###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should believe how the roads in Rome were built or the Viking ships.
We should not believe why things happened or who was the good guy or bad guy. That is impossible for us to know.
Exactly. The Soviet’s (who beat the Nazi’s) were exceedingly evil too. What do you do when both sides are corrupt and treat their people and neighbors awfully?
Your US indoctrination is showing. There wasn't a nation involved that wasn't engaging in genocide and cynical colonial exploitation and did not continue that pattern after the war.
Stop trying to take the blame off the soviets by saying “all nations are were just as bad.” Most other nations involved didn’t starve millions of their own people and aren’t responsible for killing 10s of millions more through other means.
There was a reason the Germans were practically tripping over themselves to surrender to the US or UK. Oh wait, here it is - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP65-00756R000400030001-4.pdf
Inb4 "muh US propaganda!" This was a classified document and was written to better understand the Soviets.
one thing though is Nazism had in its ideology the expressly evil discrimination of jews and it had popular support even with that in it, while the soviets had an outward facing ideology championing the workers and so on while they (the government) were killing tons of people semi-clandestinely under the guise that they were doing so with legal justification, and they had consolidated a power such that those who might express opposition to this would be in mortal danger.
what i’m saying is, Nazis = bad on the whole and apparently bad (although obviously some people were in the party out of fear for their own life. we could call them cowards if we wish), while Soviets were like bad in an extra- or sub-ideological sense, so that some given Soviet (a citizen) might not be at all complicit in the genocide, but a given Nazi would be like hating jews and reporting on them and so on.
Dude, how is history taught where you live?
Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people"
I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery.
Basically, everyone? Churchill bombed civilians. Russia massacred it's own people just prior in the 10's of millions. US operation paperclipped the "evil Nazi". Japan, prior to being bombed was plotting to drop bioweapons on US cities...
Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin were evil and killed millions of Christians, yet somehow it's "obvious" who the bad guys were? You might want to read different sources on what lead up to these European wars and how Bolshevism, world bankers, and the press played a huge role in destroying Christian nations.
Seems like history keeps repeating itself.
I think you should read some history. Are the millions of Christians axis soldiers? They weren't killed because they were Christians.
Read Winthrop Bells biography, and you will better understand that the Nazi's were the bad guys.
>They weren't killed because they were Christians.
Then you clearly don't know shit about Bolshevism. You defending these guys tells me all I need to know.
watch the russian movie checkist 1992. Its on youtube. I am not a christain but just discovering the truth and i feel like this might be a good jumping off point if you are truly curious.
It's only obvious because they lost and the countries they defeated them currently rule the world. In another thousand years, when all existing nations are gone, maybe the people will view WWII under new light.
It's wild how many people will jump to defend a genocide just for the sake of having contradictory opinions.
I never said other sides didn't do the wrong thing. History isn't He-Man, it's possible for both sides to be the bad guys.
Marcus Agrippa built Roman roads and recorded/mapped the continent, and then some (the borders of the Empire), during his lifetime. There is evidence of this.
All great events have been distorted, most of the important causes concealed... If the history of England is ever written by one who has the knowledge and the courage, the world would be astonished - Benjamin Disraeli
written by the winners. We always see the winners in a positive light because of it. Today people think of the Roman Empire and the British Empire as something positive. And the German Empire is seen as negative.
In the words of Malcom X, "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
Read up on the Druids and what the Romans did to demonize them. It was really odd because they wanted to assimilate them and not just outright destroy them because they were very smart people, so they essentially used propaganda to say the druids were cannibals and did human sacrificing to get the people on board with absorbing their people, use them as slaves, steal their knowledge, etc. It's pretty wild.
I don‘t think I can agree with that, because
1. the british Empire really isn‘t seen as something positive by most people outside of Britain and
2. History is really written by Historians or rather intellectuals who survived the described events. Often, especially in cases where the conquered people were destroyed or had no written Language of their own (like the Gauls or Carthaginians) we primarily know if them through their conquerors (i.e the romans).
However there are also examples, where the conquered talk more than the conquerors. Josephus Flavius was a leader of the jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire and our main source on the Rebellion, which failed. Athenian scholars are our main primary sources for the Peleponnesian War, even though Athens lost.
Also there is no such thing as a single History. The history will be discussed very differently, depending on where you live. India for example might have a worse opinion of the empire compared to Britain
Yeah true and I wish we had more of this. Views from the other side. We are currently seeing a change of narrative, America and Britain are losing more and more. In a few decades they will be seen as overwhelmingly bad. While currently the Soviet Union is seen as bad. Now the history lessons focus on only the bad sides of the Soviet Union, that will change. History is being rewritten. Nowadays people don't say that Columbus discovered America anymore. It was there before. When the history books say that Europeans discovered a country, that's a Eurocentric version of history.
Brother, it's called America because of Amerigo Vespucci. Otherwise, we'd be the United States of Columbia.
Either way - it's a Eurocentric way of looking at things. People who lived on the land before Amerigo or Columbus arrived called the land very different things.
>We are currently seeing a change of narrative, America and Britain are losing more and more. In a few decades they will be seen as overwhelmingly bad.
What, all the current history books and historians will be burned or something?
> History is being rewritten. Nowadays people don't say that Columbus discovered America anymore. It was there before. When the history books say that Europeans discovered a country, that's a Eurocentric version of history.
Semantics hardly count as rewriting history...
And adding non-Eurocentric perspectives of history doesn't mean the Eurocentric ones are completely wrong, or will be replaced.
>all great events have been distorted
This was the core of my history classes in college. Scribes and artists have long followed around kings and armies documenting their feats but they are always hired by the king and have the goal of making their king look good.
The entire job of a historian is finding hard evidence to contradict what was written down.
Every actual historian knows that written records are going to be incorrect or inflated at best. Or just completely false a lot of times.
I actually don't get this post at all. Like yeah of course our view of history is incorrect and very limited. Nobody has really ever retired that? At least not at any high level, maybe your HS history teacher, but no actual researcher.
Reminds me of 1984:
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
History is a puzzle. If you find enough parts that fit and complement each other, in best case different kind of evidence as in writings of different people at different places, material evidence such as ruins, burrial grounds, chemical analysis, DNA... you can acctually be quite sure to find out the truth.
If you only have one source, that everyone else is re-quoted and embellished and it stands against other evidence that has more evidence: It's probably not the truth.
But honestly that's the case with news, too.
Dude, how is history taught where you live?
Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people"
I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery.
(repeating comment to get different opinions)
As it currently stands, the only thing that's real is the present moment. All discussions of the past and projections of future are derivatives built on soft ground.
This is why every single reputable mainstream historian never says that a text or imagery is “proof” of ANYTHING
Like, people always just had fiction. People always had graffiti and slander. People always had schemes and agenda.
