a polite way of saying that you think I am a poor singer – which makes two of us! Regarding the emails, I sent out a mailing list email today and will be getting in the habit of sending one out every couple of weeks. I am still slowly but surely streamlining and improving the way I run the site, and my hope is to eventually get to the point where a lot of it is done to a pattern. For instance, a new long-format video/podcast every two weeks, a new short-format video every other week, etc etc, with the mailing list emails serving as a way to promote the latest content and the site in general. I will speak more about this in the next Full Member Video Update so stay tuned!

  • theportlandthinker

    The David Foster Wallace speech is a perfect setup for this topic, John. Thank you. Just watched it, batteries for Truth now recharged. I go forth in my search with attention and zero despair. The path glows with joy, not Nihilism, not substance abuse. The greatest thinkers of any age possess cosmic humor, not the stupidity of sarcasm’s anti-gospel, not Schopenhauer’s angry jacking off to paintings of his bitter controlling mother. I follow your research with interest (since 2015) as I continue to think for myself as a unique thinking self. Cheers!

  • Permaculturehill

    Abraham Lincoln has always striked me as a completely fictional character. Maybe it‚Äôs the top hat. What seems extra ridiculous to me is that supposedly 100 years before ‚ÄúHonest Abe‚ÄĚ there were these dudes who ran the country who wore wigs, knee high socks and ‚Äúbaseball‚ÄĚ pants. Lol, what is up with these stories??

    • Excellent first comment. Seems you are already well up to speed on the History Hoax.

      Abe Lincoln. A president assassinated in the Ford theatre in 1865.

      JFK. A president assassinated in a Ford Lincoln in 1965.

      100 years apart. President assassinated. Ford. Lincoln.

      If the Kosmos made the joke any more obvious, it wouldn’t be funny any more. Good comedy is all about the delivery.

      Watch/listen here:

  • I think for every piece of history that is seen as fiction by somebody. This seeing unlocks or releases a piece of their attention/awareness that was in that belief. This then gives more attention for experiencing what is in front of you at the present moment. It‚Äôs like it cuts the ties to the idea of this 5000 year continuum of which we are a part of (as though in schools). This is one of the main insights I got from this piece.

    We do seem to be a gullible lot. I wonder why??

    • Take No Gnosis

      Surely the humans as a group are gullible because of the education and media programming they have endured. They are taught that they are smart when their levels of actual critical thinking are so low as to be almost non existent. Coupled with the love and belief in stories, fables and fairy tales humans are easy to guide into virtually any historical scenario.

      • This is all very true and does hep to show why most people believe what they believe, especially regarding history. But what is the inherent trate that seems to cause us to believe rather that doubt in the first place. Prior to schooling or education our instinct is to believe in what we are shown. This then forms our belief system. There seems to be no natural doubting or caution mechanism in our forming personality!!!

        • Take No Gnosis

          It is our inherent trust in authority, first the parent then multiple representatives of the state. We build a believed system based on this trust and the majority carry this to the day they die. “Why would they lie?”, is a built in mechanism that closes the mind to any other possibility other than the authority being omnipotent. For those that realise the state representatives have been feeding us nonsense, they pass the baton of authority to members of the ACT realm and again just trust the information garnered as truth. Whether it be the shape of the Earth, 911, ancient aliens or baby hoaxes most don’t check anything for themselves and only deviating into critical thought breaks this cycle, unfortunately this doesn’t appear to happen very often as normies capacity for critical thought has been dissolved with all the programming received from birth to old age.

          • This is all so true and makes sense too me. This authority figure, whoever or whatever it may be, is the gospel. It goes unchallenged for most people from cradle to grave, great point.

            I feel as we are born helpless and need to be taken care of physically, until the time comes otherwise. We are born as an innately trusting being. As our mothers and fathers care for us, their programs and beliefs are handed down just as surely as their hair colour is. And so the drama continues.

            It‚Äôs a really good point you made about ones that do look a little deeper and passing the baton. I did find myself looking at those brave smart ‚Äúexposers of truth‚ÄĚ as lights in the fog not so long ago.

            I have read an idea before, about thinking being an addiction. I noticed that in my experience the biggest addiction that I and we all have, is absolutely to thinking. So a belief in something is required for all but the bravest souls. So blast the commonly held belief system and another will automatically be inserted. Perhaps the original belief system can only be blasted with the new belief system.

