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 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Jerry Fletcher

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

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xiang wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that languages change over time, and you can see it in the sounds shifts. You cross reference it with the important events.

Ok, I've done a little research into Grimm, Verner, Proto-Indo-European language theories, and Germanic language chronology. What I've found appears to be yet another academic attempt to shoehorn contradictory social developments into the Scaligerian, or consensual view of chronology.

In other words, the development of the Germanic language fricative and glottal sounds do not fit within the Scaligerian chronology, until Grimm hypothesized these sudden 'changes' that supposedly swept certain areas at certain times.

All of these theories, however, rely on the Scaligerian chronology as their dating reference, therefore, it is another example of the 'self referencing' proof that appears to be the basis of our consensual chronology.

Even within the context of questionable chronology, there is still no definitive version of what happened when. Keep in mind also, that all these theories are based on how 19th century scholars think these different dialects sounded, as there is obviously no recorded references. Therefore, we could be discussing words that looked different, but were actually pronounced the same. Since there are no actual documents from these periods, it is unclear to me where and how these supposed changes were measured. Nevertheless...

Dating Verner's law
It is worth noting that the Verner's Law comes chronologically before the Germanic shift of stress to the initial syllable (because the voicing is conditioned by the old location of stress). The stress shift erased the conditioning environment and made the Vernerian variation between voiceless fricatives and their voiced alternants look mysteriously haphazard. Until recently it was assumed that Verner's law was productive after Grimm's Law. Now it has been pointed out that even if the sequence was reverse the end result could have been just the same given certain conditions.
Scholars today are inclined towards preferring the new theory postulating a sequence reverse to the classical one. This change, however, has far reaching implications on the shape and development of the Proto-Germanic language. Many details on these questions are given in the article about Verner's law in German Wikipedia.

From: Verner's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, which came first - The Verner or the Grimm? See what I'm saying? This is hardly an exact science. It is also based on the assumption of the Proto Indo European language, (or PIE) a concept which is also still widely debated.

At first, irregularities did not give scholars sleepless nights as long as there were many examples of the regular outcome. Increasingly, however, it became the ambition of linguists to formulate general and exceptionless rules of sound change that would account for all the data (or as close to the ideal as possible), not merely for a well-behaved subset of it.
One classic example of PIE *t > PGmc *d is the word for 'father', PIE *ph₂tēr (here *h₂ stands for a laryngeal, and the macron marks vowel length) > PGmc *fađēr (instead of expected *faþēr). Curiously, the structurally similar family term *bʰreh₂tēr 'brother' developed as predicted by Grimm's Law (Gmc. *brōþēr). Even more curiously, we often find both *þ and *đ as reflexes of PIE *t in different forms of one and the same root, e.g. *werþ- 'turn', preterite *warþ 'he turned', but e.g. preterite plural and past participle *wurđ- (plus appropriate inflections).

From: Verner's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm. Formulate an exception-less rule, eh? It appears the data is being conformed to justify the rule, rather than the other way around. Apparently, Grimm and Verner were celebrities in a 19th century movement called "Neogrammarianism".

Karl Verner published his discovery in the article "Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung" (an exception to the first sound shift) in Kuhns Zeitschrift in 1876, but he had presented his theory already on 1 May, 1875 in a comprehensive personal letter to his friend and mentor, Vilhelm Thomsen.
It was received with great enthusiasm by the young generation of comparative philologists, the so-called Junggrammatiker, because it was an important argument in favour of the Neogrammarian dogma that the sound laws were without exceptions ("die Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze")

From: Verner's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Neogrammarians (also Young Grammarians, German Junggrammatiker) were a German school of linguists, originally at the University of Leipzig, in the late 19th century who proposed the Neogrammarian hypothesis of the regularity of sound change. According to this hypothesis, a diachronic sound change affects simultaneously all words in which its environment is met, without exception. Verner's law is a famous example of the Neogrammarian hypothesis, as it resolved an apparent exception to Grimm's law. The Neogrammarian hypothesis was the first hypothesis of sound change to attempt to follow the principle of falsifiability according to scientific method. Today this hypothesis is considered more of a guiding principle than an exceptionless fact, as numerous examples of lexical diffusion (where a sound change affects only a few words at first and then gradually spreads to other words) have been attested.
Other contributions of the Neogrammarians to general linguistics were:
• The object of linguistic investigation is not the language system, but rather the idiolect, that is, language as it is localized in the individual, and therefore is directly observable.
• Autonomy of the sound level: being the most observable aspect of language, the sound level is seen as the most important level of description, and absolute autonomy of the sound level from syntax and semantics is assumed.
• Historicism: the chief goal of linguistic investigation is the description of the historical change of a language.
• Analogy: if the premise of the inviolability of sound laws fails, analogy can be applied as an explanation if plausible. Thus, exceptions are understood to be a (regular) adaptation to a related form.

From: Neogrammarian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, this hypothesis was introduced in the late 19th century, almost five hundred years after the Scaligerian chronology had been 'accepted' by academia. The hypothesis is based on the same 'ancient' sources 'discovered' in medieval Florence.

In fact, the entire study of historical linguistics is based on the 'Comparative Method' rather than what we consider the 'Scientific Method'. To me, that's like the difference between 'guessing' and 'measuring'.


Comparative method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The comparative method (in comparative linguistics) is a technique used by linguists to demonstrate genetic relationships between languages. It aims to prove that two or more historically attested languages are descended from a single proto-language by comparing lists of cognate terms. From these cognate lists, regular sound correspondences between the languages are established, and a sequence of regular sound changes can then be postulated which allows the proto-language to be reconstructed from its daughter languages. Relation is deemed certain only if a reconstruction of the common ancestor (or at least a partial reconstruction) is feasible, and if regular sound correspondences can be established with chance similarities ruled out.
Developed in the 19th century through the study of the Indo-European languages, the comparative method remains the standard by which mainstream linguists judge whether two languages are related, with alternative lexicostatistical methods widely considered to be less reliable. Criticisms of the comparative method have also arisen as a result of a number of advances in linguistic thought - including several proposed alternatives to the traditional linear model of language descent - with the result that reconstructions obtained by the comparative method are now generally treated with a degree of skepticism.

From: Comparative method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, lets see... first the languages are compared for similarities. Then, out of the similarities, a 'Proto' language is postulated by 'adding up' all the 'daughter' languages. Finally, the 'Proto' language is then offered as the 'proof' of the development of the 'daughter' languages. This seems rather circular to me, especially since nobody has any idea what this 'Proto' language may have looked or sounded like.