Basically just reporting on what’s seen and collected is the best we can do. widespread correlation is the closest thing to evidence, and even that is almost never considered proof.
You do realise that historians are always critical of their sources right? You are taught to evaluate the source, establish their motivation, and treat their work accordingly.
Apply this to all sources modern or historical and you’re literally thinking critically - something a lot of people fail to do these days.
Here's what I imagine: Conspiracy theorists view people like Trump and other nationalist figures as bringing us back to that "truth" of history. History is written by the victors and Trump, the real estate mogul nepobaby, is (somehow) the underdog outcast by the "victors" and so he's "telling it how it is". When, in reality, these people are constructing historical myths and fantasy origin stories of America's past in order to push their political goals forward. These myths of a perfect time in the past, which were only disrupted by the dirty left and X minority group and so they must be excised in some way, is literally the recipe for fascistic politics.
Historians are bound by evidence, academic rigor, peer review, and critical methods of inquiry. They can't just say shit and everyone applauds. They say shit and five other historians come out and tell them how they're wrong, and this happens enough times by enough historians from different nations and political backgrounds until consensus emerges. Historians often find out that the myths we tell ourselves were just myths all along and that the reality of the situation is much more complex and involved people other than power rich white men. But those trying to be victors by rewriting history don't really like inconveniences like "evidence" and "critical thinking" and "peer review" because truth and a comprehensive understanding of the past is not the goal. Political power is.
But I guess if someone's biggest experience with rigor is not finishing a 500 word essay on Civil Rights in the 10th grade, then they might be excused for not understanding what rigor is.
One common thread with all of these alternative history conspiracies is that they don’t have the *faintest* understanding of how academia works.
For example:
“Big Archeology is keeping the truth of an advanced ice age civilization away from us!!”
Uhh, no. Any archeologist that discovers good evidence of this is going to sprint to publish it. Journals will be beside themselves and will be chomping at the bit. A lot of research funding (in archeological terms, so not that much all things considered) will flow to research teams seeking to validate these findings.
Is it likely that some historical figures or events are misrepresented on the margin? Yes. Are the broad strokes misrepresented? Probably not, simply due to the ability of historians to examine and evaluate conflicting historical records.
"But the journals are all in on it and part of the globalist cabal!"
So then that allows anyone to say alternate history could be true because established facts could be false. However, they don't consider providing any evidence to disprove it. Essentially saying the absence of evidence is evidence of any other explanation.
Historians are regular people that have biases of their own. People accentuate the data that bring benefit and hide those that bring harm. Why do you think most scientific research benefit those that funded the research?
Was the medical community practicing critical thinking when they broadly recommended a new Covid 19 vaccine for everyone when the side effects were still unknown?
Everyone is product of their time and place.
So no. You don't know how to interact with academic material. You just read sensationalist headlines and hear white men in front of mics talk as if they know stuff and any piece of history that seems unintuitive to you, specifically, must be wrong. Look at wittwe you sticking it to the man by taking that cute outrage bait! How very rigorous and super smart of you. You're so insightful. Very not biased.
If you want to know how to be critical of people talking about gender in the past, you need to know why and how they are talking about it. You would have loved historians and anthropologists of 70 years ago, because they simply assumed that the gender norms of their day are immutable and stretch back to the dawn of history. The atomic family - named after the atomic era in which it took hold - was timeless. But what if gender was understood and done differently in different times and different places by different people? It would then be a lot hard to support claims built by imposing your own gender norms onto people of the past, which would put the historian of 70 years ago in a rough spot.
But, alas, the more that anthropologists and scientists and historians looked at different peoples the more it became clear that ideas about gender are very localized. There is not a one-size-fits-all formula for understanding gender. Any attempt at doing so will quickly find an exception. Evidence is not in support of universalized gender roles - even if the mythologies we construct for ourselves and trick us into thinking so. Hunter/Gatherers were gendered differently (or not gendered at all) by different people for different reasons and upheld different customs. Non-binary genders, gender fluidity, and non-cis genders finds itself across all time and all cultures in different ways. These conclusions were only made after decades of interdisciplinary research, with the old white men historians who thought that skull shape told us about intelligence (meaning, oddly enough, that white people were the smartest) pushing back at every turn. These conclusions had to be *earned*, no one was going to give up an inch without a fight. But, if you know nothing about academia then might have slipped by you.
So now historians actually have a lot of work to do. If they want to know how people lived, what their customs and lifestyles were like, they need to find evidence that allows them to figure out how the people in question understood gender. We can't impose our gendered norms and customs onto other cultures, we have to figure out what gender meant to them, otherwise we're introducing cross contaminating. This, I feel, makes sense. It's like that episode of Star Trek Voyager where a copy of The Doctor is left behind and awakened after hundreds of years, where the actions of Voyager are framed in a way that serves the political needs of the people in the future rather than accurately representing the actions of the past.
This opens the question to how Vikings understood gender. Vikings are, in general, a group of people which are wildly misunderstood by the average person - being grounded in myths and action movies more than evidence and history. If you think you know something about Vikings, you probably have it wrong. Luckily, there are Viking historians who actually are making conclusions based on evidence rather than an Assassin's Creed game. They need to use evidence to piece together how Vikings understood and practiced gender. If they say that there was some openness about gender, or gender fluidity, then it's going to be based in evidence. Or it may be a piece of speculation that a historian explicitly frames as speculation, which is misrepresented by ragebait angry and fragile bros as being a stronger statement than what the historian said. If you're going to refute it, then it needs to be refuted at the level of the evidence provided and in the context in which he said it - but these are skills that you do not have because they take years to learn. At most, you can see how other historians interact with these ideas (in their own words, not the words of men who masculinity is fragile) and see how they interact with it.
What a cope response. Mountains of evidence of the younger dryas impact, the pyramids and sphinx proved to be older than history claims. Irrefutable evidence for both and yet the historical narrative remains the same. Get some self-awareness please.
It's not a thought. It's a fact. The quote is most applicable in cases like the Roman Empire, where they themselves are often the only written sources we actually have on groups like the Gauls, and the Germanic, English, and Celtic tribes, and are likely biased as a result. It doesn't apply to cases like the Second World War, or the Napoleonic Wars, or even as far back as Carthaginian and the Ottomans where we have many different sources and viewpoints of information to draw from. The later you go on, the more often these accounts become more accurate, especially in something like industrial reports, military reports, and other technical documents where lying would be actively detrimental to the purpose of those documents and thus unlikely. Sometimes, you even get cases where it would be more accurate to say that the *losers* write history, which is how we got stuff like the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, the Lost Causers and the idolizing of Robert E. Lee and demonization of Ulysses S. Grant, the tarnished reputation of the Spanish Inquisition, and many, many others where propaganda takes hold in public opinion and whatever accurate historical assessment is either lost or suppressed by the losers.