            Maybe just maybe, learning to critically think is one of the most practical ways of raising our awareness….

  • Take No Gnosis

    I agree completely with you, thinking critically does indeed raise your awareness. At this point its not even a maybe. Finding this site last year has been the capstone on my journey. It seems of late that JLB feels that he is just producing entertainment and I hope he reads this post, as for me nothing could be further from the truth. I recognised in myself that even though I had been deprogramming beliefs for such a long time, I had been inserting new ones. Using standard form every day has brought me to a new level of awareness. The history hoax work and a myriad of other articles here explicitly show a method to break down the nonsense that surrounds us. To me losing all the ridiculous belief systems while growing in your thought process is the key to reality. Within a few short months I no longer recognise the man I was any longer and I am a better person, thinking clearly, focused and more positive and I have a set of tools that allow me to rise above any piece of information and demolish it. That is all down to this site, the members and JLB’s work.

    • That‚Äôs fantastic to hear that you got so much from this group and the site. Also it‚Äôs refreshing to see a bit of practical information, and not just more nice ideas to decorate the cage with. When you say ‚Äúusing standard form every day‚ÄĚ what does this mean (primary source research???).

      I feel what I have learned in the short time I have been looking at this site has been very helpful. I am really looking forward to checking out some more.

      Also on average how many people outside if the group do you find open to the ideas presented. I mentioned the 9/11 thing and was looked at as if I was growing a second head…….

      • “I mentioned the 9/11 thing and was looked at as if I was growing a second head..”

        AP – what did you share about 9/11? and how far along the 9/11 rabbit hole were the people whom you shared it with?

        • I shared the idea that perhaps it was completely staged and there was no planes (I‚Äôm yet too explore the mystic symbology yet, so I know nothing of this aspect other than one quick video on this site).

          The other person was at the point of government knowledge and possible involvement in 9/11. I mean from my perspective we have terrorists flying planes into the buildings, to government inclusion, to insurance jobs, to controlled demolitions. Is no planes really that far of a jump to the average mind. I guess it is…..

          • Yep, I learned this the hard way, too. I had erroneously believed that people who knew the official story was a lie, would be more amenable to the idea that the entire event was staged/fabricated. I was WRONG! And how.

            It turns out that ‘truthers’ are every bit as devoted to their belief system as normies are to their official stories. Oftentimes, moreso.

            Thee ‘truthers’ have invested emotionally, sometimes socially and financially, in the new belief system.

            In a sense, they have more to lose than the normie does, should they let go of their own explanation for what happened that day.

            I spoke about related matters in this video:


      • Take No Gnosis

        Hey AP, you can use standard form in every aspect of communication, that can be a conversation, a debate a Facebook post or even your boss giving you a lecture. It is the best tool when thinking about the information you are processing to break it down and arrive at a sound conclusion. You should check out all JLB’s posts he has some good introductory presentations on this subject. To be clear this is separate but can be used in tandem to the methods shown here for researching and finding primary sources.

        There are very few people in your day to day life who will be open to the ideas and information presented here. Unfortunately once you are aware you realise that you are no longer the same as those around you. Most humans as I postulated above do not have the ability to critically think and will suffer cognitive dissonance if you even mention 911 not being as the official story tells. The thought that 911 was just a made for TV movie, that the twin towers were built to be brought down as a ritual with no floors in the construction will usually bring a normie to either declare you a complete nutter or worse. Only people within the ACT realm will be open to this kind of discussion. To answer your question, I drop titbits of info with people I know are normies but generally go no further, but I frequently have discussions with FlatEarthers in real life, but even these people are only partly aware and still lost in their belief systems.

        • Cheers for that, I had a quick look at a clip this morning regarding standard form. I will spend a few hours over the weekend understanding it. Anything that helps to clarify where I am at with something or somebody, is a great help in expressing and communicating. I look forward to the learning.

          This is true, there are very few people who I speak with who have flexible minds. Rigid beliefs tend to be the norm. I find a lot of people are nearly fearful, to challenge their held views on their world, or there place in it. Or another common attitude i find, is an apathy to life. It’s this sleepy type of exchange with the world, that only seems to become animated through media stimulation. It’s not even a case of challenging beliefs, it more a case of not even knowing there are beliefs to be challanged. It’s totally autopilot.

