FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
History: Fiction or Science?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, just catching up on this thread.

Man, Robert Wuhl is really breaking some ground with History. "Benedict Arnold and George Washington - who was good and who was bad?" Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, I thought he had some specifics, not crap akin to "If both were alive today, which would get kicked off the island first?"

A bud of mine - a honest Kiwi soul who's judgement I trust explicitly, and who is highly schooled in history and other stuff that makes my eyes glaze over - has ordered the Fomenko book and will be forwarding it to me after he's finished. I also expect a full report on the contents. In the meantime, I've been mesmerized by the pretty colors in the graphs.

Jerry, one question for the kid in this class who will probably be held back this semester - what do the numbers signify in that left-right mirrored chart between the Holy Roman and Biblical sides. Coincidences of dynastic functions? You're what and I'm who? I keep re-reading those opening paragraphs, hoping there's a chapter between 2 words that I missed that will clear it all up, but coming up snake eyes on this one.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:29 am    Post subject: Joseph Justus Scaliger Reply with quote

DrewTerry wrote:
Greetings to Jerry (as its your 'thread') and to the Forum:

Right to the point:
I propose an entirely new thread with the theme to dedicated to understanding the present by way of the past as the past is key to controlling the future.

The only way to liberate our mind from the leftover garbage of mental cotton candy is to stop regurgitating it and get rid of it. My realization is that was designed and has the same effect as the 9-11 dis/mis-info of the last five years.

Knowing that, accepting it and the relief that goes along with it certainly is a stepping stone and rest from more useless work spent going down the 9-11 road.

But the rest of history - what can be verified, against the other 99.9% which contradicts 100% of history, I have to ask (in all seriousness):

How much of the shitpile do we need to shovel before it is reasonable to conclude the whole pile of shit.....is shit? We can eat shit right off the top without all the shoveling, if we just want to eat shit.

I don't want to eat shit. That's why I eat here. I don't eat shit here. I find plenty of fresh shit close to home so to volunteer for cybershit on top of the regularly scheduled shit shoveled - plus the random daily shit - with probably the once a week 'No thanks to you' shit -- is bullshit!

I don't eat shit anywhere, nor do I shovel shit, knowing it is shit. But if it is shit by way of shinola, and the shit doesn't stink (dried shit doesn't usually smell like shit) still doesn't mean that if someone told me it was shit I was eating I don't need to keep eating until I taste shit to stop eating the shit.

And I would never (knowingly) eat shit from the Vatican, or the Pope's shit. The Pope's shit is no more special shit than the paper it was printed on - it may be 500 or 1,000 years old but shit is shit. Who cares what paper it is - good paper with shit on it is just as bad as shit paper with good stuff on it - still goin' in the shitter, right?

And yet, are we not eating this shit dressed up - in a suit or a skirt -every day? We know it tastes terrible, but we have not verified in a public declaration sort of way, to acknowledge 'don't know it' but not eating it anymore. We can't smell it and have no shit of antiquity to know how that shit tastes compared to the fresh shit. My gut feeling is that the old shit was probably much more sophisticated than the quick buck fast food empty shit we expect today. That doesn't mean that it is any more or less to identify problem shit compared to the updated modern and hybrid samples. We just need to start calling shit what it is and stop eating shit if that is it.

As for the shining moments in the past, what we want to eat and the importance of having good memories of the past as control of the past determines control of the future, as in '1984' (paraphrased):

Quote:
"Control the present to control the past to control the future."


Everything he writes about in '1984' is about rewriting history for the purposes of the party and the suppression of the proles. How can we be sure that what he wrote about was not also written about the past as well as written about a warning for the future? Especially considering what we know independent of Orwell in how past history repeats itself in cycles of time and nature; he also knew more than he could say without the book being censored so there seems to be an imagiinary line he could not cross without destroying the project.

I don't know either way, but it is at least worthy of consideration, if only to be satisfied as better off going back to eating shit!

Quote:
To be more specific, what I suggest is that Orwell was writing about '1984' in the future as warning, but also writing about '1584' when Pope Gregory began the Gregorian calendar, Scaliger re-chronologized history and re-wrote everything else!! He seems very angry; the only thing we don't know about his agenda, from what I can tell, is who was not a target?

Everything historical that we studied, or 'know' or believe true - is descended and propagated from that point - EVERYTHING. They don't try to hide this fact, either - they just use all kinds of offical 'papal holy shit' to deflect the attempts at criticism. Back then, if you questioned anything or didn't go along then you were gone! So it seems there was adequate incentive to 'lie for your life' at least if you wanted to live.


Before anyone comments, let's just think about it.

What we do know about psychology and human nature that does not rely on history? We know that whoever said,

"The best lie is the biggest lie and is the easiest lie to get anyone to believe."

When do we trust what we know from what we learn?

To learn from the lessons, draw the line & learn not to trust?

They don't really teach that, do they? All I have ever heard is 'make sure' and 'don't screw it up' or something to that effect, all of which have as the common emotional reaction = fear! Which is, I believe, the common motivator in all of its forms and throughout all of the centuries for which we have records (and no records). To need proof beyond a reasonable doubt is in a court of law, not court of life (unless we want that). What if we think of it as our lives we are wasting timewise on so much information that will be, in the end, a waste of time? Which in hindsight may have been time better spent elsewhere?


The bad apples, evil, satan, demonic, all of the 'dark' is really just the opposite. The purpose it has is more sinister to us but no less important than the good, from the evolutionary point of similarities and differencies. Without bad, you have no good, just 'blah' - no way to tell one from the other, so how do we tell? (In that sense the evil men really are divine, and gods children, so they deserve prayer even if they have more fun sometimes!)

The Vatican and the Romans are 'gXd' right? They certainly thought they were, at some point. If we assume that human beings have the right INTENTION no matter what the OUTCOME, it is with the INTENT we are concerned. Would they believe themselves to be posessed of the divine right and the power, glory and duty of 'religion' to rewrite history as it suits their 'interpretation' at the time? It seems 'possible' to me that I cannot rule it out.

It was probably not done intentionally 'to cause' but rather 'to re-solve' problems that have now worsened? They probably had the best intentions, way back in the middle ages or whenever it was, but we have no clue is the only thing we can really say...no clue but the right heart to find our head![/i]

Drew wrote:
Do we learn from What is history trying to tell us,

instead of

trying to tell history what we want to believe to fit what we know may or may not be true?

My dictionary defines 'history' pretty much what I would guess from how it sounds: 'his' + 'story' as in a pretty good (i.e. fictional embellishment) storyteller...I guess I should have looked up the word long ago because that is not what I had in mind, which was something to do with either 'fact' or 'truth' at some level:
Dictionary wrote:
history
noun ( pl. -ries)
1. the study of past events, particularly in human affairs : medieval European history.
• the past considered as a whole : letters that have changed the course of history.
2. the whole series of past events connected with someone or something : the history of Aegean painting.
• an eventful past : the group has quite a history.
• a past characterized by a particular thing : his family had a history of insanity.
3. a continuous, typically chronological, record of important or public events or of a particular trend or institution : a history of the labor movement.
• a historical play : Shakespeare's comedies, histories, and tragedies.
PHRASES
be history be perceived as no longer relevant to the present : the mainframe will soon be history | I was making a laughingstock of myself, but that's history now.
informal used to indicate imminent departure, dismissal, or death : an inch either way and you'd be history;
go down in history be remembered or recorded in history;
make history do something that is remembered in or influences the course of history;
the rest is history used to indicate that the events succeeding those already related are so well known that they need not be recounted again : they teamed up, discovered that they could make music, and the rest is history.