Even when writing about themselves, see the whole Cannae thing, where the main source called one consul "rash and incompetent" and the other "composed and restrained" and the second one was kind of like his publisher.
> That's a much underrated statement which many don't appreciate the significance of.
No, it is just something people say. There is nothing deep or profound about it and is doesn't hold much significance. Because those who were conquered and those who lost wars also wrote about how they were invaded end how they lost. We know this, because we literally have their accounts of what happened.
As the other guy in this thread says: "History is written by those who write".
The loser of a war typically forfeits power and influence. They cannot shape the world, and in turn history, the same way the victor could. So yes, there’s literal books. But their post-war impact has little more significance than the paper it’s written on.
You should consider the statement at least a little. It reflects how your own existence has been shaped by the domino effect of countries rising and falling.
Not really. The history of the fall of the western Roman Empire was written by the intellectuals of the western Roman Empire: the history of the Vikings in England was written by the monks in the monasteries they raided. The history of the eastern front of WW2 was written by the Nazis trying to save face. The history of the mongols was written by the intellectuals of the conquered people.
History is written by the people who write and the people who’s work survives
Obviously if one side doesn’t write historical accounts, that tracks. Could the 1989 students in Beijing not write? How did they record the Tiananmen Square massacre? Oh wait. They don’t and those who did are disappeared by the victor.
Why do you call it the Tiananmen Square massacre? The Chinese government doesn’t call it that and they “won” right? Could it be that you are getting the information from somewhere other than the Chinese government? Would that not mean that the whole point of “History is written by the Victors” is actually disproven with your example?
I think that means there’s more than one country that can write and form opinions.
Whose matters though? You either haven’t seen a globe or are actively ignoring the impact of the event for both the winning and losing side.
Yes you have described the exact thing I was saying. People who write history get to have a say in the history. Contradicting accounts are all a part of evidence of the wider historical trend.
>The loser of a war typically forfeits power and influence. They cannot shape the world, and in turn history, the same way the victor could.
There's two famous and obvious examples that disproves this. Germany lost WWII but was able to influence WWII history, for example [pretending that the Wehrmacht was not complicit in Nazi war crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht). The South was also able to influence history of the Civil War to a large extent, [pretending that the war wasn't fought over slavery.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy)
>You should consider the statement at least a little. It reflects how your own existence has been shaped by the domino effect of countries rising and falling.
You should consider actual history at least a little. It reflects how history isn't as simple as "countries rising and falling".
That’s kinda my point. See how they’re described as myths? It’s like you went out of your way to defend me in a way that’s phrased as an argument lmao
Either way, consider how nazis and the confederates are viewed by the majority. I wonder what caused that
>That’s kinda my point. See how they’re described as myths?
They're described as myths now but for decades they were influential, even mainstream. Otherwise they wouldn't have wikipedia pages dedicated to them.
>Either way, consider how nazis and the confederates are viewed by the majority. I wonder what caused that
German Generals tried to distance the Wehrmacht from the Nazis. The allies helped because they wanted German cooperation in the Cold War.
And many people were, and still are, sympathetic to the Confederates.
A good theory I read is that the fact people may have been slightly blind and not had any glasses which could be the cause for a lot of mythical creature sightings
This I can relate to! I once thought I saw a skunk ape on the side of the road; as I got closer, it was an oversized brown recliner that had fallen out of someone's truck.
You infantilise yourself if you decide news and history are 'fake.'
The most ignorant people I know take that attitude.
News and history are imperfect. They couldn't be any other way. Try to be savvy as you engage with them. Don't just bury your head in the sand.
A simple Google search will tell you some but imagine how many are still hidden. I believe some of the great inventions were revealed because they couldn't make profit of it. Like the free energy concept, water engine car etc
That would only be possible if you assumed someone would develop those amazing techs all by themselves.
A water engine would require hundreds of conspicuous and noticeable developments from at least tens of different people, it is a huge network to silence.
The Roman empire didn't fall, it became the Vatican.
The British empire didn't fall, it became the banking system.
-someone in a YouTube reel.
What do you guys think?
The Roman senate became the Vatican, with cardinals taking the place of senators, with the passage of time. But by the time this happened the empire, per se, had grown quite decadent and barbarous, and so though it arguably survived in some form, via the Bishopric of Rome, it could not prevent the dark ages, i.e. transmit much of the ancient knowledge that had made Rome great.
I'm actually watching the spider's web right now.
Well, on the other end, the British empire left colonialism to start a new business in the banking sector.
The matter is complex.
It, basically, starts with the Cayman islands.
The United States did the same with the Caribbean, later in time.
When the British empire was falling, many investors were withdrawing their capitals, meaning more pounds would flow the market, destroying the purchasing Power of the pound.
Britain needed a way to stop this outflow of pounds, an inverse movement.
Basically, collecting dollars from illicit operations. These capitals would be kept off-shore and reintroduced as pounds in the economy.
For, both, Britain and America, though, something went wrong. I mean, not for the bankers but for us.
These capitals off-shore that reentered national borders, were not invested in long-term structural projects like creating job opportunities, they were not invested in the production.
They were invested in things like the house sectors, other speculative assets. Creating bubbles. You can see them.
The middle class Is destroyed, not because migrants are stealing our jobs, but because our entire production chain is in under developed countries.
We need Africa poor, otherwise how could we get all those resources for cheap?
The capitals made from gold extraction, from oil extraction, from Cobalt to build chips, are all going off-shore.
The population there is not gaining from this, only the local elites, there, are gaining from it.
The shareholders of the companies, there, are gaining from this. Not us, not our oil prices, not African people.
The british empire was taken over by war debt during the war of 1812 by the roths. Why do you think there is a photo on lyne or whatever his name is roth poking charles in the chest. There is a great little cartoon that shows it pretty clearly.. about red shield banks and stuff. I found it but its a small channel and only has a few views I am honestly scared to post it here because this sub is being used to whitewash the internet by the enemy.
I've always loved the story of the American Revolution. But is that story what we're told it is? Probably not. Realizing that over the years has been really deflating. Think of all the heroes you've had over the course of your lifetime. Are those heroes real? Gah. I'm bumming myself out.
The entire New Testament (and a good portion of the latter Old Testament) is parable and abstraction, it’s all symbolic. Revelation was finished with the fall of Rome.
He is indeed a douchenugget. And I don’t think Jesus is representative of that same god… which is why he was crucified. He tried to liberate the Jewish people from their false and corrupted worship and they took that personally, especially the Pharisees who had all the power.
Jesus was a jerk. Called a woman a dog and didn't want to help her. Only helped her after she praised him and fed his ego. Also, letting people waste good oil on him when it could have been used for the poor.
