The corruption of history

[Augustus]

Well, you certainly can't call Carroll Quigley your average tin foil hat conspiracy theorist.

Carroll Quigley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Social science scholars come up with incorrect theories all the time.

What makes you confident that he is correct and what evidence is provided?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Do you think our history has been corrupted?

Is it genuine or is it ran by puppeters behind the scene to establish their agenda?

State your reasons pro et contra so we can have a meaningful debate

View attachment 86707

We all have limited perceptions and biases, so all history is written through such a lense.
It seems to me that the actual history we learn is a small dot in the see of events that happened at the same time.

I think it is both genuine and orchestrated. In my country South Africa, the Apartheid government taught different history, which suited their agenda, to what we get taught today. Alot of lies were told and a lot of things were hidden. Today a lot of what has been told doesn't seem so biased, but the focus is still eurocentric. I think looking at different history sourced explains the extent to which views of historical fact and how they are interpreted vary.

 

[justaguy313]

Social science scholars come up with incorrect theories all the time.

What makes you confident that he is correct and what evidence is provided?

His book itself is an evidence. Thus far nobody has debunked it. If you wanna try go ahead.

 

[Augustus]

His book itself is an evidence. Thus far nobody has debunked it. If you wanna try go ahead.

A book isn’t evidence, although it may contain evidence (or it may not). All kinds of terrible books exist.

What evidence does he present? Why do you find it persuasive? What is there to debunk?

Saying “read a random book and debunk it” is a pretty pointless stance in a discussion forum, especially if the person advocating it is unable to offer any reasons as to why it is such a valuable book compared to thousands of other books on similar topics.

 

[justaguy313]

A book isn’t evidence, although it may contain evidence (or it may not). All kinds of terrible books exist.

What evidence does he present? Why do you find it persuasive? What is there to debunk?

Saying “read a random book and debunk it” is a pretty pointless stance in a discussion forum, especially if the person advocating it is unable to offer any reasons as to why it is such a valuable book compared to thousands of other books on similar topics.

I have posted a review of it. It is up for debate if you want to debunk it

Joe Plummer Teaches Tragedy and Hope 101

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=18377

odysee.com

 

[RestlessSoul]

The majority of the people who vote democrats doesn't even realize that they actually established KKK.

As for Russia not being a dictatorship
Joseph Stalin executed his former associate Nikolai Yezhov and made sure that Yezhov's picture was deleted from all photos with Stalin. Thus, among art historians, Yezhov has been nicknamed “The Vanishing Commissar” because his face was retouched from official press photos after his execution. He is one of the most well-known examples of the Soviet press making someone who had fallen out of favor disappear. Just like Hatshepsut and Akhenaten in ancient Egypt.

The Soviet system which Stalin inherited from Lenin concentrated all power in the hands of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, giving it’s General Secretary total control over the apparatus of state and it’s institutions. This was a system of government based on terror and disinformation. Stalin could say and do almost anything he wanted, without fear of contradiction. But he couldn’t prevent subsequent generations of historians, including Soviet historians, from revealing the full extent of his autocratic brutality. We might take this as an indication that eventually, the truth will out.

 

[Augustus]

I have posted a review of it. It is up for debate if you want to debunk it

Joe Plummer Teaches Tragedy and Hope 101

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=18377

odysee.com

So you are unable to offer any reasons why you personally find it persuasive, and cannot explain what evidence he offers?

Just linking to some random unknown chap off the internet discussing it is not a great selling point.

My guess is if he had offered good evidence for a secret cabal of puppet masters it would have persuaded more people already.

 

[justaguy313]

So you are unable to offer any reasons why you personally find it persuasive, and cannot explain what evidence he offers?

Just linking to some random unknown chap off the internet discussing it is not a great selling point.

My guess is if he had offered good evidence for a secret cabal of puppet masters it would have persuaded more people already.

No, that I'm unable, I pretty much agree with what Plummer says, so I feel no need to repeat what he wrote.

 

[Viker]

Not sure that’s necessarily true any more (if it ever was).

The “losers” can write their own versions of history too, and nowadays it’s easy to spread many competing narratives.

Yep. We have to suffer "the Lost Cause" narrative in the South.