ORIGIN late Middle English (also as a verb) : via Latin from Greek historia ‘finding out, narrative, history,’ from hist?r ‘learned, wise man,’ from an Indo-European root shared by wit


Quote:
That tells me we are making a mistake not learning from his-story as the 'wise, old man' that has wisdom one cannot acquire unless time spent, yet no one takes him seriously because ..... he got the dates wrong? Therefore, everything about his memory is wrong? Not to me, the dates don't matter as long as the dust off the dates is insight resulting in wisdom about whatever it is. I cannot help but know I am already feeling better about the history many will never read from what others have done already - thanks to everyone, very much appreciated!

As an alternative, what if we consider the Opposite Point of View: What if Scaliger was suddenly reincarnated, and he could tell us exactly how he changed things and instantly POOF!@ we had a perfect chronological order to the empires, the movements, the ages, it all FIT PERFECTLY: Then WHAT?

What would we do with that 'perfect chronological construct?'

I can't think of the step after that, either. But we don't need to wait til we get there to know thats where we will be, do we?
DETOUR? SHORTCUT!


If this is the Scaliger whose work determined the order of events, I don't think we need any more 'evidence' to know that this guy had one loyalty - ROME. He is directly descended from Julius Caesar!!!

Scaliger, Joseph Justus in Wikpedia wrote:
Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609) was a French religious leader and scholar.

He was born at Agen, the tenth child and third son of Julius Caesar Scaliger and Andiette de Roques Lobejac. At twelve years of age, he was sent with two younger brothers, to the College of Guienne at Bordeaux, then under the direction of Jean Gelida. An outbreak of the plague in 1555 caused the boys to return home, and for the next few years Joseph was his father's constant companion and amanuensis.
The composition of Latin verse was the chief amusement of Julius in his later years, and he daily dictated to his son from eighty to a hundred lines, and sometimes more. Joseph was also required each day to write a Latin theme or declamation, though in other respects he seems to have been left to his own devices.
He learned from his father to be not a mere scholar, but something more—an acute observer, and aiming not so much at correcting texts as historical criticism.

After his father's death, he spent four years at the University of Paris, where he began the study of Greek under Adrianus Turnebus. But after two months he found he was not in a position to profit by the lectures of the greatest Greek scholar of the time. He read Homer in twenty-one days, and then went through all the other Greek poets, orators and historians, forming a grammar for himself as he went along. From Greek, at the suggestion of Guillaume Postel, he proceeded to attack Hebrew, and then Arabic; of both he acquired a respectable knowledge.

Jean Dorat as a teacher was able not only to impart knowledge, but to kindle enthusiasm. It was to Dorat that Scaliger owed his home for the next thirty years of his life. In 1563 the professor recommended him to Louis de Chastaigner, the young lord of La Roche Pozay, as a companion in his travels. A close friendship sprang up between the two young men, which remained unbroken till the death of Louis in 1595. The travellers first went to Rome. Here they found Marc Antoine Muretus, who, when at Bordeaux and Toulouse, had been a great favourite and occasional visitor of Julius Caesar at Agen. Muretus soon recognized Scaliger's merits, and introduced him to all the men that were worth knowing.

After visiting a large part of Italy, the travellers passed to England and Scotland, taking as it would seem La Roche Pozay on their way, for Scaliger's preface to his first book, the Conjectanea in Varronem, is dated there in December 1564. Scaliger formed an unfavourable opinion of the English. Their inhuman disposition and inhospitable treatment of foreigners especially impressed him. He was also disappointed in finding few Greek manuscripts and few learned men. It was not until a much later period that he became Question intimate with Richard Thomson and other Englishmen. In the course of his travels he had become a Protestant.


With Scaliger it seems obvious, assuming there is truth to the text copied here, that there were many, many axes to burn and knives twisted in revenge upon revenge all over Europe. When they couldn't agree at the time what the historical records should be, how the hell should we?

Why waste the time? How can we think it other than a waste of time?

Scaliger, Joseph Justus wrote:

It was during this period of his life that he composed and published his books of historical criticism. His editions of the Catalecta (1575), of Festus (1575), of Catullus, Tibullus and Propertius (1577), are the work of a man determined to discover the real meaning and force of his author.

He was the first to lay down and apply sound rules of criticism and emendation, and to change textual criticism from a series of haphazard guesses into a "rational procedure subject to fixed laws" (Mark Pattison). But these works, while proving Scaliger's right to the foremost place among his contemporaries as Latin scholar and critic, did not go beyond mere scholarship.

It was reserved for his edition of Manilius (1579), and his De emendatione temporum (1583), to revolutionize received ideas of ancient chronologyto show that ancient history is not confined to that of the Greeks and Romans, but also comprises that of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians, hitherto neglected, and that of the Jews, hitherto treated as a thing apart, and that the historical narratives and fragments of each of these, and their several systems of chronology, must be critically compared.

It was this innovation that distinguished Scalinger from contemporary scholars. Neither they nor those who immediately followed seem to have appreciated innovation. (Because he made it all up!!)

Instead, they valued his emendatory criticism and his skill in Greek. His commentary on Manilius is really a treatise on ancient astronomy, and it forms an introduction to De emendatione temporum. In this work, Scaliger investigates ancient systems of determining epochs, calendars and computations of time. Applying the work of Nicolaus Copernicus and other modern scientists, he reveals the principles behind these systems.

In the remaining twenty-four years of his life he expanded on his work in the De emendatione. He succeeded in reconstructing the lost Chronicle of Eusebius—one of the most valuable ancient documents, especially valuable for ancient chronology. This he printed in 1606 in his Thesaurus temporum, in which he collected, restored, and arranged every chronological relic extant in Greek or Latin.

When in 1590 Justus Lipsius retired from the University of Leiden, the university and its protectors, the States-General of the Netherlands and the prince of Orange, resolved to obtain Scaliger as his successor. He declined; he hated lecturing, and there were those among his friends who erroneously believed that with the success of Henry IV learning would flourish, and Protestantism would be no barrier to his advancement. The invitation was renewed in the most flattering manner a year later. Scaliger would not be required to lecture. The university only wished for his presence. He would be in all respects the master of his time. This offer Scaliger provisionally accepted.

About the middle of 1593 he started for the Netherlands, where he passed the remaining thirteen years of his life, never returning to France. His reception at Leiden was all that he could wish. A handsome income was assured to him. He was treated with the highest consideration. His rank as a prince of Verona was recognized. Placed midway between The Hague and Amsterdam, he was able to enjoy, besides the learned circle of Leiden, the advantages of the best society of both these capitals. For Scaliger was no hermit buried among his books; he was fond of social intercourse and was himself a good talker.