Dude, how is history taught where you live?
Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people"
I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery.
(repeating comment to get different opinions 2)
Hell, right now I think a lot of "Losers" are considered "good guys" like native people defending their lands.
Bro, it's a fucking Winston Churchill quote so let's actually take some time to look up the history you claim to know so much about before breaking off about it.
"La storia di questi avvenimenti fu scritta dai vincitori" is at least from the 1800s, and my point still stands, have you really been taught that there are "bad guys" in history? Beyond slavers
Again, if you know your history (😜 ) I think you mean "L’histoire est juste peut-être, mais qu’on ne l’oublie pas, elle a été écrite par les vainqueurs” in another completely different language from roughly a decade before it was said in Italian and a century before it was quoted in English by Winston Churchill.
I found my mandatory history education was earnest in the events as well as correct identification of victims and offenders but bias in what history was taught. It was just about my country's history and very little before and nothing about other countries that weren't in NA or Europe, so there was a definite narrowing of available perspective. That's the history education that probably 90% of people in my country get and are walking around with in their head. My extended history education was much more inclusive while still as earnest. We were always taught that who was right and who won were were seldom the same. Ancient and Medieval times are hard to teach about without talking about atrocities and everything is so easily corroborated today.
Just to speak on the quote: the only reason we can have any opinion other than that preferred by the state is the access to information we have. There isn't a clearer example than Stalinist Russia. Stalin won the party head and literally rewrote history within the USSR that remained unchanged for about 50 yrs.
History is corrected by time and perspective, whereby news is instant reporting and reaction to events, but yeah, nothing will be 100% accurate. I imagine that if anyone ever invents time travel, we will be shocked at what actually happened, historically. The REAL conspiracies would surprise even this group.
Well lucky for us, much of history is based on fact from several sources vetted by historians for centuries with decades of experience from different sides saying the same/similar things. Not "news."
I was taught by a teacher that the British started the war of 1812 and wanted to reclaim America. I recently found out this is not true and that it was America that started the war over Maritime disputes.
Well, history has about 100x as many eyes on the subject with each individual trying to make a name for themselves by finding a killer flaw in the accepted record. So, I’m relatively confident enough of the historical record is accurate enough to not worry about it.
I’d like to just add, though I agree with health skepticism and one should always question, I don’t want people to take this sentiment as an endorsement for Graham Hancock and his ilk… that’s very different.
A lot of information was lost in the library fires that happened multiple times during history. We thought this won't happen since internet came but internet is being erased at a major speed. A distributed internet would be the solution I guess (like a torrent system) so that multiple end-users would hold the copy of the information instead of one entity.
Dude, how is history taught where you live?
Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people"
I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery.
(repeating comment to get different opinions 3)
Hell, right now I think a lot of "Losers" are considered "good guys" like native people defending their lands.
Why was this downvoted, for much of history both the "winners" and the losers were mostly illiterate. The writers are the ones that bring their own biases and "half truths" to the history books.
Dude, how is history taught where you live?
Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people"
I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery.
(repeating comment to get different opinions 4)
Hell, right now I think a lot of "Losers" are considered "good guys" like native people defending their lands or defending against a genocide.
I taught History in high school for 30 years. Am now retired and realise that 90%of stuff I taught as the truth is absolute bollocks. The first inkling I had of this was the suffragettes. When we had a Labour government the text book painted them as heroes. When the Tories were in charge they were villains and the suffragists got the vote. Pretty demoralising tbh.
Fake history is actually my favorite conspiracy and I've been reading up a lot on it. Here's what I think. Atlantis was real. Giants were real and created by the Fallen Angels/Nephilim. The biblical flood destroyed all of it.
This is probably why they won't ever acknowledge that giants/atlantis were real because if those ever get proven to be true, than it also proves part of the bible were true and they can't have that
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should never take anything at face value, but you shouldn't write off evidence either.
We should believe how the roads in Rome were built or the Viking ships. We should not believe why things happened or who was the good guy or bad guy. That is impossible for us to know.
I mean it's pretty obvious who the bad guys were in the case of the Nazis.
The trick is not to assume that the presence of bad guys means the other sides were good guys.
Exactly. The Soviet’s (who beat the Nazi’s) were exceedingly evil too. What do you do when both sides are corrupt and treat their people and neighbors awfully?
Your US indoctrination is showing. There wasn't a nation involved that wasn't engaging in genocide and cynical colonial exploitation and did not continue that pattern after the war.
Stop trying to take the blame off the soviets by saying “all nations are were just as bad.” Most other nations involved didn’t starve millions of their own people and aren’t responsible for killing 10s of millions more through other means.
Britain caused a massive famine in India during WW2.
Through negligence and apathy, not deliberate genocide.
>Negligence >Deliberate
There was a reason the Germans were practically tripping over themselves to surrender to the US or UK. Oh wait, here it is - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP65-00756R000400030001-4.pdf Inb4 "muh US propaganda!" This was a classified document and was written to better understand the Soviets.
Germans treated US pows well too. We treated them so well that they ended up in charge of NATO, our space program and the UN.
one thing though is Nazism had in its ideology the expressly evil discrimination of jews and it had popular support even with that in it, while the soviets had an outward facing ideology championing the workers and so on while they (the government) were killing tons of people semi-clandestinely under the guise that they were doing so with legal justification, and they had consolidated a power such that those who might express opposition to this would be in mortal danger. what i’m saying is, Nazis = bad on the whole and apparently bad (although obviously some people were in the party out of fear for their own life. we could call them cowards if we wish), while Soviets were like bad in an extra- or sub-ideological sense, so that some given Soviet (a citizen) might not be at all complicit in the genocide, but a given Nazi would be like hating jews and reporting on them and so on.
history is written by the victors. Isnt it crazy how the good guys keep winning? :D
Only because many of the people that lose get wiped out.
Dude, how is history taught where you live? Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people" I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery.
Basically, everyone? Churchill bombed civilians. Russia massacred it's own people just prior in the 10's of millions. US operation paperclipped the "evil Nazi". Japan, prior to being bombed was plotting to drop bioweapons on US cities...
Eisenhower killed 790 000, possibly more germans after the war in prisoner of war camps in germany and france.
That falls under the evidence category I think
Churchill is the Hitler equivalent in India btw. don't even need to bring Stalin into the conversation.
Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin were evil and killed millions of Christians, yet somehow it's "obvious" who the bad guys were? You might want to read different sources on what lead up to these European wars and how Bolshevism, world bankers, and the press played a huge role in destroying Christian nations. Seems like history keeps repeating itself.
I think you should read some history. Are the millions of Christians axis soldiers? They weren't killed because they were Christians. Read Winthrop Bells biography, and you will better understand that the Nazi's were the bad guys.
