Mary - God save the Queen

[PotatoFieldsForever]

Interesting shape:

She said that she was catholic and believed in Jesus and the holy spirit but taking into account the "religion is a smokescreen, it has everybody talking to a wall" and "God was there before the religions", she uses the Christian symbols but I sense a masonic touch or at least an open interpretation of the bible, in the same way that Robert Fludd was an occultist but used Christian symbols to go under the radar, in the end, he was still called a heretic.

Personally, I don't trust history, I don't trust the catholic church and I don't trust the bible to be the word of God.

[PotatoFieldsForever]

I meant that I didn't trust that the bible was given by God for our salvation, let's not get lost in semantic, if I don't trust history and the catholic church, it will be to be very hard for me to trust the bible (It begs the question "did the elites write the bible?").

[rachel]

What fascinates me are the shadows, the reflections and the repeats.

We know there is a set of people called the Jews. We know there is a place called Israel. We know there is a Wall in Israel that the Jews are obsessed about.
We know there are a set of people called Muslims, we know at some point they invaded Israel, and to spite the Jews built a temple in the very location of the Wall the Jews are obsessed with.
We also know meanwhile there is another set of people called Christians, and we know they have records of church councils, the minutes where doctrine was formed still existing, and we know this movement also starts in Israel.
We know there was a schism between Gentile Christians and Jews, this culminated in the Gentile Christians moving their Holy days so they did not fall on Jewish Holy days; as a result the Church persecuted Christians who tried to keep the original days. Hence why Easter never falls on Passover and Christians worship on Sunday, not Saturday.
We know later there was a break in the Roman Christian church called the East-West Schism. This is when the Greek Orthodox and Catholic Churches separate.
We know later still there is another break in Europe, this creates the Protestant Church and the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, and why we all have access to the Bible.

This is where I have a problem with people saying history is fake. All these things exist and can be seen. And if we don't accept the accounts given to explain these events, a different equally plausible account has to be posited. Palming it all off by saying a set of people sat in a room and made it all up is not credible and is quite frankly an insult.

The more I look at the stuff we know that exists in the real world now, the more I am convinced they can be traced back to a single point.

[YouCanCallMeAl]

"We" can't know anything, any more than 'Liverpool football club' can know or 'the government' can know. "We" doesn't work generically - what specific collective group of people do you mean? Do you mean 'fakeologists know'? But then, you do know that some fakeologists do not think history is provided - you mention that - so who is this mass of people? You and what army?

The reality is that you can only say 'I know'. Knowing occurs when an individual confirms/verifies this or that (and one can't verify much). When it comes to knowing one can only speak for oneself - even if the language allows incorrect usage.

So what is it that you know? You know all that history how?

[rachel]

We know these things exist in reality in the present.

There are Jews, there is a Wall, there are Muslims, there is a Mosque where the wall is, there are Christians, they are spilt into Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Protestants. Jews worship on a Saturday. Christians worship on Sunday. Christian Holy days do not fall on Jewish Holy days. There is a thing called the Bible and it is written in vulgar tongue.

What is your problem with any of these things being facts in reality? You are just being a contrarian for the sake of it.

Given that there has to be facts why they exist, and there needs to be a logical chronological order, then there has got to be some better reason than just being a dick to say "history is fake". And the thing is when you ask people like you who take exception, you have nothing.

Talking to you on this subject is a joke, because when you are cornered, you revert to "we don't know if anything is real", we've had all these arguments before, and unlike you, I remember them.

Why do all the above exist? In your reality where did they come from?

[YouCanCallMeAl]

There are Jews, there is a Wall, there are Muslims, there is a Mosque where the wall is, there are Christians, they are spilt into Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Protestants. Jews worship on a Saturday. Christians worship on Sunday. Christian Holy days do not fall on Jewish Holy days. There is a thing called the Bible and it is written in vulgar tongue.

What is your problem with any of these things being facts in reality? You are just being a contrarian for the sake of it.

What nonsense, what a strawman! I don't have a problem with reality. I think it is possible to go and verify that Christian worship on a Sunday or whatever.

Given that there has to be facts why they exist, and there needs to be a logical chronological order, then there has got to be some better reason than just being a dick to say "history is fake". And the thing is when you ask people like you who take exception, you have nothing.

I have nothing, but the issue here is that you think you have something. That is what I am pointing out.

Something happened in the past, for sure. It is perfectly reasonable to say that "something happened". However, why is it the case that I can know what happened? It is certainly possible to pretend that I do know, to pretend that such-and-such a story is true. But, you and I, being in the present and not at the occurrence of the historical events you mention, cannot know the past.

If one brings up a memory - that is not the past - it is a present time action, where one recollects something. And memories can be mistaken. If you read a history book, you do not know the past - all you know if that you read a book about the past, you have verified the book not the past. And surely you will agree that the contents of books can be wrong. Furthermore sometimes, even when one is present, one does not know - eg no one knows their own birthday as no one can recollect it - it is only hearsay to us, something we were told and believe to be true, but not knowledge.

Talking to you on this subject is a joke, because when you are cornered, you revert to "we don't know if anything is real", we've had all these arguments before, and unlike you, I remember them.

I'm not cornered, and I don't say "we don't know if anything is real". There is stuff that is real but the past is not knowable, like you assume it is. And, while you may remember the historic discussions we had, you seem to have forgotten the point I was trying to make - that you can hypothesise/believe this or that all you like, but you cannot know it.

