# Concepts for making sense of history



## dreamtime (Jan 5, 2023)

Thread split off from here to have a more general discussion on concepts: Fact and fiction as sources.


The first step, I suggest, to understand written history before 1800 is to primarily focus on the metadata of written sources and the historical pattern that emerges from them. These patterns reveal the intention of those who shaped our view of history. They are harder to manipulate than the contents of the works.

Regarding the forum, analyzing things that happened in the last 200-250 years should be prioritized, as sources become less and more difficult to verify the more you go back. This means throwing out a lot of concepts that one has about how the world works. When we have clues that Napoleon was involved with the pyramids and other aspects of Egypt, the question of ancient high-tech civs building the pyramids loses some of it's importance, as there's almost no practical relevance. The forces that made Napoleon possible still exist, and challenging their power by focusing on Napoleon instead of a theoretical ancient civilization can enlighten other areas of recent history as well.

The time between ca 1800 and 1900 is the golden thread that can guide is to more older events over time. Assumptions of the time before this need to be put aside temporarily, until things are clearer.
---​
Expanding on this - Beyond the complexity of written history (translations, language, change of meaning and words, mistakes, forgeries, omissions, additions, outright lies, subtle unconscious changes due to personal interests, destruction of entire libraries and even entire nations), and the impossibility of seeing anything clearly in the fog that is our history before 1500 AD, not knowing history creates practical problems. Daily life is to a large extent dependent on the official view of history.

First, academia is a modern invention. The primary principle of modern historiography since the time of the enlightenment (kickstarted by our friendly and benevolent secret societies) is to question everything and slowly come to a consensus over time, which is to be questioned as well. There is no foundation at all here where you can build something on that will still last in 500 years.

The modern university system is producing mostly garbage, and now an acknowledged problem in science is that 99% of the papers are useless, because they are only published for personal gain. This is the poisonous fruit of the scientific revolution and "Age of Enlightenment". It proves that the system was garbage from the start.

In our system, if you know the truth, the biggest material reward is received by keeping it to yourself, and the worst thing you can do is to share it. Humans as a whole are self-serving egotists nowadays, and this is incompatible with truth.

The society we live in has been influenced by what is considered official history, most of which only got established during the last 200-400 years with the birth of modern university-based academia. This went in parallel with the creation of modern nation states.

Our history before 1800 or so is confusing for a reason, but this reason can not be deducted from the written sources, but only from the context in which they are placed. The meta-layer of history is more important than it's contents, and it's also easier to analyze.

The contemporary mass surveillance system does not care about contents - it is built on collecting metadata instead. This metadata is sufficient to control entire societies.

Metadata is the first thing to look at when understanding a system and patterns. The history forgers were able to produce a large amount of garbage and dilluted the pool of books speaking the truth, but they were not able to completely hide the metadata trail they left behind.

Written history to me is not much more than a game someone wanted us to play. Once you analyze historical literary works and ignore meta-patterns, you play according to the rules of the "man behind the curtain".

Written records and human nature do not go together. In our past, if there was a time where humans were not as degenerated as today, but were actually good in their hearts, they probably did not base their entire life upon a system of scholars writting things.

And even the official history acknowledges that many "primitive" natives shared and kept their history orally, and this was also the case in ancient civilizations. This history was kept via reciting stories. You can burn libraries without destroying an entire people, but the invaders (Imperialism) had to murder the entire native populace to destroy their history.

History was rooted within their very being. This is the only way for the past to have a foundation in the present. Written words are already a sign of collective degeneration and idiocy.

History contains enough clues to suggest that the forces at play largely did not have our best interests in mind.

Creating endless numbers of written works is a crutch when a society falls from a higher state, and doesn't have a good system to conserve knowledge, practical and theoretical, between two generations. Schools are largely focused on making pupils memorize things. But even complex systems of knowledge like architecture can move between generations without books if the teacher and pupil have enough awareness and intelligence. It's simply a question of how communities are organized. Books outsource knowledge when the human brain can not hold all the information. But brain function is only limited by our environment.

