Some years ago--researching a topic I don't remember--I stumbled on data which caused me to fundamentally distrust all these types of population stats. I write this up because it's a little different angle and a little easier to digest than the linked post.
Everyone thinks, "Well, maybe these numbers are not exact, but we can all agree there's some sound basis to them. Nope, I think they're just making a lot of them up at this point. They all have to be viewed through the lens of, "This is what They would have you believe," or "This is what They will admit to."
At that time, I wanted to know how prevalent Catholicism was in France, and I found this:
It stuck in my mind because, of course, I had always thought of Italy as the preeminent Catholic country. I don't remember what I found for Italy at the time, but it was significantly less.
When I went to search for that same stat a few years later, I found this:
Down forty points in a decade? No, no population changes religion that fast, even if all the old people dying off were Catholic and all the young people were atheists.
"They" want to destroy organized religion, as well as the cultures into which such religions are integrated. Part of the war against them is to make them less popular, and the primary and easiest method of psychological warfare to achieve that is simply to tell everyone they're less popular.
Final observation: Note that the first number, probably closest to correct, was from the CIA itself. So over the course of the last 10-15 years, their lies have gotten much more egregious. I always claim that "They" are getting more desperate just in the recent past, and this is one more small, concrete reflection of that.
Facts changing has really bothered me recently. Remeber the days when newspapers had journalistic integrety, and documented the updates, and changes? Now I find the same article I learned information, but it's not quite right. Until I check if there was an archived version somewhere.
Puts me in mind of this classic of classics from Orwell:
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten... every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered... History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
Long, long story--and you'll have to trust that I wouldn't say it unless I believed it and had the backup--but I recently came to the conclusion that all of "recorded history", from Herodotus to the present, has taken place in the last 850 years or so.
I found it so disturbing when Morpheus told Neo they didn't really know what year it was, but now I come to find out that Reality is literally more disturbing than the Matrix. You can only laugh at this point!
Not directly. Only through Sylvie Ivanowa's work, with one exception.
I read Chapter 1 of 'Tsar of the Slavs', which I found very rigorous and completely convincing of the facts that the Nativity was in what we call 1152 AD and the Crucifixion was in what we call 1185 AD. (I started to read Chapter 2 but it seemed way off and I didn't know if it was him or me so I just gave up.)
I matched exactly that work with other research by Sylvain Tristan and his book, "Re-Dating Ancient Greece: 500 BC = 1300 AD?" I watched a two-hour video presentation/interview on it someone posted here a bit ago, and that was enough for the penny to drop.
I would contend that the 1800 year gap that Tristan is seeing actually the gap from 600 BC to the time of Christ, ~1200 AD in Fomenko's new dating. All of real history got copypasta'd and misdated and jumbled throughout that period, but the point is that I already knew 600 BC was an extremely pivotal time in human history. There's no way that time gap is a coincidence.
Much, much longer story about 600 BC, but I almost never post about this stuff because you can see you have to have a decent grasp on a few things most people have never even heard of.
Some years ago--researching a topic I don't remember--I stumbled on data which caused me to fundamentally distrust all these types of population stats. I write this up because it's a little different angle and a little easier to digest than the linked post.
Everyone thinks, "Well, maybe these numbers are not exact, but we can all agree there's some sound basis to them. Nope, I think they're just making a lot of them up at this point. They all have to be viewed through the lens of, "This is what They would have you believe," or "This is what They will admit to."
At that time, I wanted to know how prevalent Catholicism was in France, and I found this:
CIA World Factbook: France
It stuck in my mind because, of course, I had always thought of Italy as the preeminent Catholic country. I don't remember what I found for Italy at the time, but it was significantly less.
When I went to search for that same stat a few years later, I found this:
Religion Facts: Religion in France
Did it really fall that far in a couple of years? Seems unlikely. But if you look now in the Book of Knowledge, you'll find this:
Wikipedia: Religion in France
Down forty points in a decade? No, no population changes religion that fast, even if all the old people dying off were Catholic and all the young people were atheists.
"They" want to destroy organized religion, as well as the cultures into which such religions are integrated. Part of the war against them is to make them less popular, and the primary and easiest method of psychological warfare to achieve that is simply to tell everyone they're less popular.
Final observation: Note that the first number, probably closest to correct, was from the CIA itself. So over the course of the last 10-15 years, their lies have gotten much more egregious. I always claim that "They" are getting more desperate just in the recent past, and this is one more small, concrete reflection of that.
Facts changing has really bothered me recently. Remeber the days when newspapers had journalistic integrety, and documented the updates, and changes? Now I find the same article I learned information, but it's not quite right. Until I check if there was an archived version somewhere.
Physical needs to come back. I'm tired of it.
Puts me in mind of this classic of classics from Orwell:
Long, long story--and you'll have to trust that I wouldn't say it unless I believed it and had the backup--but I recently came to the conclusion that all of "recorded history", from Herodotus to the present, has taken place in the last 850 years or so.
I found it so disturbing when Morpheus told Neo they didn't really know what year it was, but now I come to find out that Reality is literally more disturbing than the Matrix. You can only laugh at this point!
Have you read any Fomenko?
Not directly. Only through Sylvie Ivanowa's work, with one exception.
I read Chapter 1 of 'Tsar of the Slavs', which I found very rigorous and completely convincing of the facts that the Nativity was in what we call 1152 AD and the Crucifixion was in what we call 1185 AD. (I started to read Chapter 2 but it seemed way off and I didn't know if it was him or me so I just gave up.)
I matched exactly that work with other research by Sylvain Tristan and his book, "Re-Dating Ancient Greece: 500 BC = 1300 AD?" I watched a two-hour video presentation/interview on it someone posted here a bit ago, and that was enough for the penny to drop.
I would contend that the 1800 year gap that Tristan is seeing actually the gap from 600 BC to the time of Christ, ~1200 AD in Fomenko's new dating. All of real history got copypasta'd and misdated and jumbled throughout that period, but the point is that I already knew 600 BC was an extremely pivotal time in human history. There's no way that time gap is a coincidence.
Much, much longer story about 600 BC, but I almost never post about this stuff because you can see you have to have a decent grasp on a few things most people have never even heard of.