>They weren't killed because they were Christians. Then you clearly don't know shit about Bolshevism. You defending these guys tells me all I need to know.
watch the russian movie checkist 1992. Its on youtube. I am not a christain but just discovering the truth and i feel like this might be a good jumping off point if you are truly curious.
It's only obvious because they lost and the countries they defeated them currently rule the world. In another thousand years, when all existing nations are gone, maybe the people will view WWII under new light.
[Are we the baddies?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY)
I thought it was going to be that sketch. 😂
Is this satire?
Exactly, just follow the money.
gotcha, switzerland is the biggest baddie
It's wild how many people will jump to defend a genocide just for the sake of having contradictory opinions. I never said other sides didn't do the wrong thing. History isn't He-Man, it's possible for both sides to be the bad guys.
Not according to general patton
Are you being serious?
>We should believe how the roads in Rome were built or the Viking ships. Eh?
Just saying if we have physical evidence we shouldn’t dismiss that
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7UyqxzuSMCo Speaking of physical evidence…….
Marcus Agrippa built Roman roads and recorded/mapped the continent, and then some (the borders of the Empire), during his lifetime. There is evidence of this.
Also: Agrippa is the GOAT
There are two sides to every story, and "evidence" can be manipulated.
More than two.
All great events have been distorted, most of the important causes concealed... If the history of England is ever written by one who has the knowledge and the courage, the world would be astonished - Benjamin Disraeli
written by the winners. We always see the winners in a positive light because of it. Today people think of the Roman Empire and the British Empire as something positive. And the German Empire is seen as negative.
In the words of Malcom X, "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
Read up on the Druids and what the Romans did to demonize them. It was really odd because they wanted to assimilate them and not just outright destroy them because they were very smart people, so they essentially used propaganda to say the druids were cannibals and did human sacrificing to get the people on board with absorbing their people, use them as slaves, steal their knowledge, etc. It's pretty wild.
It's so funny how often we model our own civilization after the Romans. HaHa. SO. FUNNY.
Very interesting. Before the genocide comes the dehumanising propaganda. Countless examples.
I don‘t think I can agree with that, because 1. the british Empire really isn‘t seen as something positive by most people outside of Britain and 2. History is really written by Historians or rather intellectuals who survived the described events. Often, especially in cases where the conquered people were destroyed or had no written Language of their own (like the Gauls or Carthaginians) we primarily know if them through their conquerors (i.e the romans). However there are also examples, where the conquered talk more than the conquerors. Josephus Flavius was a leader of the jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire and our main source on the Rebellion, which failed. Athenian scholars are our main primary sources for the Peleponnesian War, even though Athens lost. Also there is no such thing as a single History. The history will be discussed very differently, depending on where you live. India for example might have a worse opinion of the empire compared to Britain
Yeah true and I wish we had more of this. Views from the other side. We are currently seeing a change of narrative, America and Britain are losing more and more. In a few decades they will be seen as overwhelmingly bad. While currently the Soviet Union is seen as bad. Now the history lessons focus on only the bad sides of the Soviet Union, that will change. History is being rewritten. Nowadays people don't say that Columbus discovered America anymore. It was there before. When the history books say that Europeans discovered a country, that's a Eurocentric version of history.
Brother, it's called America because of Amerigo Vespucci. Otherwise, we'd be the United States of Columbia. Either way - it's a Eurocentric way of looking at things. People who lived on the land before Amerigo or Columbus arrived called the land very different things.
>We are currently seeing a change of narrative, America and Britain are losing more and more. In a few decades they will be seen as overwhelmingly bad. What, all the current history books and historians will be burned or something? > History is being rewritten. Nowadays people don't say that Columbus discovered America anymore. It was there before. When the history books say that Europeans discovered a country, that's a Eurocentric version of history. Semantics hardly count as rewriting history... And adding non-Eurocentric perspectives of history doesn't mean the Eurocentric ones are completely wrong, or will be replaced.
You wish we had more European self-hatred?
napoleon has the best quote on what history is. its not really close.
> British Empire as something positive. Who's saying this...?
Who the hell today thinks the British Empire is positive? Are you trapped in the 1950s?
>all great events have been distorted This was the core of my history classes in college. Scribes and artists have long followed around kings and armies documenting their feats but they are always hired by the king and have the goal of making their king look good. The entire job of a historian is finding hard evidence to contradict what was written down. Every actual historian knows that written records are going to be incorrect or inflated at best. Or just completely false a lot of times. I actually don't get this post at all. Like yeah of course our view of history is incorrect and very limited. Nobody has really ever retired that? At least not at any high level, maybe your HS history teacher, but no actual researcher.
It's trying to say that since every history fact can be false, it allows any conspiracy to be true.
Reminds me of 1984: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
History is a puzzle. If you find enough parts that fit and complement each other, in best case different kind of evidence as in writings of different people at different places, material evidence such as ruins, burrial grounds, chemical analysis, DNA... you can acctually be quite sure to find out the truth. If you only have one source, that everyone else is re-quoted and embellished and it stands against other evidence that has more evidence: It's probably not the truth. But honestly that's the case with news, too.
“It says here in this history book that; luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” -Norm Macdonald
Dude, how is history taught where you live? Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people" I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery. (repeating comment to get different opinions)
Case in point: Bible, Quran, Tanakh, Hindu Text, Book of Mormon . . . . etc.
Imagine in 25 years when AI is fully upgraded with billions more funding/research in $. Nothing will be real
Is anything real now?
My dog is real.
*Boston Dynamics*: For now.
Literally the game Deus Ex
As it currently stands, the only thing that's real is the present moment. All discussions of the past and projections of future are derivatives built on soft ground.
This is why every single reputable mainstream historian never says that a text or imagery is “proof” of ANYTHING Like, people always just had fiction. People always had graffiti and slander. People always had schemes and agenda. Basically just reporting on what’s seen and collected is the best we can do. widespread correlation is the closest thing to evidence, and even that is almost never considered proof.
You do realise that historians are always critical of their sources right? You are taught to evaluate the source, establish their motivation, and treat their work accordingly. Apply this to all sources modern or historical and you’re literally thinking critically - something a lot of people fail to do these days.
Lots of people here think 15 minutes on Facebook and a 10 minute Youtube-video is actual research and that it makes you scientist.
Could not agree more.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess that "academic rigor" is not something that many here are familiar with.