There is no direct evidence of PIE, because it was never written. All PIE sounds and words are reconstructed from later Indo-European languages using the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. The asterisk is used to mark reconstructed PIE words, such as *wódr̥ 'water', *ḱwṓn 'dog', or *tréyes 'three (masculine)'. Many of the words in the modern Indo-European languages seem to have derived from such "protowords" via regular sound changes (e.g., Grimm's law).
As the Proto-Indo-European language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, according to various sound laws in the daughter languages. Notable among these are Grimm's law and Verner's law in Proto-Germanic, loss of prevocalic *p- in Proto-Celtic, reduction to h of prevocalic *s- in Proto-Greek, Brugmann's law and Bartholomae's law in Proto-Indo-Iranian, and Grassmann's law independently in both Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian.

Relationship to other language families

Many higher-level relationships between PIE and other language families have been proposed. But these speculative connections are highly controversial. Perhaps the most widely accepted proposal is of an Indo-Uralic family, encompassing PIE and Uralic. The evidence usually cited in favor of this is the proximity of the proposed Urheimaten of the two families, the typological similarity between the two languages, and a number of apparent shared morphemes. Frederik Kortlandt, while advocating a connection, concedes that "the gap between Uralic and Indo-European is huge", while Lyle Campbell, an authority of Uralic, denies any relationship exists.
Other proposals, further back in time (and correspondingly less accepted), model PIE as a branch of Indo-Uralic with a Caucasian substratum; link PIE and Uralic with Altaic and certain other families in Asia, such as Korean, Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut (representative proposals are Nostratic and Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic); or link some or all of these to Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, etc., and ultimately to a single Proto-World family (nowadays mostly associated with Merritt Ruhlen). Various proposals, with varying levels of skepticism, also exist that join some subset of the putative Eurasiatic language families and/or some of the Caucasian language families, such as Uralo-Siberian, Ural-Altaic (once widely accepted but now largely discredited), Proto-Pontic, and so on.

From: Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sample texts

As PIE was spoken by a prehistoric society, no genuine sample texts are available, but since the 19th century modern scholars have made various attempts to compose example texts for purposes of illustration. These texts are educated guesses at best; Calvert Watkins in 1969 rightly observes that in spite of its 150 years' history, comparative linguistics is not in the position to reconstruct a single well-formed sentence in PIE. Nevertheless, such texts do have the merit of giving an impression of what a coherent utterance in PIE might have sounded like.

From: Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ormond wrote:
Grimm's and Verner's Law of sound shift in German language is a useful point. German is a language that's changed a great deal since Goethe. As proof that someone didn't make up the changes by faking old published books, such as Goethe, I've had contact with the small German rural communities here in Texas and Minnesota who settled during the early 19th century---locally some of the old folks still speak German, and it's well known that the German they speak is from the time of Goethe.

That's a good point - spoken languages, like every other field, can be studied, measured, and tracked up to about 500 years ago. Studying the history of language from Goethe till now is not the same as inventing a 'Proto' language to attempt to cram global diversity into the limits of 'ancient' history.


Johann Wolfgang Goethe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born: 28 August 1749 Frankfurt, Germany
Died: 22 March 1832 Weimar, Germany
Johann Wolfgang Goethe (help·info), IPA: [gøːtə], later von Goethe, (28 August 1749 – 22 March 1832) was a German polymath: he was a poet, novelist, dramatist, humanist, scientist, theorist, painter, and for ten years chief minister of state for the duchy of Weimar.

Goethe was one of the key figures of German literature and the movement of Weimar Classicism in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; this movement coincides with Enlightenment, Sentimentality ("Empfindsamkeit"), Sturm und Drang, and Romanticism.

From: Johann Wolfgang Goethe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, while I agree with your comments, I don't think they're completely relevant to the discussion of 'ancient' linguistics, as they are developments based on a pre-existing language from a pre-existing culture, both of which are verifiable and documentable.

The culture in which Goethe himself lived is based on the consensual understanding of the chronology of human development. This understanding, which shapes both culture and current human experience, is what I'm questioning.

Was Renaissance culture a product of history, or was history a product of Renaissance culture?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hocus Locus

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xiang wrote:
One can examine the consonant shifts in the Germanic language. There are texts with the proof as early as the 8th century. You can cross reference the important events with the shifts in sounds of the language. Grimm's and Verner's Law can describe it better. I'm by no means an expert on German linguistics. What I'm trying to say is that languages change over time, and you can see it in the sounds shifts. You cross reference it with the important events. Does Fomenko talk about this? Sadly, I don't own his book.

Me neetha, no hav de book yet, Ras waitin' fo he cahd free up, as all ways. I Ras overstan' 'bo wid respeck canna deal all ways. In language ah shift, bah who language? Wheh? Eben widdin de piggin tongue (das 'pidgin' -- nah pigin pea ahn rice maboy!) like de slave use, local dialec' so Pepul always did write bou' how dey speak, even old Declaration ahn Constitution ahn have in 'eff' instead ah 'ess' -- cas dey did talk like Brit when talkin' to Brit. Den dey cop de king style from he. Den dey diverge dey spellin' from Brit 'cause a mattah 'o pride, as in Yankee Doodle ahn ting. 'ess' comin' and 'z' wheh de 's' is in England even dis day. Bah nah all places all times. Ras ketch heself talkin' ahn spelling both ways. Today Ras need UK ahn US dict, or he done fas'. Ahn no mattah how he spell rite Google always try ah help he further. Das ok. De semantick gahnn stay de same, de wud gon' shift always, bah not all ways up ahn down time, 'e gon shift by pepul ahn place, in same time. Catch? Peace Xiang, I Ras finish.

But it comes down to how many re-writes, how many republishers, how many cross-translations have occured. Does Fomenko 're-date' the life and inventions of Gutenberg? Prior to that scribes would re-write, one short step away from paraphrasing; only in the most formal of cases would one be inclined to check letter-by-letter in scriptus; the skimming eye too easily forgives. Afterwards you have the galley proof cycle, in which several magnitudes' greater copies are produced with complete assurance of fidelity. Non-'latin' alphabets pretty well needed to wait for mechanization to catch up to see mass-print in native ideographs...

When 'King James' assembled into what we know today as Testament-speak, from let there be light to the opening of the final seal it now reads the same. Now that's industrial streangth homogenization; no wonder the Talmund is guarded so closely (and debated endlessly, with the views of gentiles often tolerated, less often invited), it's the nuances they're struggling to hold onto as well as the culture.

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
~Project PYRRHO, Spec.46, Vat 7; Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467; TERMINATION ADVISED
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some interesting points. I'm afraid I'm not knowledable enough in linguistics to expand or try to find holes in what you just posted. What does Fomenko have to say about languages?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to add more gas to the fire here, but..... here's more contradictory history, in the Biblical vein:


"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
Jerry Fletcher

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

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:26 pm    Post subject: Gutenberg and Gullible's Travels Reply with quote

Ras ketch heself talkin' ahn spelling both ways.

Mmmm liken tay-aaaaay inna weeeeeen, chikabee? Wink

Does Fomenko 're-date' the life and inventions of Gutenberg?

No, he does not, but after checking out the your link, I think I might want to. I assumed the history of Gutenberg and his magic bible machine was pretty solid, and the consensual date of the printing press pretty well documented.