Without stories, we are nothing. Does a story need to be true to be valuable? Maybe the intention of those who tell the story is more important. Everything that is not a dry fact has now been moved to the place of myth and fairy tales. Maybe this was intended. Without myth and tales instilling wonder and excitement, what meaning is left in our world? The last system of thought that had a higher and coherent meaning was ancient religion, and religion is dead, partly because some wanted to see it dead. We know that magic was once considered real, but now people watch fantasy movies where magic is nothing more than fiction. This suggests humans fell from a higher state of being with more knowledge and awareness about the world we live in. The desire for fantasy stories suggests to me that truth and meaning can never disappear, it can only be hidden and suppressed. Until it is allowed to resurface again. It is certainly possible that humanity has a collective memory, one way or another, even of specific events. The Kali Yuga may be comparable to collective blunt trauma creating amnesia.

The idea that "revival architecture" buildings are older created a massive reasonance, and there is meaning in this resonance. This meaning can lead us to understand the past, beyond mere facts. No matter what's up with this architecture, _something_ doesn't add up here with the official story. Even if someone doesn't see anything wrong with the context of this architecture, there was a massive break in our history starting with the first world war, and this was reflected in the architecture. The architecture at the very least represents something that certain forces want to see hidden.

So what do we have left to understand our place in the world in a more analytical way?

I guess starting from reasonable assumptions is a good idea, and often those assumptions go directly against what the official narrative says:

- Humans are naturally good vs. humans are bad and need to be put in place by rules
- Our past was glorious vs. our past was mostly a struggle to reach the utipia that is modernity
- The world is a benevolent place vs. The world wants to kill you (terrain theory vs. germ theory)
- The world was created with an idea/plan vs. the universe came into being by chance and there is nothing beyond the material world

Then one can look for clues in official history to find support for those assumptions.

There seem to be forces in this world that made sure that all the people who are comitted to living according to the first assumptions slowly die out. Without living examples of a different tradition than the system of western history, it's difficult to find the truth beyond general concepts.

When you look at the history of medicine, all the ideas that assume that our world is a place of coherence, beauty and higher meaning, got replaced with dead assumptions of genetic determinism and the germ theory, among other things. The reason we can still know that there are two factions in medicine fighting with each other is that this war only eneded during the last 100 years. Future generations probably will never know about the details, and only learn the version of history desired by those in power.

There is a common theme running throughout history - the self-serving forces win over those forces that fight for good and truth. One can ask why this is the case.

Understanding history can only work in the right context of people coming together for the right cause. Thats why the forces in power have destroyed this "context" (the people, communities, socieites) over the span of many centuries.

As I see it, people like us are the seeds that remain, once the earth is ready again for truth.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 5, 2023)

dreamtime said:


> The first step, I suggest, to understand written history before 1800 is to primarily focus on the *metadata *of written sources and the historical pattern that emerges from them. These patterns reveal the intention of those who shaped our view of history. They are harder to manipulate than the contents of the works.





dreamtime said:


> Our history before 1800 or so is confusing for a reason, but this reason can not be deducted from the written sources, but only from the context in which they are placed. The *meta-layer* of history is more important than it's contents, and it's also easier to analyze.





dreamtime said:


> The contemporary mass surveillance system does not care about contents - it is built on collecting *metadata *instead. This *metadata *is sufficient to control entire societies.





dreamtime said:


> *Metadata *is the first thing to look at when understanding a system and patterns. The history forgers were able to produce a large amount of garbage and dilluted the pool of books speaking the truth, but they were not able to completely hide the *metadata *trail they left behind.





dreamtime said:


> Written history to me is not much more than a game someone wanted us to play. Once you analyze historical literary works and ignore *meta-patterns*, you play according to the rules of the "man behind the curtain".


Sorry if I ask but what are these metadata, metalayers and metapatterns? And what objective methods do you apply to recognise them?


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 6, 2023)

Silveryou said:


> Sorry if I ask but what are these metadata, metalayers and metapatterns? And what objective methods do you apply to recognise them?



Looking at the authors who published the works, the institutions they worked for, and the overall direction the official history went over the last couple thousand years. Studying how historians work, and how the view of history changed at what time. Looking at the frequency and number of works published throughout history. Studying the overall worldviews and conclusions of authors and looking what they had to gain or lose by publishing them. Generally: Looking at the bigger picture.

I don't do it in a systematic way, but I try to look for those connections.

One example is what I mentioned - the modern university system produces so many useless papers that this "meta" information is more interesting than the papers themselves.

On the wikipedia page about Historiography I found this quote regarding the French Revolution:



> The historians of the nineteenth century worked under the pressure of two internal tensions: on one side there was the constant demand of society—whether through the nationstate, the church, or some special group or class interest—for memory mixed with myth, for the historical tale that would strengthen group loyalties or confirm national pride; and against this there were the demands of critical method, and even, after a time, the goal of writing "scientific" history.