For the first seven years of his residence at Leiden his reputation was at its highest point. His literary judgement was unquestioned. From his throne at Leiden he ruled the learned world; a word from him could make or mar a rising reputation, and he was surrounded by young men eager to listen to and profit by his conversation. He encouraged Grotius when only a youth of sixteen to edit Capella. At the early death of the younger Douza he wept as at that of a beloved son. Daniel Heinsius, at first his favourite pupil, became his most intimate friend.

But Scaliger had made numerous enemies. He hated ignorance, but he hated still more half-learning, and most of all dishonesty in argument or in quotation. Himself the soul of honour and truthfulness, he had no toleration for the disingenuous argument and the misstatements of facts of those who wrote to support a theory or to defend an unsound cause. His pungent sarcasm soon reached the ears of the persons who were its object, and his pen was not less bitter than his tongue. He was conscious of his power, and not always sufficiently cautious or sufficiently gentle in its exercise.

Nor was he always right. He trusted much to his memory, which was occasionally treacherous. His emendations, if often valuable, were sometimes absurd. In laying the foundations of a science of ancient chronology he relied sometimes on groundless or even absurd hypotheses, often based on an imperfect induction of facts. Sometimes he misunderstood the astronomical science of the ancients, sometimes that of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe. And he was no mathematician.

But his enemies were not merely those whose errors he had exposed and whose hostility he had excited by the violence of his language. The results of his method of historical criticism theratened the Catholic controversialists and the authenticity of many of the documents on which they relied. The Jesuits, who aspired to be the source of all scholarship and criticism, saw the writings and authority of Scaliger as a formidable barrier to their claims. Muretus in the latter part of his life professed the strictest orthodoxy, Lipsius had been reconciled to the Church of Rome, Isaac Casaubon was supposed to he wavering, but Scaliger was known to be an irreconcilable Protestant. As long as his intellectual supremacy was unquestioned, the Protestants had the advantage in learning and scholarship. His enemies therefore aimed, if not to answer his criticisms or to disprove his statements, yet to attack him as a man and to destroy his reputation. This was no easy task, for his moral character was strong.

After several scurrilous but ineffectual attacks by the Jesuit party, in 1607 a new and more successful attempt was made. Scaliger's weak point was his pride. In 1594, in an evil hour for his happiness and his reputation, he published his Epistola de vetustate et splendore gentis Scaligerae et JC Scaligeri vita. In 1601 Gaspar Scioppius, then in the service of the Jesuits, whom he afterwards so bitterly libelled, published his Scaliger hypototimaeus ("The Supposititious Scaliger"), a quarto volume of more than four hundred pages, written with consummate ability in an admirable and incisive style, with the entire disregard for truth which Scioppius always displayed, and with all the power of his accomplished sarcasm. Every piece of scandal which could be raked together respecting Scaliger or his family is to be found there. The author professes to point out five hundred lies in the Epistola de vetustate of Scaliger, but the main argument of the book is to show the falsity of his pretensions to be of the family of La Scala, and of the narrative of his father's early life. "No stronger proof," says Pattison, "can be given of the impressions produced by this powerful philippic, dedicated to the defamation of an individual, than that it had been the source from which the biography of Scaliger, as it now stands in our biographical collections, has mainly flowed."

To Scaliger the blow was crushing. Whatever the case as to Julius, Joseph had undoubtedly believed himself a prince of Verona, and in his Epistola had put forth with the most perfect good faith, and without inquiry, all that he had heard from his father. He immediately wrote a reply to Scioppius, entitled Confutatio fabulae Burdonum. It is written, for Scaliger, with unusual moderation and good taste, but perhaps for that very reason had not the success which its author wished and even expected. In the opinion of Pattison, "as a refutation of Scioppius it is most complete"; but there are certainly grounds for dissenting, though with diffidence, from this judgment. Scaliger undoubtedly shows that Scioppius committed more blunders than he corrected, that his book literally bristles with pure lies and baseless calumnies; but he does not succeed in adducing a single proof either of his father's descent from the La Scala family, or of any single event narrated by Julius as happening to himself or any member of this family prior to his arrival at Agen. Nor does he even attempt a refutation of the crucial point, which Scioppius had proved, as far as a negative can be proved—namely, that William, the last prince of Verona, had no son Nicholas, the alleged grandfather of Julius nor indeed any son who could have been such grandfather's.


What about this guy Anthony Grafton? Seems a little older datewise, not sure about his work compared to Fomenko, are you familiar with him at all?

Quote:
Laudatio d’Anthony T. Grafton

Prix Balzan 2002 pour l’Histoire des humanités

Anthony Grafton is a brilliant intellectual historian of early modern Europe. He took as a starting
point for his studies the history of the classical tradition in the late Renaissance, producing two
magnificent volumes on one of the greatest scholars of that age, Joseph Scaliger (Joseph
Scaliger. A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship I Textual Criticism and Exegesis,
Oxford 1983; Joseph Scaliger. A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship II Historical
Chronology, Oxford 1993). In order to be able to judge Scaliger’s merit as an erudite and
innovative editor and exegete of Latin texts, Grafton immersed himself in the world of late
Humanism. He gained a rare encyclopaedic familiarity with the output of countless humanists as
well as with the ancient texts they so admired. In this way he was able to write his pioneering
Scaliger biography, which deals not only with its main subject, but conjures up a network of
contemporary scholars and their manifold activities. In the case of Scaliger himself this meant
Grafton had to study not only how and why the great scholar set out to recover the original form
of classical texts and who and what inspired him, but also his work in historical chronology: the
study of dates and of calendars in ancient and recent history. This is a discipline in the history of
the humanities that is shunned by many a scholar because of its technical complexity. The
Renaissance debate about chronological questions - the date and nature of the various biblical
texts for instance - was, moreover, enlivened by controversies which are more often than not
rather perplexing to us. Grafton successfully undertook the daunting task of piercing the armour
of mystery enveloping the subject in general and Scaliger’s efforts in particular.

Grafton never judges the manifestations of historical change he studies with an anachronistic or
teleological eye. On the contrary, considering the transmission of culture as a creative process
in which change is always charged with meaning, he sets out to describe and analyse the
coherent and complete intellectual background to the scholars on whom his attention is
focussed. This attitude has led him to study various other aspects of Renaissance culture, in
particular the history of science and the history of books and readers, integrating these into an
overall view of the times in which humanism and science were still conjoined. Grafton’s
biographies of Girolamo Cardano and Leon Battista Alberti are a case in point (Cardano’s
Cosmos. The Worlds and Work of a Renaissance Astrologer, 1999; Leon Battista Alberti.
Master Builder of the Italian Renaissance, 2000).

His continuing interest in the history of textual transmission was responsible for Defenders of
the Text. The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-1800 (1991), a witty account
of an intellectual scene in which learned opinions handed down since classical times could still
be at odds with the budding empiricism of science. The lighter side of his profound scholarship
is evident from such works as Forgers and Critics. Creativity and Duplicity in Western
Scholarship (1990) and The Footnote. A curious history (1997). In the former Grafton examines
the link between forgery and scholarship, defending the bold thesis that forgery is the “criminal
sibling” of scholarly criticism. In the latter Grafton presents a critical history of that pillar of
historical writing, the footnote, which is at the same time a defence. The development of certain
scholarly practices and techniques through the ages - whether it is textual transmission and
exegesis or forgery, criticism, the making of footnotes, and their considerable impact on
scholarly traditions - figure prominently in Grafton’s work.