Turns out, once again, I assumed wrong. Apparently very little is known about the man, and his cultural fame is posthumous, as he died broke and unknown, as his printing press was supposedly repossessed by his loan shark cousin. Apparently Gutenberg was a terrible at project and financial management. There's a lot I didn't know about the man, including how creepy he looked.

He probably should have stuck with his old job, as it sounded less risky than ushering in the age of media.

Before 'inventing' the printing press, Gutenberg was a goldsmith from Germany.


Johannes Gutenberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg (c. 1398 – c. February 3, 1468) was a German goldsmith and inventor credited with inventing movable type printing in Europe (ca. 1450). His major work, the Gutenberg Bible, also known as the 42-line bible, has been acclaimed for its high aesthetic and technical quality.

The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown.

Right? Just like we learned in school. Let's look a little deeper:



Gutenberg was born in the German city of Mainz, the youngest son of the upper-class merchant Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden, and his second wife Else Wyrich, daughter of a shopkeeper. According to some accounts Friele was a goldsmith for the bishop at Mainz, but most likely he was involved in the cloth trade[2]. Gutenberg's year of birth is not known; it was certainly between 1394 and 1404, most likely around 1400.

At the time, patricians in Mainz were often named after the houses they owned, and around 1427, the name zu Gudenberg, after the family house in Mainz, is documented for the first time.[2] This house had previously been known as "Judenberg," Jewish Hill. According to historian John Man, "In the 1282 pogrom, fifty-four Jewish properties were abandoned and were grabbed by the rich and powerful. It seems that the Gutenberg house fell to the archbishop's treasurers... It was later acquired by the great-great-grandfather of our inventor and stayed in the family."[3]

Pretty sketchball, IMO.
'Gutenberg' is first documented in 1427, a family name that for two hundred years had been known as 'Judenberg'. So, they decided to change names when Johann was nearing thirty. Such a convenient and clever two letter change is all it took to get the family off of 'Jew Mountain'.

I'm sure the rest of his life story isn't as flimsy as his family history... right?


In 1411,there was an uprising in Mainz against the patricians, and more than a hundred families were forced to leave. The Gutenbergs may have moved to Eltville am Rhein (Alta Villa), where his mother had an inherited estate. He may have studied at the University of Erfurt, where there is a record of a student in 1419 named Johannes de Alta villa. Following his father's death in 1419, he is mentioned in the inheritance proceedings.

Woah woah woah... flag on the field. First off, I thought mom was the daughter of a shopkeeper in Mainz. Sounds like a pretty nice Villa on the Rhein she inherited.

However, if the family name wasn't documented until 1427 and daddy died in 1419, how do we know Johann was the heir? Who died? Judenberg or Gutenberg? If this cloth merchant goldsmithing inventor genius family even existed, what were they called in 1419 if there's no record of any Gutenbergs before 1427?

Nutty - I'm sure it'll all sort itself out.... right?


Nothing is known of Gutenberg's life for the next fifteen years, but in March 1434, a letter by him indicates that he was living in Strasbourg, where he had some relatives on his mother's side. He also appears to have been a goldsmith member enrolled in the Strasbourg militia. In 1437, there is evidence that he was instructing a wealthy tradesman on polishing gems, but where he had acquired this knowledge is unknown. In 1436/37 his name also comes up in court in connection with a broken promise of marriage to a woman from Strasbourg, Ennelin.[4] Whether the marriage actually took place is not recorded.

DOH! Fifteen years 'underground' then he's polishing gems with wealthy tradesmen and breaking hearts in Strasbourg?

Gutenberg is beginning to sound a lot more like an invention than an inventor. Well, I'm sure the first printing processes were well documented with all sorts of technical details, so that ought to clear things up.... right?

Printing Press
Around 1439, Gutenberg was involved in a misadventure making mirrors for pilgrims to Aachen, and when the question of repaying the money came up, Gutenberg is said to have promised to share a "secret". It has been widely speculated that this secret may have been the idea of printing with movable type. Legend has it that the idea came to him "like a ray of light"[5].

Hmm. I guess that means no 'notes' on his invention. Sounds like a classic Gutenberg business deal though - one of the most influential ideas in human history for 'mirror money'.


At least up to 1444, he lived in Strasbourg, most likely in the St. Arbogust suburb. It is not clear what work he was engaged in, or whether some early trieals with printing from movable type may have been conducted there. After this, there is a gap of four years in the record. In 1448, he was back in Mainz, where he took out a loan from his brother-in-law Arnold Gelthus, presumably for a printing press.

So, a Strasbourg mirror gig, a blinding revelation, then back home to borrow some geld from the local loanshark. Silly Johann...


By 1450, the press was most likely in operation, and a German poem had been printed, possibly the first item to be printed there. Gutenberg was able to convince the wealthy moneylender Johann Fust for a loan of 800 guilders. Peter Schoeffer, who became Fust's son-in-law, also joined the enterprise. Shoeffer had worked as a scribe in Paris and designed some of the first typefaces.

A Parisian typeface designer for a yet to be invented process marries into the loan shark family. What incredible luck!


Gutenberg's workshop was set up at Hof Humbrecht, a property belonging to a distant relative. It is not clear when Gutenberg conceived the Bible project, but for this he borrowed another 800 guilders from Fust, and work commenced in 1452. At the same time, the press was also printing other, more lucrative texts (possibly Latin grammars). There is also some speculation that there may have been two presses, one for the pedestrian texts, and one for the Bible. One of the profitmaking enterprises of the new press was the printing of thousands of indulgences for the church, documented from 1454–55.

In 1455 Gutenberg brought out the 42-line Bible, commonly known as the Gutenberg Bible of which about 180 were printed, most on paper and some on vellum.

Well, I'd think the Church was a good customer and could afford to pay it's bills. Consequently, Gutenberg should have been shitting gilders at this point.

I mean, he pretty much created the ground floor, then got in on it well ahead of the competition. I'd think those first books were pretty 'novel', and therefore pretty pricey.

Apparently, I'm not the worst financial manager in history.


Court Case
Sometime in 1455, there was a dispute between Gutenberg and Fust, and Fust demanded his money back, accusing Gutenberg of embezzling funds. Meanwhile the expenses of the Bible project had proliferated, and Gutenberg's debt now exceeded 2000 guilders. Fust sued at the archbishop's court. A November 1455 legal document records that there was a partnership for a "project of the books" the funds of which Gutenberg had used for other purposes, according to Fust. The court decided in favour of Fust, giving him control over the Bible printing workshop and half of all printed Bibles.

Thus Gutenberg was effectively bankrupted, but it appears he retained (or re-started) a small printing shop, and participated in the printing of a bible in Bamberg around 1459, for which he at least supplied the type. But since his printed books never carry his name or a date, it is difficult to be certain, and there is consequently a considerable scholarly literature. It is also possible that the large Catholicon dictionary, 300 copies of 744 pages, printed in Mainz in 1460, may have been executed in his workshop.