This tells me that at this time the entire idea what history meant changed in such a dramatic way that understanding previous works may be sometimes be almost impossible for someone trained with a "scientific" mindset. "Memory mixed with myth" is an interesting notion.

One question then is why do we have pretty rational and scientific works that are said to be from 500 years ago, for example about the invention of the printing press, even though these works represent more the mindset of, let's say, 1700 or 1800, and not 1500. Who was interested in publishing dry facts in 1500, when no one cared about them? With this assumption, one can look for patterns.

Like someone said - no one had an interest in writing true history before 1800. Thus, just taking the overall conclusion of the work and then looking at who published it, is pretty revealing already.

Understanding why and how the "critical method" and scientific history developed would be part of that approach. There are probably several books written on this time and how the method developed. It seems this method eliminated "memory mixed with myth" from history, which is an entirely different view on the past.

I don't think one should never look at contents of works, but they should primarily be judged in the greater context. Those in power throughout history have created their own context as it served them, and often people use it without being aware.

99.9% of recent university studies are useless without knowing how the system works. There's a study for every claim you want to find.

Some doctors who worked with hypotheses that went against the medical establishment described the peer-review system as useless and noted a lack of empiricism in medicine. If you discover that vitamin C heals cancer in many cases, the establishment will flood you with peer-reviewed studies that show the opposite. What matters here is the intention, and many people are blind to see that. They will try to read all studies on vitamin C and compare arguments, without knowing that this is already the game the medical establishment wants you to play.

Censorship and gatekeeping is everywhere. Good luck trying to get the truth into mainstream newspapers or publishing houses or TV.

It's apparent that those who have something to hide use complexity to confuse. Modern democracies are complex to hide those who are in power behind politicians.

Why would this behavior by people in power be different 300 or 500 years ago? Especially considering that publishing books was a monopoly of those in power for a long time.

That's why I say one needs to start with a new holistic, intuitive context or assumption about our history and then look for specific facts to support them. This is completely opposite what we are told how science works. They say you need to start with the facts and then form an assumption, ignoring intuition and perception. This can only lead to confusion in a world where personal interests are more important than the truth. As you mentioned, Fomenko took apart history and with this rational scientific mindset created a new russia-centric concept with probably new errors.Often, historians hide that they start with an assumption and conceal it. It would be better to say is "This is what I believe and perceive, and here's why". Then we would focus more on the intention of historians, and less on rational facts.

The truth is always simple. William Blake wrote "As the true method of knowledge is experiment, the true faculty of knowing must be the faculty which experiences." And Raymond Peat writes: "In a world that’s alive and developing, new knowledge is always possible, and imagination has the prophetic function of reporting the trends and processes of development, illuminating the paths toward the future. Reason is subordinate to invention and discovery." as well as "Avoiding unnecessarily limiting assumptions, looking for patterns rather than randomness, looking for larger patterns rather than minimal forms, avoiding reliance on verbal and symbolic formulations, expecting the future to be different—these are abstract ways of formulating the idea that the world should be seen with sympathetic involvement, rather than with analytical coldness."

In light of this greater context of how a large part of human abilities of perceiving reality has been suppressed from science, what does it mean to have "objective methods"?


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 6, 2023)

dreamtime said:


> Looking at the authors who published the works, the institutions they worked for, and the overall direction the official history went over the last couple thousand years. Studying how historians work, and how the view of history changed at what time. Looking at the frequency and number of works published throughout history. Studying the overall worldviews and conclusions of authors and looking what they had to gain or lose by publishing them. Generally: Looking at the bigger picture.
> 
> I don't do it in a systematic way, but I try to look for those connections.
> 
> ...


Your answers are too long. It always seems as if you're doing on purpose to start a debate but then you never answer to eventual answers given.

So long story short. Who said the classic authors were fake? The Jesuit Jean Hardouin. Now I would like you to address this issue and start revisiting all the past posotions you had on this single fact. Good luck!

I still don't get what you mean with 'meta'. There's no meta.

What we have at our disposal are primary sources and archaeological methods to find and date things written in those sources. The reason why recentism exists and influenced this forum and the youtubers like Syilvie Ivanova is to make sense of those aspects of history which have no sense according to some peculiar sensibilities.
Velikovsky wanted to make sense to Jewish history of the Old Testament, Fomenko wants to make justice of the Russians and their supposed backwardness... and you want to show how the Germans didn't go around half-naked, right?
Well, it was Jean Hardouin the Jesuit, once again, who for the first time said Tacitus was an invention. So how do you fair with these news? Are Jesuits all of a sudden your favs? Or is Hardouin a special exception?