        • Thank you, TNG. What a wonderful comment.

          My ‘Thinking About Thinking’ series is available on this page. The basic concepts presented there underpin so much of what is on this website.

          There are very few people in your day to day life who will be open to the ideas and information presented here. Unfortunately once you are aware you realise that you are no longer the same as those around you.

          I know them feels. What I will add, though, is that this realisation is ‘unfortunate’ only insofar as that is the individual’s chosen perspective on the matter. On the one hand, it would be nice to be like everybody around us (or for everybody around us to be like we are). But then, why do we feel this way? Do I want to be the ‘same’ as the stray cat outside my door? Or the cow in the local farm? Or the bird making its nest in the nearby tree? Of course not.

          So why do I want to be the same as the creatures around us which we call ‘humans’? Perhaps one of the main reasons why I hold this desire is due to habit: I have spent so long believing we are the same, that it is difficult at first to accept that we simply are not the same. The truth is painful only because I/we spent so long oblivious to it.

          To put it another way, perhaps we are ‘unfortunate’ to realise that we are not like those around us. But there is another perspective available: One man’s black pill is another man’s white pill, after all. Consider the amount of time the average person spends worrying abut what other people think about him. His profession. His wealth. His status. His opinions. Does this person care if the cat or the cow or the bird approve of him? No. So why does he care what the humans think of him?

          Maybe he cares because he still considers these creatures to be so similar to him that their opinions are worth something. What if, after all, that perceived similarity is an illusion (or delusion)?

    • Finding this site last year has been the capstone on my journey. It seems of late that JLB feels that he is just producing entertainment and I hope he reads this post, as for me nothing could be further from the truth.

      These kinds of comments make my day. Thank you very much.

      Regarding the ‘entertainment vs learning’ discussion, I ought to have been more clear in what I was trying to convey. There are definitely people out there who have benefited from engaging with some of my content, just as I have benefited from engaging with the work of other people (and will continue to do so).

      I still remember learning about ‘standard form logic’ for the first time, I recall clearly what a difference it made to me both in my mind and in my actions, and I know for a fact that other people are getting the same benefits from the material I am producing — especially the material which aims to share those same insights concerning ‘thinking about thinking’ which I have benefited from so much myself.

      At the same time, merely thinking about thinking does not, in and of itself, change or improve one’s own thought processes. That, in my opinion, requires practice. Exercise. Exercising the mind to exorcise the mental gremlins (bugs). Not everybody in interested in doing this, and that is totally cool. They can still get enjoyment out of simply listening/watching as myself and others actively engage in the process of deprogramming.

      That is, watching others engage in deprogramming can be entertaining for those who are not themselves particularly interested in deprogramming their own minds.

      My opinion today is this: if somebody won’t deprogram themselves, nobody else can do it for them. At best, other people can simply give the individual new programs to add to the existing set. But to remove programs (i.e. deprogram rather than reprogram) requires active work on the part of the individual. This is why I am encouraging people to produce content of their own. This requires putting the theory into practice. Creation is a completely different experience to consumption.

      It is no surprise to me that you, TNG, say that you have benefited from engaging with my work, when you are one of the small but growing number of people who have indeed produced content of your own. How much of the benefit you put down to my work was in fact derived from your actions, putting theory into practice?

      There is an overt correlation between active implementation of ‘thinking about thinking’, and legitimate (objective) improvement in one’s thinking patterns.

      I’m happy to take the credit but I think, in reality, the vast majority of the benefit which people ascribe to my work, is actually a consequence of their own actions, their own attempts to revisit the lines of code in their own minds. If my work is entertaining enough to encourage (‘inspire’) more people to do that, to get into the habit of truly thinking about their own thinking, and if this leads to objective improvements in their thinking patterns and thus their material actions, then this is fantastic.

      But if my work is, for some, merely entertainment, then this is no problem. Entertaining people is a cool thing to do. Much more fulfilling than processing customers in a menial office job day in, day out (which was, until COB yesterday, my normie job for the best part of six years).

      tl;dr Hopefully my work encourages some people to do the hard of work of dperogramming their own minds, but if not, hopefully it is at least entertaining — and there is nothing wrong with that ūüôā

  • fruitydancer

    Pre disproving my history beliefs: I one-time paper mached a mummy, and I can certainly walk like an Egyptian. That’s enough proof for me.

Leave a Reply