Meanwhile, the Fust–Schoeffer shop were the first to bring out a book with the printer's name and date, the Mainz Psalter of August 1457, and while proudly proclaiming the mechanical process by which it had been produced, it made no mention of Gutenberg.

Well well well. Gutenberg didn't even get 'his' name on the first hundred years of editions. The money guys repossessed all the property and took all the credit. Imagine that.


Later life
In 1462, during a conflict between two archbishops, Mainz was sacked by archbishop Adolf von Nassau, and Gutenberg was exiled. An old man by now, he moved to Eltville where he may have initiated and supervised a new printing press belonging to the brothers Bechtermünze.

In January 1465, Gutenberg's achievements were recognized and he was given the title Hofmann (gentleman of the court) by Adolf von Nassau. This honour included a stipend, an annual court outfit, as well as 2180 liters of grain and 2000 liters of wine tax-free. It is believed he may have moved back to Mainz around this time, but this is not certain.

Gutenberg died in 1468 and was buried in the Franziskanerkirche, Mainz, his contributions largely unknown. This church and the cemetery were later destroyed, and Gutenberg's grave is lost.

In 1504, he was mentioned as the inventor of typography in a book by Professor Ivo Wittig. It was not until 1567 that the first portrait of Gutenberg, almost certainly an imaginary reconstruction, appeared in Heinrich Pantaleons biography of famous Germans.[4]

And there you have it - poor Johann - even his grave was lost. If only he could read encyclopedia Britannica now and weep with joy.

I love the fact that he got some recognition from the hometown crew - not for printing, but for something. That's how I'll always remember Gutenberg from now on - bitter and drunk on tax-free wine.

The only thing that appears to be less certain than Gutenberg's personal history is who and when moveable type printing was actually invented. You can read for yourself the fact that nobody really agrees on any of it.

The only thing I'm walking away with from this little biography is the feeling that the inventor Johannes Gutenberg is another tale of gargantuan bullshit.

And no, Fomenko doesn't dwell on him, IMO because he's more interested in uncovering the bullshit rather than the bullshitters.

What does Fomenko have to say about languages?

Not much about the spoken variety, and after looking into it myself, I can't say I blame him. I don't think it's particularly relevant.

ot to add more gas to the fire here, but..... here's more contradictory history, in the Biblical vein:

Wow - yet another shocker.

The piece does make some good points about how history is marketed, and what interests the general public.

Imagine the revolution in consciousness that could result from a slight change in cover art. If I hadn't already, I'd buy this book in a heartbeat! Wink

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: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:33 pm    Post subject: Sir Isaac knew a ton Reply with quote

As I enjoy a little intermission here at page 420, I'll give the nail biters an update on my progress thus far.

Fomenko is kicking Hercules' ass.
Things are not looking good for Antiquity.

'Ancient' Greece and Rome are taking a violent beating, and have yet to defend themselves with anything resembling historical proof.

Aristotle, Plato, Ceasar, and yes, even Hero are going down.

Not that somebody brilliant didn't actually write the works in question, but it wasn't those ancient dudes, and it wasn't before 1000 AD, with major revisions / additions in the XIV and XVI centuries.

A couple hundred years after the Italian Renaissance, we find Isaac Newton feeling like a dummy because academic 'ancient' history makes no sense to him in 1728. He began attempting to sort things by publishing and updating a work entitled, "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended". Too bad he died in 1733.

Here is an interesting excerpt from the introduction:

A short chronicle
From the First Memory of things in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the great

By Sir Isaac Newton

The introduction

The Greek Antiquities are full of Poetical Fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing in Prose, before the Conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian. Then Pherecydes Scyrius and Cadmus Milesius introduced the writing in Prose. Pherecydes Atheniensis, about the end of the Reign of Darius Hystaspis, wrote of Antiquities, and digested his work by Genealogies, and was reckoned one of the best Genealogers. Epimenides the Historian proceeded also by Genealogies; the Hellanicus, who was twelve years older than Herodotus, digested his History by the Ages of Successions of the Priestesses of Juno Argiva. Others digested theirs by the Kings of the Lacedaemonians, or Archons of Athens. Hippias the Elean, about thirty years before the fall of the Persian Empire, published a breviary or list of the Olympic Victors; and about ten years before the fall thereof, Ephorus the disciple of Isocrates formed a Chronological History of Greece, beginning with the return of the Heraclides into Peloponnesius, and ending with the siege of Perinthus, in the twentieth year of Philip the father of Alexander the great, But he digested things by Generations, and the reckoning by Olympiads was not yet in use, nor doth it appear that the Reigns of Kings were yet set down by numbers of years. The Arundelian marbles were composed sixty years after the death of Alexander the great (An. 4. Olymp. 128.) and yet mention not the Olympiads: But in the next Olympiad, Timaeus Sicilus published an history in several books down to his own times, according to the Olympiads, comparing the Ephori, the Kings of Sparta, the Archons, and Priestessesof Argos, with the Olympic Victors, so as to make the Olympiads, and the Genealogies and Successions of Kings, Archons, and Priestesses, and poetical histories suit with one another, according to the best of his judgement. And where he left off, Polybius began and carried on the history.

So then a little after the death of Alexander the great, they began to set down the Generations, Reigns and Successions, in numbers of years, and by putting Reigns and Successions equipollent to Generations, and three Generation so an hundred or an hundred and twenty years (as appears by their Chronology) they have made the Antiquities of Greece three or four hundred years older than the truth. And this was the original of the Technical Chronology of the Greeks. Eratosphenes wrote about an hundred years after the death of Alexander the great: He was followed by Apollodorus, and these two have been followed ever since by Chronologers.

But how uncertain their Chronology is was reputed by the Greeks of those times, may be understood by these passages of Plutarch. Some reckon, saith he (In th elife of Lycurgus), Lycurgus contemporary to Iphitus, and to have been his companion in ordering the Olimpic festivals: amongst whom was Aristotle the Philosopher, arguing from the Olympic Disc, which had the name of Lycurgus upon it. Others supputing the times by the succession of the Kings of the Lacedaemonians, as Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, affirm that he was not a few years older than the first Olympiad. First Aristotle and Some others made him as old as the first Olympiad; then Eratosthenes, Apollodorus, and some others made him above an hundred years older: and in another place (in the life of Solon) Plutarch tells us: The congress of Solon with Croesus, some think they can confute by Chronology. But an history so illustrious, and verified by so many witnesses, and (which is more) so agreeable to the manners of Solon, and so worthy of the greatness of his mind and of his wisdom, I cannot persuade myself to reject because of some Chronological Canons, as they call them: which hundreds of authors correcting, have not yet been able to constitute any thing certain, in which they could agree among themselves, about repugnancies. It seems the Chronologers had made the Legislature of Solon too ancient to consist with that Congress.

