Specially the last contribution by Kingq is a smasher.
Nick Pelling (April 7, 2009):
I think you can split historical revisionists into two broad camps: (a) desperate mainstream historians looking outwards to fringe subjects for a reputation-making cash-cow book; and (b) clever writers on the fringes who appropriate the tropes and tools of history to construct a kind of literary outsider art that is (almost) indistinguishable from history. That is, revisionism is a church broad enough to cover both historians posing as outsiders and outsiders posing as historians.
[...] a resoundingly 19th century hoax, the Frisian Oera Linda Book (...). This describes all kinds of odd things (such as “Atland”, a 17th century revisionist Atlantis), and claims to have been written in 1256, [...]Alan Kenworthy (February 14, 2011):
Your definition of historical revisionism is inadequate and in general your writing is self-indulgent, superficial, show-off, and designed to show how clever you are. You say it is difficult to prove a hoax, yet you find it easy to dismiss the Oera Linda Book. You picked a bad example there, because the more you read the Oera Linda Book the more you realise that it is a genuine history with dates, separate from and starting earlier than the Classical tradition, which begins with mythology. It is just the earliest European written history and should be compulsory in schools throughout Europe. Let me guess: you haven’t read it, or, if you tried, you found it difficult to judge because you don’t have enough knowledge of the Classical tradition, so, ignorance being bliss, you blithely dismiss it with a sneer.Nick Pelling (February 14, 2011):
Presumably you would sneer at Schliemann as revisionist, as did the scholars and historians in their libraries whose descendants in modern times have rejected the common sense of Tim Severin on Odysseus and James Mavor on Atlantis. You obviously go along with Hilaire Belloc’s ”Oh let us never doubt what nobody is sure about”, but in the end if you are at all interested in history you will have to look hard and with common sense, at evidence. And beware of insulting revisionists: Arthur Evans got it badly wrong at Knossos by imposing Victorian monarchist values onto his archaeology of a gloomy burial ground and mausoleum. Revisionism is a necessary process.
[...] I did take the time to read plenty (and think plenty) about the Oera Linda Book before I put a single finger to key, and I stand by every damn word I wrote. Revisionism is necessary, sure – but that doesn’t mean you have to accept every foolish thing written as true. And the OLB is – plain as day – not true.Alan Kenworthy (February 19, 2011):
Ah, Nick, I can’t convince you, can I? I feel like Whistler when he told the judge he could never convince him of the artistic merit of any work of art. I notice that those dismissing this book don’t want to look at the detail in it, whereas those who see it as genuine do look, and find a lot of evidence which is inescapable, especially the parts which were later proved true by archaeology (eg Troy, and the Lake Dwellers, which were unknown in 1850.) I get the impression that the book has been used (by Himmler and co, the neo-nasties), and abused (by the Dutch, who find it easy to belittle the Friesians whom they regard as country bumpkins and inferior), but is it read for what it is? The devil is in the detail, unfortunately, and it is the detail in it that remains and can be corroborated, provided modern religion and politics take a back seat. What is difficult to swallow, I admit, is the idea that continuous prose narrative was written by individuals so long ago, at a time when all other civilisations relied on ancestor worship, deification of leaders, and speaking to gods to guide their decisions and had no prose writing. In Greek history some time later, rational thought took over from “hearing voices“ and led to Thucydides in a dramatically short time. But the Friesians had Runic script and did not rely on revealed truth, only their own realism and simple democratic rules, which were written in stone at first. (Have you read Julian Jaynes book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?) For me the important question is not whether the Friesians wrote rationally, but what led them to it so early?Nick Pelling (February 19, 2011):
[...] What I find particularly glorious about the Oera Linda book is the sheer scale of its ambition, the historical sweep of its pen: such a shame it’s all made up, but there you go, it is what it is.Alan Kenworthy (February 24, 2011):
Nick, I know you’re after entertainment rather than establishing any truth, but please at least keep an open mind [...]Nick Pelling (February 24, 2011):
[...] Even so, it’s still a load of vaguely syncretic nonsense, regardless of whoever was foolish enough to write it.Kingq (June 15, 2012):
Every adult human on this planet needs some extensive time off. Enough to get really bored and start thinking for themselves critically and questioning everything. For me it was being laid off and jobless for six months in my 30s. I finally started thinking for myself and realized that things are not right. People know that politicians and the media are liars, but they still take them at their word, even I did. Why? That’s nothing compared to the deceptive tactics uses by literally everybody in a position of power, especially academics.
The whole thing is run by group-thinking sociopaths who are biased toward certain POVs and use manipulative rhetoric and sophistry to deceive us into believing them. Or all the politically-motivated junk scientists who are paid to research dead ends. Consensus-based theoretical science doesn’t use the scientific method. It uses a closed system of half-truths based on alternative literal definitions of words like a lawyer or a commission salesman (think back to Bill Clinton’s “I did not have *sexual relations” comment which interpreted *sexual relations to exclude head. Those are their tricks.). You can’t prove them wrong but you can’t prove them right. If you disagree with the group, your career is over. What does that have to do with the Oera Linda Book? These sociopaths call any discoveries that challenge their established consensus a hoax. Just keep in mind who these people work for. Ever since the 17th century, bankers have used revolution and warfare to take control of the world and they remain in control today using manipulative tactics and the power that comes along with being the money supply to keep things that way.
Pre-Columbian European artifacts in America? A hoax they say. Everything is a hoax they don’t like. On the surface, the OLB is harmless. Just like the underwater Yonaguni complex. The latter is an excellent example of their deception. Mainstream archaeology wants Yonaguni to be a natural structure. One of the only reknowned archeologists to study the site said it was definitely carved by man from a natural structure. The wikipedia article quotes him out of context as proof that it’s natural and that’s not what he said. What is the harm in it being man-made and underwater? It makes no sense to shun this. Nobody would care, which to me indicates these people are threatened by it being artificial. They wouldn’t lie otherwise.
So back to the OLB, if you do your homework you’ll see that Frisians had a colony long abandoned on the Faroe Islands. You got the Zeno brothers Frisland on Mercator’s map that doesn’t exist (flooded?). The Frisians/ Jutes/ Anglos/ Saxons all have mysterious and disputed origins. There are myths and facts in books like the Irish book of invasions that are also similar to the OLB. Contrary to sociopathic consensus, the Atlantis myth is older than Plato and in Egyptian sources as the Western Land with similar mythology.
If I said the bible was a hoax with almost no archeological evidence to support it, a hoax used as a control method, some rational folks would probably support me. But bible believers would get offended. Why this irrational drive to make the OLB a hoax based on no evidence? Is the sociopathic establishment afraid of something? Why is anti-white racism exceptable if the whole idea is to eliminate racism? Why are all these kooks spreading lies about RH–[negative] blood as ‘reptillian’? Why are Nordic people and Vikings being demonized as historic Barbarians? Why is European history being re-written all the time to talk down our memory?
That they want the OLB to be a hoax is all the proof you need to realize it isn’t one. It’s important. It deserves attention. They’re talking down our history and our memory in favor of a lie used for who-knows-what. We need to snap out of this collective amnesia. Remember who we are and where we came from. And how did we let this merchant caste/ class come to rule us and re-write our history? Even in the mid 20th century our knowledge of history was so much greater than it is today.
Think for yourself, ask rational and critical questions. Avoid their rhetorical and emotive tricks and smears.
No comments:
Post a Comment