Ok - Thats enough for me today. Maybe enough at all if this resonates with no one here. Anyone have thoughts, comments, raging criticisms, rants, refutations or rejoinders - please send to Jerry! Laughing
Thanks! Drew Very Happy
Back to top
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:36 pm    Post subject: History takes a long time... Reply with quote

DeepLogos wrote:
Hi Jerry!

Sorry for my late reply, I am trying to assemble the fragments of my spare time into one unit suitable for posting something interesting. An information digestive disorder of this autum has also been healed... Some time to reflect on things was made possible during the Christo/stellar/pagan rituals of late, and I thus begin the new year with clean sheets, rested eyes, a new apartment... and an empty bottle of Laphroig.


No Worries - I'm familiar with the uncomfortable bloating associated with those information digestion issues, as I'm prone to them myself. Good to know the data is running smoothly, and you've rung in the new year with a fresh outlook and a change of sheets. Just be careful drinking in bed... although, as far as grand exits go, drowsily drowning in a rip tide of Laphroig... well, I can think of worse.



Quote:
Glad you like the radio interview, Jerry, I found it quite interesting myself. Especially the sober approach Diacu took to the subject matter where the conclusion seem to be that we really don't know what the facts are regarding historical chronology as it pertains to consensus opinion. This is in my opinion the best stand to take in our attenpt to try to reconstruct, or rather re(move)veil, the true chronology and history behind the human adventure.


It appears to me that there are two issues involved in this controversy. One issue is discovering the inconsistencies in our consensually conditioned view of human history. Used in cross disiplinary research, these historical inconsistencies shed light on the confusing chronologies of other areas of social and cultural development.

I consider the building of a more accurate chronological timeline a seperate, but related issue. I don't consider a new chronology necessary, however, to appreciate the understanding gained by examining the holes in the 'old' one.


Quote:
As it stand now, with regards to history before the very convenient Drak Ages, we might be better served to go back into our mythological past and try to draw some truthful blood from that body of oral and ciphered knowledge. Falsifying history seems to be the norm, as can clearly be seen in the events that will make up our future's history, namely what is taking place today. If the majority of people today belive lies about event of recent and fairly recent history, is there any hope of presenting the, lets say "homo aquarius", with a more accurate account of events?


Good points, however I feel there is one HUGE factor separating the historical record before and after the middle ages; the development of mass produced media.
I'm sure history was always used as a cultural conditioning device amongst racial / tribal / geographic groups, but with the advent of the printing press and maritime trade, this conditioning could be achieved on a global scale.

What's unique about the historiagraphy of the middle ages is that, thanks to the combined power of the Church, the Crown, and the Merchant Marines, one 'brand' of history was reproduced and distributed world wide, while other perspectives were destroyed. What we are really discussing is the legitimacy of historical media, none of which appears to be reliably datable to earlier than the 12-13th centuries, and the advent of mass media.

By suddenly providing a 'window into the past' the books of the middle ages provided the ancient historical context for western civilization packaged and distributed by mass media.
Quote:
We have of course alternative historians today, as has most likely always been the case, but in this mesh of accepted factual accounts, alternative views that has been proven correct, fictitious metahistory and uniform tailored history, it would seem that creating or restoring a new consensus probably would be the wrong path to take. History should be the most adaptable of all the "sciences", simply because we discover new things about our past all the time. But as with other fields of study, there are vested interests in particular clusters of thought and agreed upon opinions, and this becomes the uni-form history we learn at uni-versity. By means of conformity or "death" we still fear that the sun wouldn't come up tomorrow if we travel down roads forbidden.


I agree, although I think the time will come when human understanding and technology will evolve to the point where a consensual picture of the past will be constructable, and productive to human development.

I think the degree to which cultural foundations rely on the current chronology explains the social resistance to this topic.

Quote:
At the heart of this is of course a desire to control the outcome of things, taken to an extreme, an extreme that is now so deeply entrenched in the lies it expounded, it requires nothing short of a revolution to shake off the historical accounts that are not rooted in reality, and then slowly and carelully implement a 'living' history where absolutely everything is examined under the light of true reason. This is why we don't learn form history; because history is to a large extent either selectively presented, misunderstood, a downright lie, and always written be those that proclaim to be the winners. Knowing this is the first step in incorporating what will hopefully become the lessons of history into our present society and our individual minds.


Well said, Logos. It'll probably take a while, but it does seem inevitible. Hopefully...



Quote:
F.ex,
1) To me it is fairly clear that something happend after the planned purge of knowledge during the Dark Ages. The King James bible was translated into (new) english containing a vast number of new constructed words, and these and other words were quickly absorbed into the language of politics, law and eduacation, and most likely popularized via "Baconian" theater and other venues.


Yep. Right on with the 'Baconian' reference -as in 'wake up and smell the Baconian'. Yes, I believe the literary constructions that took place in the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge were indeed some of the first successful experiments in global information management.

Quote:
2) Writing an entire new chronology of exoteric human history would be fairly easy with the promise of power or rule by divine law to those with the knowledge of esoteric truths at their disposal.


Not only the promises divine law, but also the LABOR CAPITAL of entire continents and races. This historical 'cultural update' that produced foundational works like the KJB also allowed those esoterically initiated to monetize the labor potential of the entire globe.

Ultimately, divine law can't hold a candle to unlimited funds.

Quote:
3) Mistranslating other early texts, fabricating new ones, building popular myths, putting together a set of fairly impressive sciences, establishing a curriculum for educational institutions based on those sciences, etc, whilst still letting a selected few go about with their study of "forbidden" knowledge. Sounds familiar?


Sure does. It also requires a huge number of 'discoveries' from antiquity to complete the cultural picture - so don't forget about the museum racket, er, I mean industry.

Quote:
4) And then there is the very language itself. Perusing the Oxford dictionary with some understanding of word-smithing and etymology one quickly discovers that the language is an initiatory language, even a "magical" language. Or as it turned out to be, a universal language containing many fragments from around the world.

Excellent point. English itself sort of represents the same cultural blend of Latin meets Gothic seen in the elite cultural agenda behind the consensual history of europe. As the imperialistic cultures were 'blended' into a new global paradigm, so did this universal language reflect the perspective of this new exoteric global culture.

Quote:
5) The Bible is also clearly an initiatory text of a very different kind than what most people think, where much of the core principles are again based on fragments from around the world; druidic teachings, Egyptian/ Kemetian principles ("Gods"), Stoic teachings, Indian deities, other stellar observations, etc, where the original material was either destroyed, hidden or undermined. Also, when new land was discovered, most likely based on old accounts, the texts, tablets, stelas from these civilizations were also thoroughly destroyed. I find more historical truth in The Lord of The Rings than the Bible, but then again, historical truth was not the objective when they put together the "magical" and astrotheological 'book of books', later translated into a "magical" language. No wonder it is so powerful to some people. Too bad the magic turned out to be sorcery...Wink


Yes again - I think the resonance inherent in the work itself reflects the 'unseen' fact that the New Testament and Western Culture itself are both products of the same forces. No wonder it appears to 'describe' the world so painfully accurately.