For reconciling such repugnancies, Chronologers have sometimes doubled the persons of men. So when the Poets had changed lo the daughter of Inachus into the Egyptian Isis, Chronologers made her husband Osiris or Bacchus and his mistress Ariadne as old as lo, and so feigned that there were two Ariadnes, one the mistress of Bacchus, and the other the mistress of Theseus, and two Minors their fathers, and a younger lo the daughter of Jass, writing Jasus corruptly for Inachus. And so they have made two Pandions, and two Erechtheus's, giving the name of Erechthonius to the first; Homer calls the first, Erechtheus: and by such corruptions they have exceedingly perplexed Ancient History.

And as for the Chronology of the Latines, that is still more uncertain. Plutarch represents great uncertainties in the Originals of Rome: and so doth Servius. The old records of the Latines were burnt by the Gauls, sixty and four years before the death of Alexander the great; and Quintus Eabius Pictor, the oldest historian of the Latines, lived an hundred years later than that King.

In Sacred History, the Adrian Empire began with Pul and Tiglathpilaser, and lasted about 170 years. And accordingly Herodotus hath made Semiramis only five generations, or about 166 years older than Nitocris, the mother of the last King of Babylon, But Ctestas hath made Semiramis 1500 years older than Nitocris, and feigned a long series of Kings of Assyria, whose names are not Assyrian, nor have any affinity with the Assyrian names in Scripture.

The Priests of Egypt told Herodotus, that Menes built Memphis and the sumptuous temple of Vulcan, in that City: and that Rhampstnitus, Maeris, Asychis and Psammiticus added magnificent porticos to that temple. And it is not likely that Memphis could be famous, before Homers days who doth not mention it, or that a temple could be above two or three hundred years in building. The Reign of Psammiticus began about 655 years before Christ, and I place the founding of this temple by Menes about 257 years earlier: but the Priests of Egypt had so magnified their Antiquities before the days of Herodotus, as to tell him that from Menes to Maeris (who reigned 200 years before Psammiticus) there were 330 Kings, whose Reigns took up as many Ages, that is eleven thousand years, and had filled up the interval with feigned Kings, who had done nothing. And before the days of Diodorus Siculus they had raised their Antiquities to much higher, as to place six, eight, or ten new Reigns of Kings between those Kings, whom they had represented to Herodotus to succeed one another immediately.

In the Kingdom of Sicyon, Chronologers have Split Apis Epaphus or Epopees into two Kings, whom they call Apis and Epopeus, and between them have inserted eleven or twelve feigned names of Kings who did nothing, and thereby they have made its Founder Aegialeus, three hundred years older than his brother Phoroneus. Some have made the Kings of Germany as old as the Flood: and yet before the use of letters, the names and actions of men could scarce be remembred above eighty or an hundred years after their deaths: and therefore I admit no Chronology of things done in Europe, above eighty years before Cadmus brought letters into Europe, none, of things done in Germany, before the rise of the Roman Empire.

Now since Eratosthenes and Apollodorus computed the times by the Reigns of the Kings of Sparta, and (as appears by their Chronology still followed) have made the seventeen Reigns of these Kings in both Races, between the Return of the Heraclides into Peloponnesus and the Battel of Thermopylae, take up 622 years, which is after the rate of 36 1/2 years to a Reign, and yet a Race of seventeen Kings of that length is no where to be met with in all true History, and Kings at a moderate reckoning Reign but 18 or 20 years a-piece one with another: I have stated the time of the return of the Heraclides by the last way of reckoning, placing it about 340 years before the Battel of Thermopylae. And making the Taking of Troy eighty years older than that Return, according to Thucydides, and the Argonautic Expedition a Generation older than the Trojan War, and the Wars of Sesostris in Thrace and death of Ino the daughter of Cadmus a Generation older than that Expedition: I have drawn up the following Chronological Table, so as to make Chronology suit with the Course of Nature, with Astronomy, with Sacred History, with Herodotus the Father of History, and with it self; without the many repugnancies complained of by Plutarch. I do not pretend to be exact to a year: there may be Errors of five or ten years, and sometimes twenty, and not much above.


From: A short chronicle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We all have learned from history who invented the radio and who invented AC electricity right?

The Wright Brothers were the first human beings to fly an aeroplane, right?

Bill Gates invented DOS and Steve Jobs invented the mouse, right?

I even read a few years ago that Iraq attacked the US on 911 and had WMDs.

I'm sure there's always been a Fox News type network that's been writing some of our history. The names and dates may have been changed to protect the agenda.

The name of England's Royal Family is Windsor, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just read about how Rockefeller funded a group of historians to re-write the history of Europe prior to Vesailles.

I am still having a hard time swallowing that the solution to Banks Controlling Everything is to privatize everything, but he makes a strong case for that, that the rise in corporate-banking oligarchy is directly tied to government, period. His statement somewhere in there is that SOME corporations benefit from government, while SOME corporations do free market and also sometimes do form monopolies when that is most beneficial to all, but that fractional-reserve BANKING is always unstable and on the edge of bankruptcy and MUST therefore use government control to survive.
Back to top

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:41 pm    Post subject: ASSUME THE POSITION Reply with quote

I don't know if anyone has seen this show yet. I saw it last year.

It was the catalyst for me - when I first noticed the sand starting to shift, when first I began to allow myself to consider seriously for a moment the implications of "Everything? is bullshit??" Everything??

There was only one episode filmed and I thought it would be the FIRST & LAST because of the way he exposes the bullshit that we now know to be history.

I won't ruin it for anyone who has not seen it but the truths exposed are not earth shattering 'the world really IS FLAT' kind of thing. It is the implication of what is left unsaid about everything else that is ultimately the unique experience of 'the world really IS LYING' that can be painful (even in denial).

There has got to be multiple psyop angles here - just to simply maintain control -- of the message, the medium and the modality.

The control is the illusion of consciousness - all of our shared and individual conscious experiences, from the way each person that watches this show will have a unique perception of what he says - from the angry ignorant ignoramus to the complete dismissal and its forgotten right down to the eventual realignment of beliefs, in order to process, integrate and assimilate what it means to realize how many truths are really lies - very, very well disguised?

Running Time: 28 minutes

In his first project for HBO since the long-running hit comedy series "Arli$$," Robert Wuhl offers his own freewheeling take on history, examining "the stories that made up America and the stories that America made up."

Filmed in front of a classroom of enthusiastic New York University students, the guest "professor" delivers an imaginative, irreverent comedic "lecture" that playfully examines some of the facts, myths, and myths-that-became-facts that have permeated American history.

Mixing current pop culture with historical events, history buff Wuhl explores the legitimacy of some quintessential American icons and exposes some little-known truths.

Wuhl takes his audience on a lighthearted journey to show how legends are created, exploring familiar chapters in America's past that owe more to popular culture than fact.