You see, it's this kind of reasonings that transform this forum in utter shit, with people pointing at biographies of authors to reject their entire work.
Hardouin a Jesuit? Fraud. Johnny the Jew? Fraud. Tom the Russian? Fraud.
You're not going anywhere with this 'method'.

So I asked about objectivity because I follow Fomenko who's key of interpretation is statistics and Heinsohn who uses stratigraphy.
But you guys will go on saying that those methods are not valid, so here we go again with the usual delusion.

So to do a quick summary of the general thoughts coming out of this pastiche called stolenmetahistory:

sources are fake
methods to evaluate sources are not valid
every author of the past id flawed
BUT

here on stolenmetahistory we do things in the right way
...... mmmmmmh I have my doubts.


----------



## Jef Demolder (Jan 6, 2023)

*dreamtime note:* Copied for context from Fact and fiction as sources.


I would like to add three things to this interesting discussion.

1. When someone tells me nonsense about Malawi, I can always travel to Malawi. When someone tells me nonsense about Julius Caesar, it is not possible to take a camera crew and travel back to Alexandria for an interview with Cleopatra. Empirical verification of pretended historical truths is impossible. And that it is the simple reason why it is so easy to create false history. Nobody will ever be able to verify. Moreover, the more you expect history books to contain historical truths, the easier it is to cheat you. For you are using the modern concept of truth, believing that truth is a property of statements, and that history books contain such statements. The whole falsification of history is modern, because the falsification is built on the modern concept of truth.

2. Fourty years ago, when I was young, I worked on a doctoral thesis about De Civitate Dei (The City of God), a big work of Augustine of Hippo, written by him between 412 and 427, according to official history. I discovered that "Augustine" was a conglomerate of different authors, that sources created by this authors were invented by them, that the historical circumstances of the work were inconsistent, and that the supposed historical background (the Theodosian Roman empire with Christianity as state religion) referred to concepts of politics and religion that only existed from the 16th century on. Of course this kind of results were not acceptable at my respectable University and finally I abandoned. Now the curious thing is that some academics clearly KNEW that Augustine is modern. Someone congratulated me for discovering it all on my own. Someone else pointed to Jean Hardouin (already mentioned above) who became completely sceptical on all ancient writings while studying the writings of Saint Augustine. I spoke to a very learned man who even had published on medieval falsifications of Augustine, and he was full comprehension, but said that I could not make it to write such things about De Civitate Dei. Since the beginning of modern times, there has always existed an academic subculture and tradition of people who knew. But on the stage, there is the play.

3. Nevertheless, ancient writings give ample opportunity to discover the truth. Not the "historical truth" different from what is told in the history books, but the truth ABOUT THE MAKERS of history. Once you discover that history is perpetrated, the perspective changes and you become a detective doing policy work. This ancient manuscripts /  early prints EXIST. One or more persons have perpetrated this acts. Who did it? Did they leave traces? (There are ALWAYS traces). What is the scope and coherence of the acts? What were the ciricumstances? What were the motives? And finally, what is the qualification of this acts (as such, writing fiction is not a crime). MANY things can be discovered this way, beyond usual history, and even beyond usual physics.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 6, 2023)

So we finally have an answer to my question of what is the 'meta'.

And it comes out it is supposedly the history of those who write history. And this connects well with all the conspiracy theories talking about litterally nothing like the PTTTPPBBBTPTB, the Nazeeeeees, the Vatikhan, the Jewsuits, the Jeeeews and so on...
A self taught answer already known that leads to absolutely nothing and has the only result in an actual massive cancelation of history, since sources are just a mean for something else.

None of you are going to find anything unless you are part of the same race, social group, religion etc.

Every single group will chose their own enemy responsible for the supposed deceit and in the end you are going to fight one another as to who is the enemy, unless it was already decided beforhand, which negates the entire 'search' in the first place.

What truth is necessary to find when you already have in your pockets?

