Controlling the Narrative: Mainstream Reception of Stolen History Topics

[Gladius]

Important cautions here. Yes, the tactic is to insert a dialectic and then to simply suck all the energy from the inquiry. Anyone disparaging of curiosity MUST be approached with reservation. Authenticity = first step to true knowledge. regards Goddo F

Yes, they throw the hot ball then cool it off quickly before it starts to burn anyone.

I think we suffer from a symptom of globalization, that we actually care what the 'world citizens' think. Here lies the thing - they do not even think. Their opinions and views have no influence as they're 99% controlled from above, i.e mainstream and controlled opposition. There's a small minority that genuinely comes up with a worldview they had constructed themselves, and they're relatively easy to spot when you meet one in person or online.

So the media, and 'influencers', can mock whatever subjects they choose, it's of no concern to me. They do not research or even question reality, so they're not equal to us in this field. Imagine a very weak person entering a gym, telling people that weights are bad. After being ignored, he submits a story to the news, and they run a story about why you shouldn't exercise. Is any of the gym goers going to change because of it? Of course not. He's aware of his progress and wellbeing due to exercise, and he will keep setting the example for others. He won't even bother to 'defend his honor'.

So you see, in my eyes, the problems of official history are a fact, not some open discussion. The details are debatable, yes, but there's nothing in this world that would restore my trust in official history. What's the point to even discuss or defend it in front of people who don't challenge their mental boundries? Even if we convinced them, it will not be genuine: they'd just be mindlessly repeating new keywords, and won't contribute to the research.
We mainly need contributors, people who can work more angles, or analyze and confirm/dispute other people's angles.
Getting mainstream "recognition" will only draw drones and bots. Maybe it's good that the media is mocking the subject.
We're all very aware of how fragile our knowledge is: there are enough forgeries, traps, psyops, rabbit holes, shills and mindtricks. With so many distractions, I'd do well not to care what some human bots are "thinking", as we've got enough on our plate to deal with.

 

[Goddo.F]

Yes, they throw the hot ball then cool it off quickly before it starts to burn anyone.

I think we suffer from a symptom of globalization, that we actually care what the 'world citizens' think. Here lies the thing - they do not even think. Their opinions and views have no influence as they're 99% controlled from above, i.e mainstream and controlled opposition. There's a small minority that genuinely comes up with a worldview they had constructed themselves, and they're relatively easy to spot when you meet one in person or online.

So the media, and 'influencers', can mock whatever subjects they choose, it's of no concern to me. They do not research or even question reality, so they're not equal to us in this field. Imagine a very weak person entering a gym, telling people that weights are bad. After being ignored, he submits a story to the news, and they run a story about why you shouldn't exercise. Is any of the gym goers going to change because of it? Of course not. He's aware of his progress and wellbeing due to exercise, and he will keep setting the example for others. He won't even bother to 'defend his honor'.

So you see, in my eyes, the problems of official history are a fact, not some open discussion. The details are debatable, yes, but there's nothing in this world that would restore my trust in official history. What's the point to even discuss or defend it in front of people who don't challenge their mental boundries? Even if we convinced them, it will not be genuine: they'd just be mindlessly repeating new keywords, and won't contribute to the research.
We mainly need contributors, people who can work more angles, or analyze and confirm/dispute other people's angles.
Getting mainstream "recognition" will only draw drones and bots. Maybe it's good that the media is mocking the subject.
We're all very aware of how fragile our knowledge is: there are enough forgeries, traps, psyops, rabbit holes, shills and mindtricks. With so many distractions, I'd do well not to care what some human bots are "thinking", as we've got enough on our plate to deal with.