The man behind "Arlis$" was Mr. Stand Up long before he was double-talking Shaq and getting showered by tickertape in the Canyon of Heroes. Now he's ready to return to the mike and assume certain positions, and in the process he might just be the funniest social studies teacher you'll ever meet...

HBO: So give us a little background on your show - what is "Assume the Position with Mr. Wuhl" about, exactly?

Robert Wuhl: It's basically a monologue that's being done in a classroom, and it's about how pop culture becomes history. By pop culture, I mean whoever the most popular person is at that point in time. People say that life shouldn't be a popularity contest, but life is a popularity contest. And it doesn't make a difference if it's 2005 or 1805. Whoever the most popular person is at that time, they're going to have a lot of weight, whether they're being elected, whether they're being read, whether they're being sought out, whether we emulate them. And what they say and do is going to affect a bunch of other people because the media is printing it and people are listening to them. And that's just the way life is. It doesn't change.

Human behavior doesn't change over the years. People are still doing stuff for the same reasons they did it years ago, which is basically "My God's better than your God." Or "How much is in it for me and uh who's got the hots for you." That's basically where history comes from, those few things.

HBO: What was the genesis behind presenting this in a classroom setting and not a comedy venue?

Robert Wuhl: It was an experiment. [HBO President] Chris Albrecht and I got to talking about how when we were growing up, there was a show called Sunrise Semester. It was on at seven o'clock in the morning and it was a classroom. And we both liked it - we both liked to learn.

I think there's a great thirst for knowledge in society today. I think the younger generations really want to learn. I don't think they want to be bored. I think they want to learn by telling a story that incorporates, encompasses something that they can use practically. Something they can relate to. And I think you can learn and you can entertain at the same time. You try to make it as palatable to people today to make them understand it in their terms. It's like when you hear 10,000 people were killed at an event, you say, well that's a big number. But if you get to know one person and they're killed, that puts a face on it. Well, that's what I try to do with history. So we're gonna kill 10,000 people. [CHUCKLES]

No. I try to make it fun by telling stories and making people understand how pop culture throughout history becomes history.

HBO: So you're both performing and you're teaching. It's kind of like a hybrid?

Robert Wuhl: It's an interesting process because I don't know if I'm actually teaching or if I'm doing a monologue or a one man show, so I call it a docucomadality show. It's a documentary, it's a comedy, it's a reality show. But in a sense I really think that it can redefine the variety show.

I first started putting this together in a comedy club, and then tried it out on students in classrooms - realizing that those are two entirely different audiences. When it comes to a comedy club, first of all, people are drunk; second of all, it's an older audience. Now, when you do this in front of students, which is much more exciting to me, you have to be really honest with them. They're looking to you for the truth. They're looking to you for something interesting. You've got to keep their interest going and that's tough, so you better tell them interesting stories. And they have an amazing bullshit detector. So don't bullshit them.

Teachers are the most under-recognized, under-appreciated, underpaid people, and yet everybody will say the future of our children is education. But look who's on the low rung -- the teachers.

HBO: How did you get started delivering this to students?

Robert Wuhl: I started out by workshopping this at UCLA and USC, just gathering material and telling stories and trying to get students to give me their lunch hour -- so I'd hand out pizza to them. I'd get four of five students. Sometimes only one would show up. Then we decided to come to New York because I love the diversity there.

HBO: How did you find the reaction in a big lecture hall?

Robert Wuhl: Oh it was great, it was terrific. It takes a minute or two for them to get where you're going, because you're changing rhythms on them and you're doing something different. What is he talking about? Why are we here? And part of the charm was seeing the diversity of all these different people, and watching as they all start to get it at the same time. Suddenly they're all laughing at your jokes and they're with you, and they're grasping a concept that they never thought of before -- because it wasn't presented to them like this, so they didn't hear it before.

HBO: How do you go about presenting the material, and what sorts of concepts are behind it?

Robert Wuhl: I've always had a theory that history is basically storytelling, and the key to storytelling is who's telling the story.

That's why in the days of the Indians and the free plains, every time that the Calvary won a battle, the press said it was a 'great military victory.' But if the Indians won, it was a 'massacre.'

Who's telling the story? That's what it came down to. So I try and tell stories and raise these questions.

HBO: Can you think of anyone from history who got a bad lot, or did the good work but didn't get their due?

Robert Wuhl: Oh, there's a lot of them. That's a question I was always asking when I was doing the research for this show. I would ask historians, who deserves better? Arrow (Jerry? Who deserves better?)

Well I don't know if he deserves better, but Benedict Arnold is an interesting story. If you think of his life in terms of today's corporate world, he was basically passed over for promotion about four times. He gets shot in battle and gives up his leg, and then a guy gets promoted over him. And after about the fourth or fifth time, you'd start to say, who else is offering what? I've done all this work for you, I'm not getting the gig here and it doesn't look like you're going to win. So I'm going to go to the other side. Everybody thinks he was hung. He wasn't, he wound up living the life over in Great Britain, and his wife had a lot to do with that. So Benedict Arnold, although there's no way around the fact that he was a traitor, I understand him.

Now, on the other side, you go to England, and George Washington is considered a traitor. Here's an English guy, he's working for the English, and he does a 180. So again, who's telling the story?

Another great story is Marty Glickman, who was a really great radio and TV announcer. But a lot of people don't know that he was on the famous Olympic relay team that went to Berlin in 1936. They pulled him off of the relay team presumably because Jesse Owens had won the day before, and Hitler had been insulted by having a black man win. There was no way they wanted to have a Jew beat them now. That story is a fascinating story. And he went on to become as great a sports announcer as there ever was.

I don't know about anyone else but now - especially after this thread and Fomenko etc. - it ALL sounds like bullshit to me.

More importantly, why do we care? Because we were taught that learning - knowing - MEZMERIZING - memorizing - history was important. So that, we can safely conclude, was just another great way to evolve our minds and the functions it serves to serve us well.

In other words, also bullshit.

But none of this has matterered before, not on the level of consciousness that it appears to have captured.

Yet, it has been there, waiting to be discovered. Waiting for its 15 minutes. Waiting for the right time & place.

The right aspect and intention. The right wave to jump in on and then it becomes part of our consciousness.