Good luck stolenmetahistory with this psycho-philosophical lame approach. It seems you have found your manifesto in the end.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 6, 2023)

Silveryou said:


> You're missing the point here though. There's tons of material sources about the war, so I posted just a few authors who interpret data to build up a story. We may say that story is not 100% correct, it's maybe let's say 70% correct worst case scenario, but how is it possible to say it never happenned? It's a leap of faith way bigger than saying it is incorrectly described.
> 
> 
> Your answers are too long. It always seems as if you're doing on purpose to start a debate but then you never answer to eventual answers given.
> ...



Your many factual contributions are really valuable here when you are not busy attacking others with sarcastic remarks or venting about how the forum is shit.

You don't like that I generalize while ignoring your specific facts and conclusions. I have a holistic view of things and I always looked for the greater picture. I can't change who I am, and I think there's enough room in this forum for others with different views to have their discussions.

I never claimed anything you just said in your post. Not a single thing. I offered a different way to look at history in order to not get lost with specifics, which does not invalidate any author, method or whatever in a concrete way.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 6, 2023)

dreamtime said:


> Your many factual contributions are really valuable here when you don't attack others or vent about how the forum is shit.
> 
> You don't like that I generalize while ignoring your specific facts and conclusions. I have a holistic view of things and I always looked for the greater picture. I can't change who I am, and I think there's enough room in this forum for others with different views to have their discussions.
> 
> I never claimed anything you just said in your last post. Not a single thing. I offered a different way to look at history in order to not get lost with specifics, which does not invalidate any author, method or whatever in a concrete way.


You are not going to find any bigger picture because you already have it. And this is true for all the psychophilosophists here on the forum.

Soon you will fight each other on whose d**k is bigger, the German or the American? I already laugh at you losing yourself behind this stupidity.


----------



## trismegistus (Jan 6, 2023)

Silveryou said:


> So we finally have an answer to my question of what is the 'meta'.
> 
> And it comes out it is supposedly the history of those who write history. And this connects well with all the conspiracy theories talking about litterally nothing like the PTTTPPBBBTPTB, the Nazeeeeees, the Vatikhan, the Jewsuits, the Jeeeews and so on...
> A self taught answer already known that leads to absolutely nothing and has the only result in an actual massive cancelation of history, since sources are just a mean for something else.



Feel free to blast me for my ignorance if I am off base here - but wouldn't Fomenko's recentism also qualify as a meta-historical theory in some ways?  One of the ways that Fomenko builds his argument for invented time is to pick apart the historical narrative as printed by those like Scalinger, among others.  I understand that this is not the _only_ basis of his argument, but would it be safe to say that in order to tear down any established academic narrative you must examine the perspective of those who have written the books?


----------



## RedNeckGoober (Saturday at 1:17 AM)

Silveryou said:


> So we finally have an answer to my question of what is the 'meta'.
> 
> And it comes out it is supposedly the history of those who write history. And this connects well with all the conspiracy theories talking about litterally nothing like the PTTTPPBBBTPTB, the Nazeeeeees, the Vatikhan, the Jewsuits, the Jeeeews and so on...
> A self taught answer already known that leads to absolutely nothing and has the only result in an actual massive cancelation of history, since sources are just a mean for something else.
> ...


I've been lurking here for a long, long time. Simply put, the 'meta' can be loosely viewed as 'provenance'. In the case of history, it is data that refers to the structure of a narrative and not the narrative itself. It's what allows a forensic analyst the ability to piece together information to form a reasonable hypothesis of something when the actual data is unavailable. This is one of the many methodologies that can be used instead of looking it up on Wikipedia and reading their BS that comes along with the implied 'trust me bro'.


----------



## dreamtime (Saturday at 3:55 PM)

Here's a summary by Christoph Pfister about Fomenkos work, from Pfister's 2013 book. Ignore the two first very long quotes if you simply want to have a summary.

This approach is included in what I mean when I said the works of the past should be looked at without focusing too much on the contents (historians usually ask whether something really happened, or did not happen, by looking at the contents comparing it with archeological data. I don't think that works out often). Instead, you look at structures and patterns, which Fomenko did.



> The Analytical Approach of Fomenko
> 
> Although Russia had to suffer under a totalitarian system for most of the 20th century, a historical-critical approach was able to survive from the time before 1914 until after 1990. Around 1900, the chemist and historian Nikolay Morozov (1854 - 1946) began a comprehensive analysis of the origins of Christianity and unmasked its history "up to the 5th century AD" as a forgery.
> 
> ...