 

[blü 2]

Do you think our history has been corrupted?

Is it genuine or is it ran by puppeters behind the scene to establish their agenda?

State your reasons pro et contra so we can have a meaningful debate

View attachment 86707

Our history is several things.

We have scientific theories, derived from empiricism and induction, about the history of the universe, the sun, and our earth.

We have histories based on the evidence from the fossil record of evolution, including the evolution of H sap sap,

We have human histories based on the materials of archaeology ─ what we find from digging, and what we can find from ancient documents.

And we have human histories based on modern materials ─ letters, books, learned publications, newspapers, radio, TV and the net.

Histories are difficult to get exactly right because their materials are of variable reliability.The registry office is highly accurate (I don't say perfect) and the Murdoch press is willfully tendentious and distorting, for instance.

So we need our historians, whether from science, evolution, ancient materials, the age of writing, and the age of computing, to be intelligent, diligent and in particular honest and neutral.

 

[Augustus]

No, that I'm unable, I pretty much agree with what Plummer says, so I feel no need to repeat what he wrote.

“Some random chap off the internet has made a long video about it so I feel no need to offer a brief summary of my opinion in my own thread” is a pretty strange way to approach a discussion forum.

If the video was genuinely insightful, you’d probably want to discuss it so I’m going to assume it’s not worth any of my time.

 

[Augustus]

and in particular honest and neutral

No historian can ever be neutral and we should always be aware of that.

 

[Stevicus]

No historian can ever be neutral and we should always be aware of that.

No human can ever be totally neutral, but historians can strive for unbiased objectivity, just as the case in any other academic discipline. They still have peer review.

 

[justaguy313]

“Some random chap off the internet has made a long video about it so I feel no need to offer a brief summary of my opinion in my own thread” is a pretty strange way to approach a discussion forum.

If the video was genuinely insightful, you’d probably want to discuss it so I’m going to assume it’s not worth any of my time.

No need to prove anything. I didn't ask you individualy to state your opinion. It's entirely your choice, as it is mine with whom I communicate on this forum and with whom I don't.

If you want to read the reviews, simply go to amazon and read reader's reviews. I'm not here to make a book analysis, somebody else has already done that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The majority of the people who vote democrats doesn't even realize that they actually established KKK.

And some people are so ignorant of history and/or so incapable of dealing with its complexities that they can do little more than fall back on childish quips. "The Republicans gave us Lincoln and the Democrats gave us the KKK" is a classic example of such rhetoric.

Those who pontificate about history would do well to learn some. The following might help ...

When did Democrats and Republicans switch platforms?​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you want to read the reviews, simply go to amazon and read reader's reviews.

If you want to peddle conspiracy theories, take responsibility for defending them.

 

[Augustus]

No human can ever be totally neutral, but historians can strive for unbiased objectivity, just as the case in any other academic discipline. They still have peer review.

Striving for objectivity is very different to being objective though.

Peer review often just reflects the biases of the reviewer (as an aside, one of my friends had to get a restraining order against someone who did peer review of one of his papers as they started to stalk him online to attack him over their differing views).

If you read academic book reviews you will be familiar with the bias and pettiness they frequently entail.

 

[Augustus]

No need to prove anything. I didn't ask you individualy to state your opinion. It's entirely your choice, as it is mine with whom I communicate on this forum and with whom I don't.

If you want to read the reviews, simply go to amazon and read reader's reviews. I'm not here to make a book analysis, somebody else has already done that.

Cool, you have nothing of value to say on the topic.

Saves everyone some time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Peer review often just reflects the biases of the reviewer ...

If you read academic book reviews you will be familiar with the bias and pettiness they frequently entail.

Therefore?

Scholars are human and peer review is not perfect, but that does not warrant allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. History is rewritten by winners.
For instance, the Americans who won WW2 rewrote history by saying that Mussolini was a rightist dictator, whereas he just was a socialist who implemented the most modern welfare policies in the world, at that time. Who made a pact with rightists, that's true.
But he had the power to change economy.
Being an inspiration for Juan Peròn, who created the partido justicialista (that is, based upon social justice) and others.

Why did they do that? Because the Freemason FDR was a Democrat, so he needed to demonize the enemy by saying he was a rightist.