We have to maintain our own sanity first and foremost. Yes, EVERYTHING has been INVERTED so the points of authentic engagement are pretty close to NUL right now. It seems that for restoration, there will first need to be an all-consuming fire, then we will have to start again - phoenix from the ashes. Yes, the credibility, veracity, authenticity and HIGH STANDARDS of the site should be protected and maintained. Critical thinking, originality must not be compromised. Differences of view should be welcomed. goddo f

 

[Deleted member 37]

Youtube special starlet once again at it. This time he recites what wikipedia says as proof!!! YT maniacs have to publish a video per day... poor guy, he needs the money. ADS incoming at 3:38 after saying: "another thing that exist in the world is climate change"


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HBofF_NTKw


Here wikipedia co-founder has something to say to these starlets.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU&t=42s

 

[trismegistus]

Youtube special starlet once again at it. This time he recites what wikipedia says as proof!!! YT maniacs have to publish a video per day... poor guy, he needs the money. ADS incoming at 3:38 after saying: "another thing that exist in the world is climate change"


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HBofF_NTKw


Here wikipedia co-founder has something to say to these starlets.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU&t=42s

Never ceases to entertain me when I hear the host say "I'm not going to do any previous research before this, I want to dive in with my audience in real time"

One of my favorite arguments people like this use is "this fabrication would have required millions and millions of people and millions of lies all interconnected together"

When the reality is there is almost never "millions" of pieces of evidence of a particular historical narrative of anything past a few hundred years ago, especially when it comes to documents or books. Anything made with a printing press can be standardized and can issue in mass numbers - but the point is the message is still controlled by the one who runs the printing press.

It is also never mentioned that evidence contrary to the narratives is often refused, discredited, or destroyed.

 

[Randolph C.]

It is also never mentioned that evidence contrary to the narratives is often refused, discredited, or destroyed.

It is also never mentioned that censorship by both the church and the state was rampant. And it was and still is rampant today. How anyone in his right mind can think that we would ever get an unbiased account of the "Napoleonic War" from any of the countries occupied by Napoleonic France (i.e. practically all of Europe) during that time, or an unbiased account from France (hahaha), or an unbiased account from England, the only Western power still standing, or , of all places, from Alexander's Russia, is beyond me. Or that we would get an unbiased opinion after the defeat of Naopoleon, when the old monarchies (often in very twisted form, just recall the demise of the Holy Roman Empire) were re-instated and ruled with an iron fist? Or that we would get an unbiased record from Romanov Russia. or Bolshevik Russia. Or Imperial Germany. Or the various iterations of French kingdoms and republics and empires that followed Napoleon. It was all censored. Even Goethe and Schiller and Humboldt were heavily censored (Goethe complained more than once about it). We have no unbiased record of the past for that reason alone. Anything that would not fit would not get published. Publication wasn't as today. Publication was expensive, particularly when your book came with illustrations and plates. There was a limited number of publishers, a limited number of scientific journals to chose from (all controlled by elite academies or clubs, usually filled to the brim with masons and other shady creatures). You needed a lot of money, or sponsors, be they clerical or aristocratc or later some industrialist Robber Baron to get your stuff out. And you wouldn't be able to write anything that whoever paid for it didn't like. Or that the state didn't like. Or your particular petty ruler. Or the church.

 

[dreamtime]

Even Goethe and Schiller and Humboldt were heavily censored (Goethe complained more than once about it).

Indeed and this is especially relevant as Goethe and Schiller,and probably also Humboldt, were government employees working for the PTB at that time to help construct a historical narrative. If even those people openly complained about censorship, although they likely were ok with the general direction, this says a lot.

 

[trismegistus]

Publication was expensive, particularly when your book came with illustrations and plates. There was a limited number of publishers, a limited number of scientific journals to chose from (all controlled by elite academies or clubs, usually filled to the brim with masons and other shady creatures). You needed a lot of money, or sponsors, be they clerical or aristocratc or later some industrialist Robber Baron to get your stuff out. And you wouldn't be able to write anything that whoever paid for it didn't like. Or that the state didn't like. Or your particular petty ruler. Or the church.

Furthermore - before the printing press who had access to writing materials? Paper and ink? Stone tablets? Who had access to chisels? Did masons get training in writing or did they just copy what was drawn in the sand or dirt? Who had access to education that taught reading, writing, and grammar? How many people were alive in those days that had the education, the materials, and the will to write information for their society? Who was reading that information?