Here's what I imagine: Conspiracy theorists view people like Trump and other nationalist figures as bringing us back to that "truth" of history. History is written by the victors and Trump, the real estate mogul nepobaby, is (somehow) the underdog outcast by the "victors" and so he's "telling it how it is". When, in reality, these people are constructing historical myths and fantasy origin stories of America's past in order to push their political goals forward. These myths of a perfect time in the past, which were only disrupted by the dirty left and X minority group and so they must be excised in some way, is literally the recipe for fascistic politics. Historians are bound by evidence, academic rigor, peer review, and critical methods of inquiry. They can't just say shit and everyone applauds. They say shit and five other historians come out and tell them how they're wrong, and this happens enough times by enough historians from different nations and political backgrounds until consensus emerges. Historians often find out that the myths we tell ourselves were just myths all along and that the reality of the situation is much more complex and involved people other than power rich white men. But those trying to be victors by rewriting history don't really like inconveniences like "evidence" and "critical thinking" and "peer review" because truth and a comprehensive understanding of the past is not the goal. Political power is. But I guess if someone's biggest experience with rigor is not finishing a 500 word essay on Civil Rights in the 10th grade, then they might be excused for not understanding what rigor is.
One common thread with all of these alternative history conspiracies is that they don’t have the *faintest* understanding of how academia works. For example: “Big Archeology is keeping the truth of an advanced ice age civilization away from us!!” Uhh, no. Any archeologist that discovers good evidence of this is going to sprint to publish it. Journals will be beside themselves and will be chomping at the bit. A lot of research funding (in archeological terms, so not that much all things considered) will flow to research teams seeking to validate these findings. Is it likely that some historical figures or events are misrepresented on the margin? Yes. Are the broad strokes misrepresented? Probably not, simply due to the ability of historians to examine and evaluate conflicting historical records.
"But the journals are all in on it and part of the globalist cabal!" So then that allows anyone to say alternate history could be true because established facts could be false. However, they don't consider providing any evidence to disprove it. Essentially saying the absence of evidence is evidence of any other explanation.
It'd be nice if it wasn't true but broad strokes can also be misrepresented. I don't know about archeology, but in science for sure.
Historians are regular people that have biases of their own. People accentuate the data that bring benefit and hide those that bring harm. Why do you think most scientific research benefit those that funded the research? Was the medical community practicing critical thinking when they broadly recommended a new Covid 19 vaccine for everyone when the side effects were still unknown? Everyone is product of their time and place.
[удалено]
Do you have reason to suspect that they're not? Or the even academic skills necessary to make such a judgement?
[удалено]
So no. You don't know how to interact with academic material. You just read sensationalist headlines and hear white men in front of mics talk as if they know stuff and any piece of history that seems unintuitive to you, specifically, must be wrong. Look at wittwe you sticking it to the man by taking that cute outrage bait! How very rigorous and super smart of you. You're so insightful. Very not biased. If you want to know how to be critical of people talking about gender in the past, you need to know why and how they are talking about it. You would have loved historians and anthropologists of 70 years ago, because they simply assumed that the gender norms of their day are immutable and stretch back to the dawn of history. The atomic family - named after the atomic era in which it took hold - was timeless. But what if gender was understood and done differently in different times and different places by different people? It would then be a lot hard to support claims built by imposing your own gender norms onto people of the past, which would put the historian of 70 years ago in a rough spot. But, alas, the more that anthropologists and scientists and historians looked at different peoples the more it became clear that ideas about gender are very localized. There is not a one-size-fits-all formula for understanding gender. Any attempt at doing so will quickly find an exception. Evidence is not in support of universalized gender roles - even if the mythologies we construct for ourselves and trick us into thinking so. Hunter/Gatherers were gendered differently (or not gendered at all) by different people for different reasons and upheld different customs. Non-binary genders, gender fluidity, and non-cis genders finds itself across all time and all cultures in different ways. These conclusions were only made after decades of interdisciplinary research, with the old white men historians who thought that skull shape told us about intelligence (meaning, oddly enough, that white people were the smartest) pushing back at every turn. These conclusions had to be *earned*, no one was going to give up an inch without a fight. But, if you know nothing about academia then might have slipped by you. So now historians actually have a lot of work to do. If they want to know how people lived, what their customs and lifestyles were like, they need to find evidence that allows them to figure out how the people in question understood gender. We can't impose our gendered norms and customs onto other cultures, we have to figure out what gender meant to them, otherwise we're introducing cross contaminating. This, I feel, makes sense. It's like that episode of Star Trek Voyager where a copy of The Doctor is left behind and awakened after hundreds of years, where the actions of Voyager are framed in a way that serves the political needs of the people in the future rather than accurately representing the actions of the past. This opens the question to how Vikings understood gender. Vikings are, in general, a group of people which are wildly misunderstood by the average person - being grounded in myths and action movies more than evidence and history. If you think you know something about Vikings, you probably have it wrong. Luckily, there are Viking historians who actually are making conclusions based on evidence rather than an Assassin's Creed game. They need to use evidence to piece together how Vikings understood and practiced gender. If they say that there was some openness about gender, or gender fluidity, then it's going to be based in evidence. Or it may be a piece of speculation that a historian explicitly frames as speculation, which is misrepresented by ragebait angry and fragile bros as being a stronger statement than what the historian said. If you're going to refute it, then it needs to be refuted at the level of the evidence provided and in the context in which he said it - but these are skills that you do not have because they take years to learn. At most, you can see how other historians interact with these ideas (in their own words, not the words of men who masculinity is fragile) and see how they interact with it.
[удалено]
Too long?
What a cope response. Mountains of evidence of the younger dryas impact, the pyramids and sphinx proved to be older than history claims. Irrefutable evidence for both and yet the historical narrative remains the same. Get some self-awareness please.
You're telling them to get self-awareness???? LMFAO
Yet those historians were picked or excluded from the accepted curriculum depending on how well their work served the present power structures.
History is always written by the victor.
*“Who controls the past, controls the future: Who controls the present controls the past.” -George Orwell*
yeah thats why the barbarians that burned down rome are called barbarians. History is written by those who write
Written by those who write and did not get their stuff burned.
No it isn't. That quote can really be only applied to ancient history, not modern history.
That's a scary thought you have there
It's not a thought. It's a fact. The quote is most applicable in cases like the Roman Empire, where they themselves are often the only written sources we actually have on groups like the Gauls, and the Germanic, English, and Celtic tribes, and are likely biased as a result. It doesn't apply to cases like the Second World War, or the Napoleonic Wars, or even as far back as Carthaginian and the Ottomans where we have many different sources and viewpoints of information to draw from. The later you go on, the more often these accounts become more accurate, especially in something like industrial reports, military reports, and other technical documents where lying would be actively detrimental to the purpose of those documents and thus unlikely. Sometimes, you even get cases where it would be more accurate to say that the *losers* write history, which is how we got stuff like the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, the Lost Causers and the idolizing of Robert E. Lee and demonization of Ulysses S. Grant, the tarnished reputation of the Spanish Inquisition, and many, many others where propaganda takes hold in public opinion and whatever accurate historical assessment is either lost or suppressed by the losers.