Compare this with Pfister's own approach:



> Own methods and approaches
> 
> For decades the author had vague doubts about older history. - About fifteen years ago these reservations condensed and finally resulted in a universal critique of history and chronology. However, the path to present-day clarity was not always smooth and straightforward. - The author only gradually became acquainted with the few critical voices on older history. It took even longer to find useful methodological approaches. And only at last an overall view of the subject matured. After that the history is to be divided into history and prehistory.
> 
> ...



Pfister suggest to divide history into "history" and "pre-history", and a gray area in between, when pre-history turned into history. He suggests everything before roughly 1700 is pre-history, and thus completely in the dark. When you delve into "pre-history" with the desire to find anything factual, you are already lost in their matrix.

Rather, one can take events and use them in a metaphorical way, or symbolical way. The Migration Period for Pfister is the "Roman-Germanic-Hebrew striving for superimposing the west and south of Europe", which failed. So, "the Germanic striving for superimposition has failed in the mentioned countries. In the process, the authoritarian late Roman Empire also seems to have broken apart."

I like the following thought by Pfister:

_"The problem of Pompeii is to be seen - as with Fomenko - in a certain sense as the key to an approximate dating of the beginning of history.  (...) In terms of scope, the old stories are manageable and the underlying blueprint - the matrix, in fact - is clear to see. But the more one goes into detail, the greater the variety becomes. It takes a certain discipline to keep track of it all. The old story resembles a kaleidoscope, which shows new references, allusions, transformations and conundrums with every movement. One can compare this fact with the puzzle pictures of the Dutchman M.C. Escher: If one looks closely at such a superficially coherent picture, one is caught unawares from one level into another, and a group of forms suddenly shows other figures when one looks closer or further. (...) The task set is large. It would require to look at all old sources again and to analyze them. This is far beyond the capabilities of any one person. But one need not despair of the abundance of material. A combined method gives enough insight. Certain topics are treated only in broad outlines, others are dealt with in detail."_​

First, Pompeii is a good starting point for the move from "prehistory" to "history".

Second, the warning that the closer you look at the ancient history, the easier it is to forget the larger context, or "underlying blueprint", or "matrix" of the official narrative. Official history is myopic.

Third, analyzing sources of ancient history in a meaningful way is beyond the capabilities of any one person. Fomenko's abilities are rare. One needs to analyze massive amounts of data.

What follows is Pfisters conclusions:



> It turned out that today's occidental building culture, the emergence of today's "medieval" cities, date back less than three hundred years before today. Three hundred years before today - according to today's linguistic usage "at the beginning of the 18th century" - a culture still prevailed in Europe which can be called Roman or rather late Roman. In a political sense, too, there seems to have been a late Roman Empire. In this, however, the political center of power shifted from Gaul to Germania. This authoritarian late Roman empire was already Christian, or rather ancient Christian.
> 
> In Germania, the new cult language of Hebrew developed. Together, as Hebrews and Germanic peoples, this empire attempted to colonize the old provinces, that is, Britain, Gaul, Iberia, Italy and even North Africa. The Roman-Germanic-Hebrew striving for overlaying the west and south of Europe has registered in historiography under the not very accurate term migration of peoples (Migration Period). The Germanic striving for overlapping failed in the mentioned countries. In the process, the authoritarian late Roman Empire also seems to have broken apart. The collapse of the late Roman Empire was a fact. However, it cannot be said what the causes were. Natural disasters, epidemics, political, economic and cultural factors are mentioned as triggers. The breakup of the old Roman power created the basis for a new "medieval" or modern culture.
> 
> ...



The speed of Western Development is a mystery. Why did colonialism and imperialism emerge in Europe? Everything came from Europe, including mass printing of books.

Relevant to our discussion are the last paragraphs:

_"My detailed investigations also made it possible to determine more precisely the beginning of the written tradition. This seems to have begun sometime in the 1730s or 1740s - at the same time as the creation of today's Anno Domini year count with four-digit numbers. Logically, the biblical writings, the Church Fathers, and the classical Greco-Latin authors came first. Because these do not know yet AD year counting. Immediately afterwards, the other medieval writings and chronicles came into being, then the Reformation works of faith, finally the rest of the profane tradition with deeds, council manuscripts, accounts, urbaria and the other literary and pseudo-historical works. _​​_The written tradition itself was arranged according to a matrix, that is, according to precisely prescribed blueprints. That is why this tradition seems so homogeneous and coherent. But in the first forty or fifty years of writing this tradition is a literary invention of history with only few and blurred historical contents. One can put it more simply: In perhaps the first two generations of written records, stories, not history, were written. No amount of effort or scholarship can reconstruct a history that is incorrectly documented."_​
Pfister places the beginning of writing in the modern sense to the 18th century, which means the forgeries also happened during that time, but were backdated.