Quote:
6) On the other hand; have we interpreted ancient history correctly? Can we trust Manetho, Josepheus or Herodotus? Was the pyramids built according to Fomenkos view, according to consensus view or according to the stellar alignments with Orions belt for the three Giza pyramids (at least parts of them) about 10.500 BCA? At the same time the Sfinx was staring directly over the Nile towards the consallation Leo? The same Nile (or Nir) where the sun (Son) of God would rise (Horus rising) from the "dead" and walk accross it towards the house of the father/heaven? Is anything of this correct at all?


Well, Fomenko does a good job of thrashing King Tut and company. Intuitively, I feel the 'true' history is probably a lot simpler than we imagine. IMO, the complexity of the current chronology, with yer Greeks, Romans, Sumerians, Yadda Yaddumites, is so incomprehensibly complex to disguise the fact that it makes no sense.

Quote:
Generally when it comes to dating, excluding radio carbon dating to a certain extent, I tend to go with the physical evidence when it is present, especially objects with stellar placements or other points of reference, and water erosion/geological weathering when that is eveident.


Stellar alignment, or Horoscope, is an important part of Fomenko's evidence, as he claims that descriptions of the sky embedded in writing and artwork alleged to be ancient actually date the works to the middle ages. Also, descriptions of stellar events such as supernovae and eclipses are cross referenced to provide some pretty compelling evidence.

Geological weathering, although appearing to be an 'obvious' chronological record actually varies widely according to climate and geological conditions, sometimes by plus or minus thousands of percent. On a scale of millions of years, it has relevance, however in terms of centuries, it is not reliable data and can be 'spun' in a variety of ways.

Quote:
It is my opinion, after studying much of the history of North Western Europe, that someting is not right as it pertains to what we have been taught in school and university. I am currently trying to reestablish a "new" history here based on many different sources, partly as a backbone to a fictional (!) project of mine called 'Project AyrQulEs (Hercules)' (working title) But I will get back to that in a later post. [still studying]


Well, I certainly agree with that, and I would be very eager to hear any information you uncover. I believe the history of North Western Europe will indeed turn out to be something surprisingly different than our current consensual understanding.

Quote:
Interesting piece on the Jutes. I wonder if they were the kinsmen of the returning nomadic Heruli?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli
Interesting article, as I am from Norway (part of Thule/Belerian Wink) with ancestors in Denmark and perhaps Scotland (still researching), perhaps excluding the part with ritual homosexuality... Wink
As for even earlier times, the the word 'pharao' just has to have someting to do with the 'Faeroe' Islands (Pharao Islands?) west of Norway, since the first pharao of the first dynasty, Menes (ManÆs?) seems to be burried in Ireland? But again, I will post my "revelatory" madness in a later post...Wink There are lots of "crazy" connections over here, that the mainstream researchers of course scoffs at... Mad "Silly Norwegian..." Laughing

Well, over here in this corner of the global hippocampus, we loves the Norwegians - the loonier and wackier the better!! We also have a tendency to scoff right back at mainstream researchers. Smile

So, with that in mind, here's the thumbnail sketch of the historical revisionism currently underway in my head. Currently I'm seeing the concept of 'Christian Democracy' as largely the result of the struggle for resources and social capital between the Southern European, Latin, Sea-Trading, Merchant Explorer, Banking forces, known as the Venetian Maritime Republics, and the Northern European, Germanic, Corporate, Catholic Church, Divine Nobility of the Holy Roman Empire of the 12th - 13th centuries. Here's an excerpt I sent to some friends trying to explain where I'm at:

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
My research is leaning toward this historical / political evolutionary hypothesis:

Our current global system of 'Christian Democracy' and 'Free Trade' is a result of the relationship between the Venetian / Maritime Republics and the Holy Roman Empire of the GERMAN nation.

Basically, the religious, 'knightly', 'Corporate' 'Christian' form of Northern political control spread south from the Gothic Holy Roman Empire, while the 'Republican', finance, trade, 'Joint Stock' limited liability insurance 'ship share' form of control spread North from the Latin Venetian / Genovese Maritime Republics. Latin 'contracts' enforced by Gothic 'laws'. Corporate 'Feudalism' of the CHURCH meets the 'Joint Stock Financing' of the Republican STATE. A pretty wicked combo - well armed, well financed, and on a 'mission from God'. Also explains the integration of the Christian ideology into the mechanics of monetization and double entry bookkeeping. The early successes of this union was known as the Crusades.

I believe this is when the leviathan of 'Imperialism' was born - Expansion of 'markets' driven by 'armies' funded by merchant bankers, authorized for conquest by God via an agreement with the Pope, expressed as a corporate agreement called a 'Royal Charter' or 'Letters Patent' with the King, or STATE, and backed by a 'National Agenda' providing capital in the form of taxes.

The confused historical record of Europe is the result of this imperial union justifying it's expansion, and conditioning the inhabitants of the new 'Christian Nations' ideologically, while 'educating' them academically.

This worked well until there was no more land to 'colonize'. Once human capital could be Federally accounted for, and therefore considered 'credit', the merchant / finance element began to outgrow it's relationship with the Crown, and the balance of power was shifted to the financial / trade / mercantile elements during the age of 'Democracy' culminating in wide reaching influence of the French 'Revolution'.

This would define our current 'globalization' as the establishment of a centralized global mercantile financial structure operating through financing arrangements with 'National Governments', which have become corporate franchises to administer the debt / credit flow between Federal 'Trade Blocs'.

There has only ever been one 'Empire', and it has grown steadily since the 12th century, although it has been populated by many different 'leaders' and 'reforms' throughout it's growth. Both the consensual history we know, and the racial / geopolitical makeup of the world today, are a result of the progression of this empire.

As financial debt successfully replaced 'sin' as a means of social control, the power of the CHURCH was gradually phased out as 'old world superstition.'
As 'Individual Financial Security' replaces National or Ethnic loyalty in the global consciousness, we are seeing the gradual phasing out of the concept of Nation, or STATE.



Logos wrote:
Well, well.. good to be back and good to be posting again, even if I may be talking some jibberish and sometimes preaching to the choir...


Glad to have you 'back' - keep it up!
One man's Jibber is another's Proverb. Wink

Quote:
Say, have we solved that 9/11 ting yet?


I'm going 10 to 1 on the lizards... Wink

Drew, Rumple, and to everybody else I owe a response - thanks for your patience. Limited posting time these days, and rewriting human history wreaks havoc with the schedule. I'll respond as soon as I can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:33 am    Post subject: Just say no... Reply with quote

jerryfletcher wrote:
Drew, Rumple, and to everybody else I owe a response - thanks for your patience. Limited posting time these days, and rewriting human history wreaks havoc with the schedule. I'll respond as soon as I can.

just say no, jerry, just say no; put the mouse down, and walk away from the laptop, don't save anything, don't touch the keys. Just know that we're all here for you, when you return from exile... Wink Smile Cool Laughing
Back to top
Xiang



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fomenko says that the Jesuits are the ones behind the inventing of history pre 1600, right? If this is true, then do the Jesuits today know about these things? It just seems hard to picture a Jesuit being behind all of this. After all, they constantly help people in need all over the world(mainly immigrants and poverty stricken down and outs), live a life of poverty, and do scholarly work, all of which doesn't fulfill an image of some evil puppeteer. Not only that but the whole thing reminds me of those creepy southern baptists proclaiming how evil Catholics are, handing out those Chick comic strips(which are by the way pretty popular for recruits in Fort Benning). I'm tempted to buy the book, it's not that expensive, but it's a shame I'll only be able to discuss it with people I've never met, probably only on this forum, as anywhere else I would look like a disconnected rambling fool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Medieval Monks in general... Reply with quote

xiang wrote:

I'll only be able to discuss it with people I've never met, probably only on this forum, as anywhere else I would look like a disconnected rambling fool.