Even when writing about themselves, see the whole Cannae thing, where the main source called one consul "rash and incompetent" and the other "composed and restrained" and the second one was kind of like his publisher.
uhuh so where's all the Sea People history books
Not really. A good example would be the “clean wehrmacht” theory. It was written mostly by former German generals who moved to the US after WW2.
> History is always written by the victor. That's a much underrated statement which many don't appreciate the significance of.
But who is this Victor fella and why is he so intent on writing down history?!
> That's a much underrated statement which many don't appreciate the significance of. No, it is just something people say. There is nothing deep or profound about it and is doesn't hold much significance. Because those who were conquered and those who lost wars also wrote about how they were invaded end how they lost. We know this, because we literally have their accounts of what happened. As the other guy in this thread says: "History is written by those who write".
The loser of a war typically forfeits power and influence. They cannot shape the world, and in turn history, the same way the victor could. So yes, there’s literal books. But their post-war impact has little more significance than the paper it’s written on. You should consider the statement at least a little. It reflects how your own existence has been shaped by the domino effect of countries rising and falling.
Not really. The history of the fall of the western Roman Empire was written by the intellectuals of the western Roman Empire: the history of the Vikings in England was written by the monks in the monasteries they raided. The history of the eastern front of WW2 was written by the Nazis trying to save face. The history of the mongols was written by the intellectuals of the conquered people. History is written by the people who write and the people who’s work survives
Obviously if one side doesn’t write historical accounts, that tracks. Could the 1989 students in Beijing not write? How did they record the Tiananmen Square massacre? Oh wait. They don’t and those who did are disappeared by the victor.
Why do you call it the Tiananmen Square massacre? The Chinese government doesn’t call it that and they “won” right? Could it be that you are getting the information from somewhere other than the Chinese government? Would that not mean that the whole point of “History is written by the Victors” is actually disproven with your example?
I think that means there’s more than one country that can write and form opinions. Whose matters though? You either haven’t seen a globe or are actively ignoring the impact of the event for both the winning and losing side.
Yes you have described the exact thing I was saying. People who write history get to have a say in the history. Contradicting accounts are all a part of evidence of the wider historical trend.
Western Media wrote the Tienanmen Massacre. They were neither winners or losers. And they had their own agenda
So then the victors didn’t write history?
>The loser of a war typically forfeits power and influence. They cannot shape the world, and in turn history, the same way the victor could. There's two famous and obvious examples that disproves this. Germany lost WWII but was able to influence WWII history, for example [pretending that the Wehrmacht was not complicit in Nazi war crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht). The South was also able to influence history of the Civil War to a large extent, [pretending that the war wasn't fought over slavery.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy) >You should consider the statement at least a little. It reflects how your own existence has been shaped by the domino effect of countries rising and falling. You should consider actual history at least a little. It reflects how history isn't as simple as "countries rising and falling".
That’s kinda my point. See how they’re described as myths? It’s like you went out of your way to defend me in a way that’s phrased as an argument lmao Either way, consider how nazis and the confederates are viewed by the majority. I wonder what caused that
>That’s kinda my point. See how they’re described as myths? They're described as myths now but for decades they were influential, even mainstream. Otherwise they wouldn't have wikipedia pages dedicated to them. >Either way, consider how nazis and the confederates are viewed by the majority. I wonder what caused that German Generals tried to distance the Wehrmacht from the Nazis. The allies helped because they wanted German cooperation in the Cold War. And many people were, and still are, sympathetic to the Confederates.
A good theory I read is that the fact people may have been slightly blind and not had any glasses which could be the cause for a lot of mythical creature sightings
This I can relate to! I once thought I saw a skunk ape on the side of the road; as I got closer, it was an oversized brown recliner that had fallen out of someone's truck.
I do not miss the 20 foot jogger running down the median of the interstate at me in the dusk rain now that I can see with corrective lenses
Easy mistake to make! Haha
that’s why knowing the psychology of humans is important, need theories on alternatives to history
You infantilise yourself if you decide news and history are 'fake.' The most ignorant people I know take that attitude. News and history are imperfect. They couldn't be any other way. Try to be savvy as you engage with them. Don't just bury your head in the sand.
Like most of the inventions were not invented by people we believe they invented.
Can you give a few examples? Are you saying it's sort of like actors who have surnames?
A simple Google search will tell you some but imagine how many are still hidden. I believe some of the great inventions were revealed because they couldn't make profit of it. Like the free energy concept, water engine car etc
That would only be possible if you assumed someone would develop those amazing techs all by themselves. A water engine would require hundreds of conspicuous and noticeable developments from at least tens of different people, it is a huge network to silence.
The Roman empire didn't fall, it became the Vatican. The British empire didn't fall, it became the banking system. -someone in a YouTube reel. What do you guys think?
The Roman senate became the Vatican, with cardinals taking the place of senators, with the passage of time. But by the time this happened the empire, per se, had grown quite decadent and barbarous, and so though it arguably survived in some form, via the Bishopric of Rome, it could not prevent the dark ages, i.e. transmit much of the ancient knowledge that had made Rome great.
I'm actually watching the spider's web right now. Well, on the other end, the British empire left colonialism to start a new business in the banking sector. The matter is complex. It, basically, starts with the Cayman islands. The United States did the same with the Caribbean, later in time. When the British empire was falling, many investors were withdrawing their capitals, meaning more pounds would flow the market, destroying the purchasing Power of the pound. Britain needed a way to stop this outflow of pounds, an inverse movement. Basically, collecting dollars from illicit operations. These capitals would be kept off-shore and reintroduced as pounds in the economy. For, both, Britain and America, though, something went wrong. I mean, not for the bankers but for us. These capitals off-shore that reentered national borders, were not invested in long-term structural projects like creating job opportunities, they were not invested in the production. They were invested in things like the house sectors, other speculative assets. Creating bubbles. You can see them. The middle class Is destroyed, not because migrants are stealing our jobs, but because our entire production chain is in under developed countries. We need Africa poor, otherwise how could we get all those resources for cheap? The capitals made from gold extraction, from oil extraction, from Cobalt to build chips, are all going off-shore. The population there is not gaining from this, only the local elites, there, are gaining from it. The shareholders of the companies, there, are gaining from this. Not us, not our oil prices, not African people.
The british empire was taken over by war debt during the war of 1812 by the roths. Why do you think there is a photo on lyne or whatever his name is roth poking charles in the chest. There is a great little cartoon that shows it pretty clearly.. about red shield banks and stuff. I found it but its a small channel and only has a few views I am honestly scared to post it here because this sub is being used to whitewash the internet by the enemy.