Whether it happened in the 18th, 17th, or 16th century - a "cutural break" some time between 1500 and 1700 has made it necessary for history to be written and created in a way that did not exist previously.

If we look at it holistically, it does not matter much whether the beginning of the modern culture happened in 1600 or 1700 (although knowing it more clearly would be helpful), more important is the sequence of events. Before 1700, events are symbolic to me, they are images filled with a new meaning, not actual history. This also includes the Thirty-Years war.

Bottom line is - if you are interested in reading historical sources to understand what actually happened in our past, I would go no further back then around 1700-1800. Everything else is only meaningful in the way Fomenko or Pfister look for patterns between works, to deconstruct the official narrative.

The ancient history Fomenko analyzes is comparable to a dream, or a myth or fable. Fomenko shows that the stories of ancient history were created using a mathematical matrix or blueprint, which suggests that the contents are artificial as well. Thus, they are illusionary, and can be disregarded. This does not disregard the Bible entirely, as the Bible is a product of a war between Catholics and Protestants that only happened very recently. Likely, a lot of truth remained, albeit in a cryptic form.

Quote from Pfister:

_A particular strength of Fomenko's major work is his numerous tables illustrating the parallelisms between rulers and dynasties. A large part of his persuasive work is done by that author through the graphs. *Above all, Fomenko recognizes that the Bible is the most important textbook for the matrix.* *In other words, all other important templates for the invention of history are also found in the historical books of the Old Testament*. For example, the partial kingdom of Israel is reflected in the late Roman Empire (Figure 3). Or the partial kingdom of Judah represents an exact mirror image of the Roman-German Empire of the High Middle Ages._​
With Fomenko seeing the Bible as the most important foundation for the invention of history, this beautifully validates Pfister's timeline: The forgeries of antiquity did not happen before the war over the spiritual tradition (Bible/Christianity) in Europe. Thus the forgeries have to be from a time after the "Thirty-Years War" (whatever that was) and the split between Protestantism and Catholicism (whenever that was). At least, according to Pfister, the Bible and the works of "antiquity" were written at the same time, because the latter reference the former.

This could suggest that the Bible is more or less the original template, and thus the least manipulated work.

@Jd755 @trismegistus

Regarding chinese history, this seems to be a strategy of confusion. It mirrors the European history roughly, but often earlier (So, Gutenberg Didn’t Actually Invent Printing As We Know It). But this kind of dualism in history is helpful to cement the status quo - Who can make sense of history when there's so much evidence for things to appear roughly the same time in so many places. It creates the impression that we are looking at an organic development, not an artificial matrix.

The Chinese receive pride, and the Europeans a more sophisticated historical narrative, everyone is happy.

Imho, Gutenberg is the key person in the history narrative to dissect. Pfister thinks Gutenberg need to be put into the 18th Century, and mentions that Fomenko already mentioned that the oldest printed books were backdated:



> The art of printing itself came into being when the manuscripts preserved today also appeared. And all printing data before the second half of the 18th century and even partly after that are backdated. Already Fomenko considered the older printed works to be wrongly dated (Fomenko: History, vol. 1, 355 ff.).
> 
> As is well known, a man named Gutenberg is said to have invented the black art "between 1450 and 1460". And as the first work he printed the Holy Scriptures - of course completely, with the verse division usual today and in the canonical series of the Scriptures, which was fixed only at the Council of Trent. From this the Gutenberg aporia can be formulated. (...) The Gutenberg Bibles, as the first products of the new art, show a perfection that is impossible for a technical process that has just been invented. - We face here, as in many other technical and literary areas of invented history, the paradox of initial completion.



I don't know whether the following is actually true, but the above article says:

_Indeed, the entire history of the printing press is riddled with gaps. Gutenberg did not tell his own story in documents created on the printing presses he built; to the best of modern knowledge, *he did not leave any notes on his work at all.*_​


trismegistus said:


> Traditional Chinese movable type printing



A comment under the lithub article mentions that the Chinese language does not work well with movable printing presses, as you have way too many characters for it to work out in practice. I don't think China is of great importance when it comes to the history of the printing press, as the official narrative and the mass-production of copied documents began in Europe with Gutenberg. If the old world was connected worldwide, as many here think, it is natural that the same technology can be found in many places, but some things can also simply be forgeries or lies.