Hehe. Welcome to my world! Wink

There appears to be a discussion forum of disconnected historical ramblers forming here:


http://www.revisedhistory.org/forum/

but I haven't had time to really check it out thoroughly.
I recommend getting it, though, if you can afford it.
The most dangerous thing about buying the book, is that you may actually begin to 'buy' it. Wink

Yes, the Jesuits are implicated in the tailoring of the historical record, but as a result of a long tradition of 'religious orders' which produced religious 'translations' for the church doctrine and canon law - all cranked out in a little room called a 'scriptorium' constantly staffed by a rotating group of scholarly and sore wristed monks.

Quote:
Scriptorium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A scriptorium (plural scriptoria) is a room devoted to the hand-lettered copying of manuscripts. Before the invention of printing by moveable type, a scriptorium was a normal adjunct to a library. After the active destruction of classical libraries in the wake of the Theodosian decrees of the 390s and the collapse of public institutions in general, scriptoria were entirely in Christian hands, from the early 5th century onwards.

From: Scriptorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptoria


I think the entire tradition of Christian monastacism contains a thread of historical 'translation' by these religious institutions.

Quote:
The legacy of monasteries outside remains an important current in modern society. Max Weber compared the closeted and puritan societies of the English Dissenters, who sparked much of the industrial revolution, to monastic orders. Many Utopian thinkers (starting with Thomas More himself) felt inspired by the common life of monks to apply it to the whole society (an example is the falansterium).
Modern universities have also attempted to ape Christian monasticism. Even in the new world universities are built in the gothic style of twelfth century monasteries. Communal meals, dormitory residences, elaborate rituals and dress all borrow heavily from the monastic tradition.
From: Christian monasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism


While the Jesuit order was involved in the dissemination of this historical tradition through the mass media and social revolutions of the Early Modern era, I think you can also thank the entire history of Christian monastacism for building the library of 'ancient' texts from which the Jesuit education was built. Ultimately, the Jesuits wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the work of the orders that preceded them, such as:

Quote:
Christian monastic orders
A number of distinct monastic orders developed within Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have a system of orders, per se.
• Augustinians, founded in 1256, which evolved from the canons who would normally work with the Bishop: they lived with him as monks under St. Augustine's rule
• Benedictines, founded in 529 by St. Benedict at Monte Cassino, stresses manual labor in a self-subsistent monastery. They less of a unified order than most other orders.
• Bridgettines, founded c. 1350
• Camaldolese, founded c. 1000
• Carmelites, founded between 1206 and 1214, a Contemplative Order
• Carthusians
• Celestines
• Cistercians, founded in 1098 by St. Bernard of Clairvaux
• Conventuals
• Cluniacs, a movement with a height c. 950-c. 1130
• Discalced Carmelites
• Dominicans, founded in 1215
• Franciscans, founded in 1209 by St. Francis of Assisi
• Jesuits
• Melanesian Brotherhood
• Olivetans
• Premonstratensians, also known as Norbertines.
• Silvesterines
• Trappists, began c. 1664
• Vallombrosans
• Visitation Sisters

From: Christian monasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism


The Jesuits, IMO, were instrumental in the spreading of this codified chronology throughout Europe and the New World, namely through the integration of their educational system into the secular social framework.

I also see the Jesuit Order as the conduit through which corporate imperialist forces were able to harness and secularize the socially indoctrinating forces of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
The Jesuits’ contributions to the late Renaissance were significant in their roles both as a missionary order and as the first religious order to operate colleges and universities as a principal and distinct ministry. By the time of Ignatius' death in 1556, the Jesuits were already operating a network of 74 colleges on three continents. A precursor to liberal education, the Jesuit plan of studies incorporated the Classical teachings of Renaissance humanism into the Scholastic structure of Catholic thought. In addition to teaching faith, the Ratio Studiorum emphasized the study of Latin, Greek, classical literature, poetry, and philosophy as well as non-European languages, sciences and the arts. Furthermore, Jesuit schools encouraged the study of vernacular literature and rhetoric, and thereby became important centers for the training of lawyers and public officials. The Jesuit schools played an important part in winning back to Catholicism a number of European countries which had for a time been predominantly Protestant, notably Poland and Lithuania. Today, Jesuit colleges and universities are located in over one hundred nations around the world.

From: Society of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits

As far as the Jesuits being identified as the 'masterminds' behind the currently recognized academic history, I think it's because they are recognized as the architechts of the 'Ratio Studiorum' which provided the structural archetype behind modern academia.

Quote:
Ratio Studiorum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ratio Studiorum (Latin: "Plan of Studies") often designates the document that formally established the globally influential system of Jesuit education in 1599. Its full title is Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum Societatis Iesu ("The Official Plan for Jesuit Education").
The work is the product of many hands and wide experience, but it most directly derives from the efforts of an international team of academics at the Jesuit school in Rome, the Collegio Romano.

From: Ratio Studiorum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_Studiorum


IMO, the Jesuit Order inherited an ongoing tradition of information management that grew out of the early Christian monastic orders of the 12th - 13th centuries.


Last edited by Jerry Fletcher on Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:33 pm    Post subject: 14th Century social power nexus Reply with quote

Because I don't know when to stop, here's a couple other tidbits that shed some light on how the globalization of information began in the late 1500's with the help of the Jesuit Order, Pope Gregory XIII, and the spanish king, Phillip II.

Quote:
Pope Gregory XIII
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pope Gregory XIII (January 7, 1502 – April 10, 1585), born Ugo Boncompagni, was Pope from 1572 to 1585.

Youth

He was born in Bologna, where he studied law and graduated in 1530. Afterwards, he taught jurisprudence for some years; his students included notable figures such as Alexander Farnese, Reginald Pole and Charles Borromeo.


Career before Papacy
At the age of thirty-six he was summoned to Rome by Pope Paul III (1534–1549), under whom he held successive appointments as first judge of the capital, abbreviator, and vice-chancellor of the Campagna; by Pope Paul IV (1555–1559) he was attached as datarius to the suite of Cardinal Carafa; and by Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) he was created cardinal priest and sent to the council of Trent.
He also served as a legate to Philip II of Spain (1556–1598), being sent by the Pope to investigate the Cardinal of Toledo. It was here that he formed a lasting and close relationship with the Spanish King, which was to become a very important during his foreign policy as Pope.


Election as pope

Upon the death of Pope Pius V (1566–1572), the conclave chose Cardinal Boncompagni, who assumed the name of Gregory XIII, in homage to the great reforming Pope, Gregory I (590–604), surnamed the Great. It was a very brief conclave, lasting less than 24 hours, presumed by many historians to have been due to the influence and backing of the Spanish King.
[...]