Think you know history? (Jerry? May we please see your answers first?)
Test your knowledge with these ten (10) T / F questions:

1. Benedict Arnold was hanged as a traitor.
2. The hymn "Amazing Grace" was written by a former slave trader.
3. The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 was the deadliest fire in U.S. history.
4. The Pony Express went bankrupt after little more than a year of business in 1861.
5. George Washington was the first president of the United States.
6. The earliest globe model was completed in 1492.
7. The Bard, William Shakespeare, was never published during his life.
8. The first Uncle Sam was a meat packer from Troy, New York.
9. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876.
10. Leo Tolstoy said "History is a wonderful thing if only it was true."
Back to top
Hocus Locus

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have a series of concentric orbits to the 'greats' of civilization and person, works for corporate images too
  • the factual, what really happened from a fly-on-the-wall. By gum, they're hard to come by: flies cannot talk, and when they spell things out in the air trying to get peoples' attention, no one bothers to read it. (I do, but am bound by a Nondisclosure Agreement)
  • the actual, as above with a reasonably authentic amount of personal narrative, such as one finds in tell-all autobiography ("This is what happened, here's why I did it."). G. Gordon Liddy's book "Will", Cheney's up-and-coming, etc.
  • the lyrical, how others in the same time perceive, through at-hand knowledge of facts. The stuff "everybody knows" whether they write it down or not. LBJ knew something he wasn't telling, Richard Wagner as opera-writing eccentric kook.
  • the empirical, all the above, as gathered after the fact by honest historians and determined hobbyists, most often family or others with a vested interest and not so much axe to grind.
  • by imperial decree by PR department, Committee, Church, Cloth and King. This is where the most blatant distortions will occur, outright spin; whole branches of common knowledge are pruned. Everything you ever wanted to know about the Church of Scientology, written by the Church of Scientology. The Bible and Bhagavad Gita as It Is, not necessarily the possibly-conflicting originals. The fate of Lot's wife whats-her-name.
  • through distant eyes, as re-cast as often by honest mistake as by spin. George Washington's cannot-tell-a-lie chop down the cherry tree fable was most likely told in his own time with a knowing smile, the kind of thing people would expect 'them' to say, and as to respectful attention to an honest preacher in the pulpit, placed in broader (available) context, things said metaphorically 'to make a point' when you know where they're coming from. But distant eyes may not see the context, and in the history textbook I read in school, Mr. One U.S. Dollar chopped down that cherry tree when he was a boy, straight flat-fact. Not even with a hint to the wise such as "according to a tale circulating around the time of his election..."
  • grist for the bust-mill, where scholars spin someone into a Gallery of Heroes, everything controversial brushed over to concentrate on accomplishments in a discipline or field. The scientific legacy of Tycho Brahe, never mind the nose thing. Great Composers are busted -- Beethoven's stern facial features glaring over the piano at Schroeder's mistakes, though as a person so long ago there might have been some good-natured laughter. Until Victor Borge appeared on the Muppet Show, Beethoven's bust never even spoke. Not since either, I imagine. The statuettes of Grecian sirens, as cooly distant in facial expression as they are limbless today.
The dramatic razor: at any given moment there are more motives in the human condition for glossing and fibbing and dramatising then there are for strict adherence to fact, even when one's language, vocabulary and freedom of expression would allow it. This is because people love to be astonished and interested, and it is a rare writer who could ever hope to keep sentiment out of writing.

For the truth about Richard Wagner and side-splitting laughter besides, try to find My Favorite Intermissions by Victor Borge and Robert Sherman [1971]. So many of my favorite books are out of print, makes me wonder if I'm next...

It's actually a wonder that we know anything for sure at all, considering the temptation to fib. No one should feel faulted or uncomfortable for 'swallowing' something we later learn is the result of an elaborate re-casting. In salient facts of crimes against humanity perpetrated on 'our watch', such unravelings feel shocking, disturbing and alarming. That is healthy because it is s sign we care, and are applying the necessary implications of risk forward to improve our chances for survival.

But back beyond any given historical mile-posts on 'our watch', say 9/11-coup, the founding of banks or the last three generations of Bushes (and we must keep non-celeb family out of it, leave Chelsea and the Twins alone)... history is For Entertainment and Instructional Purposes Only.

It should not shock us so much that sacred screed and historical textbook our children encounter contain, or are distortions and lies. It should only shock us if our children are not sufficiently attuned and empathetic enough to come to us to help put it in proper context. The lack of parent-child empathy, and it's consequence leads to such as the Hitler-Jugend or 'Hitler Youth', a few cases of ratting on parents, a propaganda victory over illaudable parents who shoulda learned 'em better (play it that way we must, the blame game here is bad news).

Or the exploitive state-sanctioned re-write of ancient traditions. For example, Hitler-haters love to paint a somewhat loony 'Brave New World picture' of young girls as baby-factories for the state. An enduring and captivating story because it tickles certain adolescent fantasies that have been known to persist well into adulthood, even beyond. It is sometimes used as a lead-in to 'men in uniform' jokes.

The sentiment of the Reich to re-populate surely existed, so many boys and men had died and were to die, a national priority. In the sex mix, state-sanctioned genocide of person, family and what we know of as personal choice: once it became unlawful for 'non-Jews to have sex with Jews', we know where it is heading -- but how many recognized it at the time? A transparently brutal and opportunist exploitation of old morality plays. As to state-sanctioned tupping, the definition of a family started at around four children, sentiment against the childless-and child-few escalating, by decree; in 1938, the unmarried or childless requested to leave public office (encountered factoid, not yet researched).

Maintaining creative fictions about peoples' motives in history in aggregation is essentially impolite. Sometimes necessary, but one reason I find the Nazi era so fascinating is that we have some real good balanced intel about it.

To any who'd pipe up that Milwaukee Wisconsin was a 'hotbed of Nazi sympathizers' I say sure, it takes only one hot-head to make a hot-bed. But where are we going with this? How many hot-heads are we talking about here...? An excellent opening to point out that so many of the fine war machines that decimated Hitler's rolled out from the Allis Chalmers Factory, a place where (even then) English was a second language to German on the shop floor.

So much for spotting terrorists and devils using accent, beard, turban and soundex match on a no-fly list. Even when there is an excuse for overreaction, there is never a good one for organized full-spectrum harassment. Not in my back yard. Or bund.

From accounts of those who should know, the day to day activities of Hitler's Girls were quite athletic (some remember 'boring') but no less platonic than say, the President's Council on Physical Fitness Program today. The National Sozialistisvche Frauenschaft, a separate organization that provided some wife-prep sentiment was on the surface, no less 'chauvinistic' than the US' Girl Scout Handbooks of the era, and we must not forget that sexist indoctrination is usually mixed in equal measure of catering to actual interest, a take-no-prisoners acknowledgement. Accusations of intent, while not unfounded, can yet be overblown. In a strictly impolite way, since such comic-book interpretations tend to gloss over a great many details that would indicate that true reality was a great deal more interesting and exciting.

This authentic-sounding item provides an interesting corollary to the earthy baby-factory portrayal; for plays that short-circuit traditional morality might not just backfire, they might be recipies for disaster:

On 13th July, 1943, the Nazi Governor of Bavaria, Paul Gisler, who was known as a brutal Nazi, called all the students in Munich to a special rally. In his speech he said that all the male students who could not serve in the army would work in factories. The female students should make their contribution by giving birth for Hitler every year! Gisler went on that the women who were not attractive enough to find a boyfriend could have sex with his body gourds [sic, sick, slapstick], and he promised them "a great time".