Gutenberg could be a metaphor or symbol for a group that worked tirelessly to turn the well-known process of "printing" into industrial and automated book-production, by inventing a printing press that has a high output. Producing endless amounts of books in a short time is the requirement for the manipulation of the masses via writings.

As Wiki notes:



> The arrival of mechanical movable type printing in Europe in the Renaissance introduced the era of mass communication, which permanently altered the structure of society



And:



> As a result, Venzke describes the inauguration of the Renaissance, Reformation and humanist movement as "unthinkable" without Gutenberg's influence.[53]



It is the result that matters to me to understand the underlying intention: Industrial mass-production of anything, including books, was not necessary in the old world, it seems. The result (altering the structure of society) could have been the actual motivation.

We know (according to the official narrative, as always) that normal printing was in use for hundreds of years. What "Gutenberg" did was that he perfected the process so the semi-automated process of producing and copying large amounts of books were made possible.

There are two possibilities: Either this invention was an accident, and the humanist forgers simply seized upon this invention, or the latter group actually promoted the invention. If that's true, then the group that was opposed to mass-printing would probably be omitted from history.



Udjat said:


> It is evident that the written word, or word that could be reproduced on a mass scale seems to direct the masses on which way to go or what to believe. It is almost scary!!



Also fascinating how the written word itself was not a big danger to society, as long as it could not be mass-produced. So beliefs had to travel via people, which means evil people could not brainwash large masses of people at once. Claims and concepts were filtered through people and stopped in it's tracks.

Mass printing is similar to the internet - it results in some kind of inflation of the written word. Book printing is the first requirement to "synchronyze" the activity and thoughts of humans and create a collective hive-mind, and destroy a world where everyone has their own way of life and rules and view of things. This got perfected by the radio and TV, and with any such invention, humanity continues to lose some of it's individuality.


----------



## ViniB (Saturday at 5:40 PM)

dreamtime said:


> Here's a summary by Christoph Pfister about Fomenkos work, from Pfister's 2013 book. Ignore the two first very long quotes if you simply want to have a summary.
> 
> This approach is included in what I mean when I said the works of the past should be looked at without focusing too much on the contents (historians usually ask whether something really happened, or did not happen, by looking at the contents comparing it with archeological data. I don't think that works out often). Instead, you look at structures and patterns, which Fomenko did.
> 
> ...


Appart from the braingasm i had reading this entire reasoning, it clicked in my head a screenshot of a book about historical forgeries that i need to find and share

Edit: found the screenshot, pretty telling to me. And i'll ho beyond and say that if paintings of fake people were made, why not coins to fully cement the narrative?


----------



## trismegistus (Saturday at 6:44 PM)

dreamtime said:


> It is the result that matters to me to understand the underlying intention: Industrial mass-production of anything, including books, was not necessary in the old world, it seems. The result (altering the structure of society) could have been the actual motivation.



Not to bring everything back to the pyramids again, but I had a thought about this.  If we take the narrative for granted that some civilization in the past had the superior technology to construct the pyramids - they absolutely had the means and the intelligence to also produce the printing press.  They certainly had presses - as that is how papyrus was allegedly created.  They had their own means of writing characters (hieroglyphs), which means they could have theoretically developed a movable type to add to the presses they were already using for papyrus.  So the question is - why didn't they?

Some speculations:

Reading was only for the privileged, and they did not want the plebs having easy access to the written word, outside of the interpretations of the higher elite.
Hieroglyphs were reserved exclusively for ceremonial or decorative purposes, not for consumption of information
Hieroglyphs have nothing to do with the pyramid structures, and were a later invention used to "color" a picture of a civilization that may or may not have existed or had anything to do with the construction of megaliths.


----------



## alltheleaves (Monday at 2:32 AM)

Christoph Pfister's web site in 56-page 22mb pdf form.

The Matrix of Ancient History



> Our past is divided into two parts: history and prehistory. We know the former, the second we think we know. But what is ancient history called? The Bible, the Greeks, the Romans, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the modern age, are all myths and legends, written from a certain time afterwards - a textbook, a matrix. Nobody can stop the realization that world history with its contents and dates become credible only towards the end of the 18th century. This book examines all the important aspects of the new and fascinating theme of the critique of history and chronology.


----------