From: Pope Gregory XIII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XIII


Quote:
Pontificate


Reform of the Church


Once in the chair of Saint Peter, Gregory XIII's rather worldly concerns became secondary and he dedicated himself to reform of the Catholic Church.

He committed himself to putting into practice the recommendations of the Council of Trent. He allowed no exceptions for cardinals to the rule that bishops must take up residence in their sees, and designated a committee to update the Index of Forbidden Books.

A new and greatly improved edition of the Corpus juris canonici was also due to his concerned patronage. In a time of considerable centralisation of power, Gregory XIII abolished the Cardinals Consistories, replacing with them Colleges, and appointing specific tasks for these colleges to work on.

He was renowned for having a fierce independence; with the few confidants noting there were interventions that were not always welcomed nor advice sought for. The power of the papacy increased under him, whereas the influence and power of the Cardinals substantially decreased.


Formation of clergy and promotion of the arts and sciences

A central part of the strategy of Gregory XIII's reform was to apply the recommendations of Trent. He was a liberal patron of the recently formed Society of Jesus throughout Europe, for which he founded many new colleges. The Roman College, of the Jesuits, grew substantially under his patronage, and became the most important centre of learning in Europe for a time, a University of the Nations. It is now named the Pontifical Gregorian University. Pope Gregory XIII also founded numerous seminaries for training priests, beginning with the German College at Rome, and put them in the charge of the Jesuits.

From: Pope Gregory XIII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XIII


That bit about the 'Forbidden Books' list caught my eye. I assume the global dissemination of christian literature was concurrent with widespread suppression and destruction of competing doctrine.

Quote:
Index Librorum Prohibitorum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Venetiis, M. D. LXIIII.

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books") is a list of publications which the Catholic Church censored for being a danger to itself and the faith of its members. The various editions also contain the rules of the Church relating to the reading, selling and censorship of books. The aim of the list was to prevent the reading of immoral books or works containing theological errors and to prevent the corruption of the faithful. The list was not simply a reactive work. Catholic authors had the possibility to defend their writings and could prepare a new edition with the necessary corrections or elisions either to avoid or to limit a ban. Pre-publication censorship was encouraged.

The first list of that kind was not published in Rome, but in the Netherlands (1529). Venice and Paris followed this example (1543 and 1551). The first Roman Index was the work of Pope Paul IV (1557, 1559). The work of the censors was considered too severe and, after the Council of Trent had remodeled the church legislation on the prohibition of books, Pope Pius IV promulgated in 1564 the so called Tridentine Index, the basis of all later lists until Pope Leo XIII, in 1897, published his Index Leonianus. The very first lists were the work of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church (the Holy Office, later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

In 1571 a special congregation was erected, the Sacred Congregation of the Index, which had the specific task to investigate those writings that were denounced in Rome as being not exempt of errors, to update the list of Pope Pius IV regularly and also to make lists of corrections in case a writing was not in itself damnable but only in need of correction and put on the list with a mitigating clause (e.g., donec corrigatur (forbidden if not corrected) or donec expurgetur (forbidden if not purged)). This sometimes resulted in very long lists of corrections, published in the Index Expurgatorius. Prohibitions made by other congregations (mostly the Holy Office) were simply passed on to the Congregation of the Index, where the final decrees were drafted and made public, after approval of the Pope (who always had the possibility to condemn an author personally—only a few examples, such as Lamennais and Hermes). The Congregation of the Index was abolished in 1917, when the rules on the reading of books were again reelaborated in the new Codex Iuris Canonici. From that date on the Holy Office (again) took care of the index.

The Index was regularly updated until the 1948 edition. This 32nd edition contained 4,000 titles censored for various reasons: heresy, moral deficiency, sexual explicitness, political incorrectness, and so on.

[...]

From: Index Librorum Prohibitorum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Forbidden_Books


From what I understand, the Jesuit order was formed along military rather than religious guidelines and played an instrumental role in the intrigue surrounding the Reformation and the Restoration periods.

I kinda think of them as the medieval CIA of the Catholic Church.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:45 am    Post subject: Wizard of Oz Reply with quote

Xiang wrote:
Fomenko says that the Jesuits are the ones behind the inventing of history pre 1600, right? If this is true, then do the Jesuits today know about these things? It just seems hard to picture a Jesuit being behind all of this. After all, they constantly help people in need all over the world (mainly immigrants and poverty stricken down and outs), live a life of poverty, and do scholarly work, all of which doesn't fulfill an image of some evil puppeteer.

Question Do you feel the Pope is aware of the implications of this discussion, or is your view of the Pope more like the sentiment expressed above about the Jesuits (help the poor, life of poverty, etc.)? This is an honest question, not to suggest or persuade - just opinion, to which we are all entitled.

Exclamation My opinion is that not everyone is necessarily aware of the extent of anything, including anyone here, because of the appearance that is so carefully cultivated to generate the goodwill they have abused repeatedly as so many children whose safety and security they were entrusted; also asked for the trust they assured and appeared to deserve. Because of the poplarity between their appearance and the reality of the man behind the curtain, what else could be the point of Wink Very Happy Wizard of Oz Very Happy Wink if nothing more than "the greatest deception we could possibly imagine - and that still will not be the scope of intentional deceit and obstruction of every stripe and through every age of every church that has ever existed - and as Shakespeare puts in many ways but for me, none better than "Me thinks thou doth protest too much."

Xiang wrote:
Not only that but the whole thing reminds me of those creepy southern baptists proclaiming how evil Catholics are, handing out those Chick comic strips (which are by the way pretty popular for recruits in Fort Benning). I'm tempted to buy the book, it's not that expensive, but it's a shame I'll only be able to discuss it with people I've never met, probably only on this forum, as anywhere else I would look like a disconnected rambling fool.

Arrow Depending on how much the book is (unless its over $100) if you buy and don't want it I would buy it from you, if I don't have it I will want it sounds like anyway. Cool

Mr. Green Evil or Very Mad Laughing Be A Rambling Fool (if thats Xiang) just Be Xiang. Razz Very Happy Smile

Nobody else is connected, they just put on a stoneface to get through the day. Thats never worked for me. Laughing
Back to top
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a heads up to all the Fomenko fans here - March 4th, the History Channel (the GE owned propaganda wing of the US govt) is going to broadcast a new piece, "The Dark Ages - 600 Years of Godless Brutality".

Wink

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:43 pm    Post subject: The Devil's Statistician Meets Fomenko Reply with quote


_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:58 pm    Post subject: Population Bomb... Reply with quote

Cracorates wrote:
I thought of a modern scenario that's only half as crazy as Fomenko's timeline(but also only half as likely to be true, considering he had eclipse dates and gravitational behavior, while I've only got suspicion and anecdotes, prompted by cross-country traveling in January 2007.)


Hey Crac - I'll bite.
Don't sell yourself short - I think your theory is just as crazy as Fomenko's Timeline, perhaps even more so! Wink

Anytime I stumble across a Twilight Zone rerun, I become mesmerized as well - I guess I'm a sucker for a creative 'what if..'.

Let me see if I understand your hypothesis, though.