The Bavarians are known in their rude sense of humor, but this was too much. All the female students left the hall in protest, and when Gisler ordered his guards to arrest them, the male students rebelled. The nazi student leader was taken as a hostage, and Gisler was thrown out of the room.

I highlight the phrase that "the Bavarians are known in their rude sense of humor" because it is absolutely true. But what we are really witness to here was a situation that at another time in history might have been met with general uproarious laughter in the room, laughter being tonic for those in the company of posturing bullies who cannot affect us.

But so much is implied, and valuable for study, in phrases like "but this was too much." For the Author spells it out cleanly and concisely, so any who might think that obscenity is being touched on here consider a correction. This is about a major watch violation: the sudden shocking realization that something is afoot, even present, that constitutes a grave and immediate threat. A call to action.

What kind of action compelled these young people? Nubile enough to know and recognize the nature of the power play, and intelligent enough to see its implications to events, though they be uncomfortable.

This wasn't enough for the angry students. They ran through the streets of Munich and, for the first and last time in the third Reich, held street demonstrations. The White Rose and other students freely gave out leaflets in the streets calling on German youth to overthrow the regime.

Students wrote "Hitler out!" and "Freedom!" on walls, and swastikas were covered in black spray.

For the first time an open rebellion had broken out against the Nazi regime. White Rose members thought the time was right to press home their revolt. A last leaflet, written by Kurt Huber, was distributed: ‘ “Freedom and honor!” For ten years Hitler and his accomplices have abused, distorted, debased these noble German words... and cast the most precious values of the nation to the swine. During this ten years’ destruction of all material and spiritual values they showed what freedom and honor mean to them. This horrible blood bath which they have caused throughout Europe has opened the eyes of even the most naive and simpleminded German... The name of Germany will be dishonored forever, unless German youth finally rises to smash their tormentors and invoke a new, intellectual and spiritual Europe…. Stalingrad's dead implore us! rise up, my people, the fiery beacons beckon!"

Now Hitler was much more polished than this silly buffoon... he would have not dropped the 'body gourds' shocker. Even the "giving birth for Hitler" is merely impolite and weirdly funny for Hitler to say in a factory-gingerbread men sort of way. Eccentric but not offensive.

If Hitler himself had been addressing the students -- I feel the reaction (among a restrained audience who nevertheless hate the man) would have been contained just some nervous laughter (surprise).

And in the manner of our species' fine and noble intelligence and instinct, into the night one might have heard many a breathless excited female voice shout "Seig Heil!"; for the young are energetic and always at play.

Instead, a devastating, unscripted Intifada of open dissent begins.

Smart kids, those. Some good parents in there too. Too bad it ended badly. Our watch.

Hands-on hands-off parenting, like Scouting, works. It allows empowerment. Merit badges give a feeling of vestment. If done properly, it will teach children how to start fires in the wilderness without the tools of technology, even if all their own parents have to contribute is some dangerously incomplete sentiment like "Never play with matches." In my house the rule is, if you want to play with fire do it while I'm around; if we have wooden floors or drapes or you want to fool with gasoline too, we'll all move onto the porch. If you want to play with electricity, bring me a wooden broom handle first.

Of course they will ask "Why do you need a broom handle?" and you tell them. Now we're getting somewhere, instead of just being stampeded away from stove and wall-socket in fright, like idiotic sheep. Because too many electrons, like anything else, can be a bad thing.

When children hit school age, send them out into the world equipped with a mental wooden broomstick so they can fend off shocking parts of history without getting hurt, even use it to separate their slightly more foolish friends from harm's way. And a supply of well-insulated baggies to drop uncomfortable or confusing data into, which they can carry home and lay out for inspection and discussion.

That is what we should teach our children, nip this True or False? paradigm right in the bud. We will not always be around to tell them the answer and anyway they have no business going through their lives trusting ours or anyone else's, without giving it some thought.

The parallax view to pure jest is, if it is on 'our watch' and is henious and pursuit of truth and justice is vital to survival, leave no stone uncovered, because in time the ebb tide will naturally carry those stones, and what was hidden beneath them, away.

Everything else is fable, pick-and-choose -- like the ancient Code of Hammurabi that found its way onto Moses' stone tablets as Commandments. Mel brooks: "I give you these Fifteen..." CRASH! "Ten! Ten Commandments!". Just 'clean', 'just' rules for civilized living, with a few loony 'Ha ha made you think!' howlers thrown in.

On our way home from Church, the fiery sermon still ringing in our ears, we notice for the first time those lovely, sturdy legs of the neighbour’s wife. Time to borrow some sugar. ;-)

The more you read, the more things you will know.
The more you learn; the more places you'll go!

~Dr. Seuss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus wrote:
The dramatic razor: at any given moment there are more motives in the human condition for glossing and fibbing and dramatising then there are for strict adherence to fact, even when one's language, vocabulary and freedom of expression would allow it. This is because people love to be astonished and interested, and it is a rare writer who could ever hope to keep sentiment out of writing.

At least sentiment reveals bias, whereas the assumed 'non-predudicial' nature of academic writing conditions the student to accept cultural agenda as finding, or fact.

I guess there are two types of literature; Fiction and Less-Fiction.

The legal use of the word 'Fiction', however, is genuinely unreal!

Drew wrote:
There has got to be multiple psyop angles here - just to simply maintain control -- of the message, the medium and the modality.

Yeah. Interesting. Hijack the meme, replace the beef with a lizard substitute.

Let's see if this joker takes on Plato... Wink

Dilbert wrote:
I am still having a hard time swallowing that the solution to Banks Controlling Everything is to privatize everything, but he makes a strong case for that, that the rise in corporate-banking oligarchy is directly tied to government, period. His statement somewhere in there is that SOME corporations benefit from government, while SOME corporations do free market and also sometimes do form monopolies when that is most beneficial to all, but that fractional-reserve BANKING is always unstable and on the edge of bankruptcy and MUST therefore use government control to survive.

The free market economy and the STATE needed each other throughout the 16th - 20th centuries.

That is no longer the case. The commercial mercantile power has emerged as the globally dominant force, and the institution of STATE functions administratively, in a state of permanent bankruptcy.

You can say the STATE is already privately owned, or you can say the STATE is PUBLIC but is being held as collateral on a huge privately owned debt. Commercially, they're the same thing.

Ok, back in the History department, there's been another smack down - poor red faced Plato was seen running off weeping into his robes...

More graphic details...

Page two

Page three

Page four
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timelines - might be helpful - or not:

For 1000 BC to 500 BC:

For 500 BC to 0 AD:

For 0 AD to 500 AD:

For 500 AD to 1000 AD:

For 1000 AD to 1400 AD:

For 1400 AD to 2000 AD:

For Expanded 1920 AD to 2000 AD:

Map of the Roman Empire:

Map of the Ottoman Empire:

Map of the Papal Domination 12th/13th Century:
Back to top
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 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 3 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.