Was there any falsification of history?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The article makes the assumption that before the falsification of history by Scaliger and his followers, there was no history in our understanding. Scaliger and Co did not correct the existing history in the right direction, but invented it from scratch.

In the course of reading the book The Scaliger Matrix, I came up with one very crazy hypothesis. Which, I want to discuss with colleagues, in this article.

So, to begin with, a short introduction. From the facts stated in the book by the author, we can conclude that Scaliger and his followers, the entire modern history was falsified from beginning to end. They did not correct the existing history in the right direction, but invented it from scratch. Like some kind of work of art. Moreover, they took the biographies and events of their contemporaries as a basis and replicated them for 2000 years in the past. True, they did it, as they say, not "stupidly", but using the most advanced science at that time - numerology.

So I see, before me, Scaliger's dialogue with the customers of history, the church hierarchs of the Catholic Church.

- How old do you need history?

- Want to do it for 2000 years? Do you want four? Only it will cost you more.

So, approximately, after such a dialogue, modern history appeared.

According to the new chronologists, after that the falsification of history began. That is, the old chronicles were withdrawn from everywhere, and any works on history, and were replaced, so to speak, by the edited ones.

It is this statement that causes the most criticism. Because no one can imagine how such a large-scale operation could have happened. Moreover, so scrupulously that there would be no trace of the old sources. I will say more, given the level of technology (and this is the 17th century, for a minute), such an operation is impossible. So what is the point, how to combine two mutually exclusive facts?

And then I had a question. Was there a boy? Or rather, were there any historical sources at all before Scaliger? Did he and his followers have anything to falsify?

In my aforementioned book, The Scaliger Matrix, it is argued that from the point of view of the science of psychology, does a person do any actions only when necessary? So that's it. Was there a need for history as a science before Scaliger? This is the main question.

What does modern history tell us about ancient historical sources? And she tells us that, they say, in monasteries, monks kept their chronicles, on the basis of which modern history textbooks are made. An interesting statement. I wonder where it came from?

On the site there was, like that, an article was posted - the Code of the Radziwill List in which it was convincingly proved that the most ancient chronicle of Russia was not more than 300 years old, and not 1000 as modern science claims. And there is nothing older than this chronicle.

Then I had a very interesting question. And why did we decide that in the monasteries, in general, any chronicles were kept? Why do monks need this? Didn't they have more pressing things to do? For example, rewrite, the same, spiritual books, and lead the lives of the saints. As far as I know, now in the monasteries, no chronicles are kept (or I am wrong). Then why should it have been different in the past?

But even if we imagine that the monks did it. For whom? Who could read them? The population is illiterate. The princes do not need this at all. Is it not on sermons, in fact, to arrange historical readings?

But back to the main question. Why is science history needed? I am sure, for whom it is not a secret that history does not exist by itself. And it goes hand in hand with politics. That is, it serves (although everyone is against it) the political interests of states. For example, it is written in a certain historical work that some territory previously belonged to a certain state. And this, quite possibly, is a pretext for a war, for this very territory. I also think everyone has a fresh memory of the use of history against our country. First, the history of the USSR was discredited, and then it was destroyed. This is approximately the mechanism.

But, it does not work by itself. And by creating the necessary public opinion for politicians. That is, in the first case, with the help of history, in a certain country a movement is created in society for the return of a certain territory. And then, the power, as it were, under the pressure of public opinion, already as a result of the war, or some other action, annexes this territory to itself. The same is the case with the USSR. At first, using, so to speak, "prohibited historical data" in the country, a public opinion was created that we have a freak state and a bloody tyrant. Well, after that, when it began to fall apart, no one felt sorry for him.

But can such a technology work in the 17th century, at the time of Scaliger? Or rather, before him. This is the main question. The population is at this time completely illiterate. And, even though you don’t write any story, it will still not be able to form any public opinion. Since it, anyway, no one can read it. And was it necessary, in the times of absolutism and feudalism, in general, public opinion? Then the policy was carried out without looking back at him, because the population is wordless slaves. And what, there, they think, no one is interested.

I turn to the most important conclusion from the above. In my opinion, history was created when the need arose. That is, when there was a need to manipulate society. Thus, Scaliger created his history from scratch, since there were simply no coherent historical sources before him. Because there was simply no need for them. And, of course, he didn't have to falsify anything.

PS. normal "> I remembered that the main criticism in the course of the new chronology is their reconstruction of the past. And I agree with this criticism. The fact is that new chronologists are trying to reconstruct, so to speak, the erased past, poking around and rethinking the available historical sources. the truth is hidden in them. This is their main mistake. As I wrote above, Scaliger, invented his own story from beginning to end. And to look for crumbs of real history in the written sources that have come down to us is an empty occupation. They are not there and cannot be There only one can find 100/500 times rewritten traces of the activities of his contemporaries.

But, here's how to restore the real history, before, say, 1700, I have no idea. Most likely not how. At that time, the chronology of events was simply not kept.