Quote:
False population figures were promoted because of the need of elites to comfort the useless eaters over the last 100 to 150 years with the belief of exponential growth while they themselves consolidated their grip on humanity via colonization, industrialization,mass media, weapons production, and (above all) finance. I'm not even saying that human population declined during this time, just perhaps, it increased much much slower, maybe linearly instead of exponentially.


So, you're saying this is basically bunk:

Quote:
World Population Growth
Year
Population
1 - 200 million
1000 - 275 million
1500 - 450 million
1650 - 500 million
1750 - 700 million
1804 - 1 billion
1850 - 1.2 billion
1900 - 1.6 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1950 - 2.55 billion
1955 - 2.8 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1965 - 3.3 billion
1970 - 3.7 billion
1975 - 4 billion
1980 - 4.5 billion
1985 - 4.85 billion
1990 - 5.3 billion
1995 - 5.7 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2000 - 6.1 billion
2005 - 6.45 billion
2006 - 6.5 billion
2010 - 6.8 billion
2020 -7.6 billion
2030 - 8.2 billion
2040 - 8.8 billion
2050 - 9.2 billion


From: Loading World Population…
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm



Well, it does appear that all the significant action has happened in the last 2000 years.
This graphic makes the point pretty well -





I can certainly understand how this looks a little suspicious, or at the very least, difficult to comprehend.
It also suggests that in a couple hundred years, it's gonna be a nightmare trying to find an available apartment to rent.

Although Fomenko does back up his assertions with more than anecdotal evidence gathered during a road trip Wink, I'm curious as to what it was you witnessed, other than a lot of unoccupied land visible from the interstate, that gave you the feeling that there's less people here than we're being led to believe.

Second question, is why? What is being accomplished by lying to the world about the number of humans? I would think if you could 'tamper' with census numbers, you could also manipulate an election.

Generally, I see your point - the impression of so many people justifies corporate government control of the individual in the name of communitarian social equality. Very Orwellian, true, but whom exactly then is generating these global population numbers - is every government in every country of the reporting world in on the scam, or are these numbers cooked up by a group of supranational liars?

I could see how this concept could operate in the interest of global finance, the IMF and the IFC. If human labor potential is being hypothecated as social credit, then the number of humans would be roughly equivalent to a nation's 'wealth' - on paper at least. If that credit were being lent to real live humans as money, then the debt collecting process would be a form of corporate slavery.

Keeping track of individual income and debt, a key feature of the data management systems introduced by IBM, is a key element in the global economic structure developed through the 20th century. If Big Brother isn't watching, nobody's gonna pay him back.

From my perspective though, it feels like life gets more 'crowded' every year - public transportation, airports, concerts, shopping. It feels as if everything needs to be 'warehouse' sized just to accommodate the throngs of people requiring goods and services.

If you've ever spent any time on the freeways of Los Angeles, 6 billion seems pretty conservative, actually.

As I get nervous in crowds larger than four, I've never really thought about the census reports, nor had any reason to doubt them. I did, however, grow up conditioned to believe the 'population explosion' is a dire concern for humanity. I was also conditioned to believe that 'being a successful member of society' meant generating at least 2.5 more humans. Go figger.

I would think regular people are probably 'against' the census, as it feels like some sort of invasion of privacy to most -

Anyway, interesting theory, and at the very least, great movie script idea!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:39 pm    Post subject: Defending my madness Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher said:
Quote:
Don't sell yourself short - I think your theory is just as crazy as Fomenko's Timeline, perhaps even more so!

Yeah Fomenko had friggen Newton on his side. This theory has, uh, about 1/3 of my brain as its sole supporter.

Anyway, here's an attempt at defense of my overactive imagination.

Quote:
Jerry Fletcher said:

If you've ever spent any time on the freeways of Los Angeles, 6 billion seems pretty conservative, actually.


And the numbers would be increasing, but how do you know what the *original population number* 20 or 40 or 100 years ago actually was?

Also, for SoCal in particular, massive immigration and centralization of work in U.S. during the last twenty years(including military bases,refineries,tourism, port business, and expansion of Hollywood). People from all over the country,especially the defunct Rust Belt, have flooded SoCal. Mexico became MUCH worse.When the people of Mexico,an entire country to the South led by a semi-offical corrupt ONE-PARTY state have their currency devalued massively, its time to cross the fence. ALSO, the policy of our corrupt Federal Government is to,now and again, deport <1% and leave fences with holes in them (which also helps the illegal drug trade). The world's too major industries by dollar amounts are: 1)war & 2) tourism.

Hell, even Shaq left DisneyWorld to go to Hollywood once.


Quote:
From my perspective though, it feels like life gets more 'crowded' every year - public transportation, airports, concerts, shopping. It feels as if everything needs to be 'warehouse' sized just to accommodate the throngs of people requiring goods and services.


This is by necessity. My assumption is that people have to travel a lot farther everyday now, especially for work. Since work means time=money, the anxiety of driving leaves commuters feeling that there are too many ever-increasing a-holes on the road, which is partially true because of centralization of the workforce. Anybody who grew up in a small town knows that they have to go to the Big City to get something nice. The trend accelerated as local shops in downtown went bankrupt, any even small towners would be forced to go to a slightly larger small town to go to Wal-Mart. Entire rural and semi-rural counties commute an hour or more a day.Also, exponential increase in ADVERTISING DOLLARS means even rural folk want more "new" big city junk.

The US, compared to other industrialized nations (like Canada) less centralized historically. But that seems to be changing as of the last 30 to 50 years.

Quote:
Very Orwellian, true, but whom exactly then is generating these global population numbers - is every government in every country of the reporting world in on the scam, or are these numbers cooked up by a group of supranational liars?


I think John Taylor Gatto once said in a lecture that of generally necessary work - food shelter medicine manufacturing - only took up like 6% of the US workforce. So, as life has taught me, a lot of these "jobs" are just shuffling paperwork around.

Not counting the census, the main attempt at tracking people for taxation was the federal income tax return. What surprised me was that pre-WWII, I think the number of tax returns filed in the US was NEGLIGIBLE, even though the law was 30 years old. This all changed with federal withholding - Milton Friedman's idea. So this tells me, that 50 to 100 years ago, tracking people - even for taxation in the freakin US - weren't too good. Income tax is collected more and more every year, because there is more verifiable revenue (like from CREDIT CARD PROCESSORS).

I'm thinking political control over the richer nations matters the most. I'm familiar with US History the most, so the scenario with IBM,TR, and a prominent member of the Walker family might be enough. The idea is, if ANY administration in the last 150 years realized fake census numbers, would anyone have the balls to revise the numbers downward ?
Politically, revision is a bad idea.

But even of all 192 countries under the U.N. Nations, "independence" from colonial powers has been fairly recent. Not only is a census incredibly expensive, but generally these new "independent" nation's leaders were corrupt from the get-go. Hell, even Mandela didn't default on South Africa's western debts. He like, every other leader, was too afraid that the bankers would make his country even worse (civil war) ?

Quote:
Anyway, interesting theory, and at the very least, great movie script idea!


Yeah, otherwise we'll be forced to go watch Norbit VI with Eddie Murphy,Jr.
Maybe I'll write a short story and bounce the idea off a sci-fi (attempting to-be) writer I know.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 5 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.