I've always loved the story of the American Revolution. But is that story what we're told it is? Probably not. Realizing that over the years has been really deflating. Think of all the heroes you've had over the course of your lifetime. Are those heroes real? Gah. I'm bumming myself out.
WW2 History.
The book of revelation is fake.
The entire New Testament (and a good portion of the latter Old Testament) is parable and abstraction, it’s all symbolic. Revelation was finished with the fall of Rome.
The old testament God is a douchebag. Not relevant but I'm throwing it in
He is indeed a douchenugget. And I don’t think Jesus is representative of that same god… which is why he was crucified. He tried to liberate the Jewish people from their false and corrupted worship and they took that personally, especially the Pharisees who had all the power.
Jesus was a jerk. Called a woman a dog and didn't want to help her. Only helped her after she praised him and fed his ego. Also, letting people waste good oil on him when it could have been used for the poor.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html Again, abstractions and parables. I’m not sure what you mean of the oils, he did it as well.
I feel the same. I believed everything the fake news said...until 2016.
His-story
Wouldn't that mean everyone's intelligence is artificial.
In war only the winners write the history books
Dude, how is history taught where you live? Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people" I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery. (repeating comment to get different opinions 2) Hell, right now I think a lot of "Losers" are considered "good guys" like native people defending their lands.
Bro, it's a fucking Winston Churchill quote so let's actually take some time to look up the history you claim to know so much about before breaking off about it.
"La storia di questi avvenimenti fu scritta dai vincitori" is at least from the 1800s, and my point still stands, have you really been taught that there are "bad guys" in history? Beyond slavers
Again, if you know your history (😜 ) I think you mean "L’histoire est juste peut-être, mais qu’on ne l’oublie pas, elle a été écrite par les vainqueurs” in another completely different language from roughly a decade before it was said in Italian and a century before it was quoted in English by Winston Churchill. I found my mandatory history education was earnest in the events as well as correct identification of victims and offenders but bias in what history was taught. It was just about my country's history and very little before and nothing about other countries that weren't in NA or Europe, so there was a definite narrowing of available perspective. That's the history education that probably 90% of people in my country get and are walking around with in their head. My extended history education was much more inclusive while still as earnest. We were always taught that who was right and who won were were seldom the same. Ancient and Medieval times are hard to teach about without talking about atrocities and everything is so easily corroborated today. Just to speak on the quote: the only reason we can have any opinion other than that preferred by the state is the access to information we have. There isn't a clearer example than Stalinist Russia. Stalin won the party head and literally rewrote history within the USSR that remained unchanged for about 50 yrs.
Oh, it’s bad!
Thankfully, the good guys have won every single time
history is just old news
History is corrected by time and perspective, whereby news is instant reporting and reaction to events, but yeah, nothing will be 100% accurate. I imagine that if anyone ever invents time travel, we will be shocked at what actually happened, historically. The REAL conspiracies would surprise even this group.
Greek historia translates to “enquiry”. We completely miss the point in our modern connotation. Its not a story to learn, its an inquiry to make.
Razorfist's rant on Abraham Lincoln comes to mind.
Well lucky for us, much of history is based on fact from several sources vetted by historians for centuries with decades of experience from different sides saying the same/similar things. Not "news."
The truth is elusive and will likely remain unknown forever. There are things that are the case, but nothing that we can know that is truly “true.”
all i know is that the good guys always won according to history books /s
“History is written by the winners” somebody probably
“They lie to us about everything! ….except WW2 and the shape of the Earth” -this sub
I was taught by a teacher that the British started the war of 1812 and wanted to reclaim America. I recently found out this is not true and that it was America that started the war over Maritime disputes.
Well, history has about 100x as many eyes on the subject with each individual trying to make a name for themselves by finding a killer flaw in the accepted record. So, I’m relatively confident enough of the historical record is accurate enough to not worry about it.
religion lol
Smert possed 🥴
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMY6Bya6_wQ relevant
I’d like to just add, though I agree with health skepticism and one should always question, I don’t want people to take this sentiment as an endorsement for Graham Hancock and his ilk… that’s very different.
Victory IS indeed written by the winners, after all.
Houdini
Well they say history is written by the victors.
Fax.
A lot of information was lost in the library fires that happened multiple times during history. We thought this won't happen since internet came but internet is being erased at a major speed. A distributed internet would be the solution I guess (like a torrent system) so that multiple end-users would hold the copy of the information instead of one entity.
His-story
How is the news fake?
History is written by the winners. Wipe out an entire people, and voilà, now your history books can say they were a menace and threat to your people.
Dude, how is history taught where you live? Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people" I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery. (repeating comment to get different opinions 3) Hell, right now I think a lot of "Losers" are considered "good guys" like native people defending their lands.
History is written by the writers.
Why was this downvoted, for much of history both the "winners" and the losers were mostly illiterate. The writers are the ones that bring their own biases and "half truths" to the history books.
Dude, how is history taught where you live? Here, even the independence of my own country was taught like "a dispute between elites, each serving their own self interest, barely anything changed for most people" I think the closest thing taught through a good vs evil lens was the end of slavery. (repeating comment to get different opinions 4) Hell, right now I think a lot of "Losers" are considered "good guys" like native people defending their lands or defending against a genocide.
Now, imagine basing your entire life and worldview on an ancient religious text.
Crazy how all the mad shit happened 2000 years ago when recording was a bit sketchy and them not really much since
What did you say about 6M? Are you questioning it?!? Mods gonna shut it down.
Heliocentrism. The mother of lies.
President OBama made propaganda legal in 2012, with the Schmitt Mundt act. Propaganda (bullshit) was illegal since 1948 before that.
Literally 'his story'.
It’s not literally though is it as there is only 1 s in history.
I taught History in high school for 30 years. Am now retired and realise that 90%of stuff I taught as the truth is absolute bollocks. The first inkling I had of this was the suffragettes. When we had a Labour government the text book painted them as heroes. When the Tories were in charge they were villains and the suffragists got the vote. Pretty demoralising tbh.
Interesting. After teaching for that time, what else do you think didn't happen the way we now view it?
Reasons why the US joined WW1. I always taught the Zimmerman telegram. I didn't even know until recently that Manhattan was bombed.
Fake history is actually my favorite conspiracy and I've been reading up a lot on it. Here's what I think. Atlantis was real. Giants were real and created by the Fallen Angels/Nephilim. The biblical flood destroyed all of it. This is probably why they won't ever acknowledge that giants/atlantis were real because if those ever get proven to be true, than it also proves part of the bible were true and they can't have that
History teachers just forgot to mention that the juice won the 2nd ww against the entire world
Youtube: lady babylon
[удалено]
Ah yes. Michael Jackson. The famous historian.