How many people were alive who knew the stories these people told were false, but had no ability to create a record of it due to their lack of education and materials?

I understand that this argument is a somewhat slippery slope to "100% of all history is fabricated" that is in the realm of a psyop. But I think the more nuanced point here is - you don't really need a lot of people involved in those times to fabricate history and records - certainly not millions - barely thousands.

 

[ViniB]

Furthermore - before the printing press who had access to writing materials? Paper and ink? Stone tablets? Who had access to chisels? Did masons get training in writing or did they just copy what was drawn in the sand or dirt? Who had access to education that taught reading, writing, and grammar? How many people were alive in those days that had the education, the materials, and the will to write information for their society? Who was reading that information?

How many people were alive who knew the stories these people told were false, but had no ability to create a record of it due to their lack of education and materials?

I understand that this argument is a somewhat slippery slope to "100% of all history is fabricated" that is in the realm of a psyop. But I think the more nuanced point here is - you don't really need a lot of people involved in those times to fabricate history and records - certainly not millions - barely thousands.

I can recall an event very popular among brazilian historians, without a single solid boots on the ground evidence but became accepted fact, the Guararapes battle

Without going too much on the narrative, this battle is celebrated as the one who created the brazilian army. On the Field of which it took place, only random metal pieces and bone fragments (that could be from anything) were found, but around 8 or 9 jesuit letters and 19th century paintings were enough for it to be true.

There's not a whole lot of people involved in this particular case, a couple hundred at best

 

[Nick Weech]

Yeah, well, unfortunately when these "intellectual" types take notice and start the word salad games and begin to launch their "investigations" into a cause (such as ours), I can't help but be worried.
I've seen this type of opening volley more than once and witnessed them pull the plug on other things.
All they have to do is say "anti S-word" enough times and it sticks.
I don't like this at all..

I would say this to our mods. Make sure this site is backed up somewhere. It would also be prudent to have a way to contact forum members if the site were to go offline to direct them to a new domain.
How many members from SH1.0 did we lose because they simply don't know there's a .net version up now?
Originally I had assumed the 1.0 site was taken down by outside forces and if we hit on something big enough that may well come to pass.

Let's not forget, they're not trying to convince 'us' who really know better. They can't do that- if we really know!

It's to divert those who've had some inklings, with the threat of the very dangerous Grimpen Mire ...

Furthermore - before the printing press who had access to writing materials? Paper and ink? Stone tablets? Who had access to chisels? Did masons get training in writing or did they just copy what was drawn in the sand or dirt? Who had access to education that taught reading, writing, and grammar? How many people were alive in those days that had the education, the materials, and the will to write information for their society? Who was reading that information?

How many people were alive who knew the stories these people told were false, but had no ability to create a record of it due to their lack of education and materials?

I understand that this argument is a somewhat slippery slope to "100% of all history is fabricated" that is in the realm of a psyop. But I think the more nuanced point here is - you don't really need a lot of people involved in those times to fabricate history and records - certainly not millions - barely thousands.

I need evidence that 100% of all history isn't fabricated. My starting point ... 'tis a psyop, most def. Who controlled knowledge 500 yrs ago?

We don't know, do we? Someone did

 

[Goddo.F]

Let's not forget, they're not trying to convince 'us' who really know better. They can't do that- if we really know!

It's to divert those who've had some inklings, with the threat of the very dangerous Grimpen Mire ...

I need evidence that 100% of all history isn't fabricated. My starting point ... 'tis a psyop, most def. Who controlled knowledge 500 yrs ago?

We don't know, do we? Someone did

Morning Nick, your question on the control of knowledge is key. Of course it goes far further than the 'control' of knowledge, but to the 'creation' of digestible info, data, knowledge for the herd's consumption. Again and again, across many centuries and human events, we find the groping, gripping, grasping hands of two groups ... the church and the elitist clique (often with connections to the jewish cabal). Again, these 'threads of linking evidence' could equally be purposely misleading plants, and yet the regularity of occurence across time and events is striking. regards Goddo