I hesitate to mention this, but you also seem to have missed the main point I was making, which wasn't even a point about history! The main argument I made was that I objected to your invocation of "we". I was saying that using "we" like you do, is problematic (to you, not me). "We" cannot know anything. You can speak for yourself - but you can't speak for me, unless you really do know what I (and everyone else) knows - which is impossible! Its even more ironic that you claim to speak for everyone when you are on the fakologist site and you know from previous discussions (your words) that I (and others) would not agree. So what do you mean by "we know" when the facts are that there is no consensus?

Why do all the above exist? In your reality where did they come from?

I don't know. And neither do you.

[PotatoFieldsForever]

Personally, I didn't say that history was fake, it's just that I don't trust it enough to make meaningful extrapolation from it. Especially, the period ranging from antiquity up to roughly the year 1000 AD. However, I don't discard others possibilities such as more history manipulation or that the nature of reality is not what we think it is but I won't use that in a debate to discard arguments.

I have to say though with the fakery we see on a daily basis, how could we not question our history ? there is a wall? can't they build a wall, a mosque or repurpose ancient buildings? they just need to say that the monument correspond to what is found in their scriptures or in history, add some fake artifacts to prove their points and people will eat it (because they trust the system as a whole despite a few bad apples).

There are Jews, there is a Wall, there are Muslims, there is a Mosque where the wall is, there are Christians, they are spilt into Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Protestants. Jews worship on a Saturday. Christians worship on Sunday. Christian Holy days do not fall on Jewish Holy days. There is a thing called the Bible and it is written in vulgar tongue.

I'm not arguing that is the situation today but in the period that I've mentioned, the history comes mainly from the Roman Church and it's the same people who compiled the Bible, the inconsistencies exist but since I'm not an expert I won't do a debate on this but I think there is enough suspicion to make someone doubt without invoking the "all is fake" argument.

I'm not sure how the schism between the east and west change anything since the problem is at the root, the translation in common tongue just shows that "the holy book" was in Latin for more than a millennium and if the history we are given is correct, most people were unaware of the word of God and the rest had to rely on someone else.

There are Americans, there are Russians, there are Chinese, there is right, there is left ... they all have their history but in the end I think that it's just a facade for the same thing.

[rachel]

I'm not saying not to question history, but not being able to trust history is part of the opposition's tactics. The first I heard of the term "Great Reset" was from a Scottish truther in 2017, and I was quite intrigued about it. And then quite a few other people started discussing a "Reset". I think I hit a point where truthers on youtube were talking about it as fact like MSM talks about 'global warming' or 'billions of years'. And that's when I twigged it was bullshit created by the same people controlling every other narrative.

And then what do you know...a new puppet villain marches into town in 2020 called Klaus Schwab with his book "The Great Reset". And at that point, everyone who was not on contract to create reset-type videos should have said, 'oh right, it's another one they've placed in the collective to mind-control us into Communism'. But, on my way to this conclusion, I looked at a lot of black and white old photos, some showing incredible stuff. I like looking at these photos, still do, but there is only so much you can take from them.

At college, I did a module on photography and at that point in time we used film cameras, so I was using black and white film and developing it. While a did very little in the way of "tricks", just a touch of dodging and burning, I was taught some of the ways a black and white image can be manipulated via double exposure and the use of masks to alter what is projected on the paper. I was therefore interested to see how widespread it was for people to use trick photography right at the very beginning. I found a couple of books, one very early discussing the problems with fixing the image so it lasted more than a couple of months. It also discussed what photography actually was; the author suggested it's a type of art, the point wasn't to capture reality. As soon as I read that I concluded old photos can only be used to tell us specific things and certainly not a "Great Reset".

Above, is Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie. Which one of the two pictures is the real one?

I'm going to suggest neither of them. And then an interesting question...why did the photographer feel the need to photo Sophie separately and add her into the picture afterwards? It's clear the same image of her has been used twice, and I think a clue to the reason why can be seen in her head size compared to Franz Ferdinand's. It would appear there was a need to reduce how big she actually was compared to him. Going by the face/head, she seems likely to have been bigger than him. So what might that tell us about this couple? Remember, these are the two people who's deaths are responsible for the start of WWI.

It's off the subject of Mary, but what can we trust in history? Personally, I put weight on the Wall, the Mosque...and strangely enough...the Ex cathedra declarations of the Catholic Church.

[aSHIFT.]

Rachel wrote:

I'm not saying not to question history, but not being able to trust history is part of the opposition's tactics.

an interesting idea.

rephrased to referring to any other Big Narrative we, seasoned Fakeologists should be very cautious with, it would become quite comical

"I'm not saying not to question 9/11 planes morphing into buildings, but not being able to trust 9/11 planes morphing into buildings is part of the opposition's tactics."
"I'm not saying not to question NASA et al., but not being able to trust NASA et al. is part of the opposition's tactics."
"I'm not saying not to question Germ Theory for Viruses , but not being able to trust Germ Theory for Viruses is part of the opposition's tactics."
etc. etc.

I almost know (presume with high confidence) that you don't mean to say it like this, but I cannot unsee the parallels.

So the question comes up;

what do you mean by "history" ?

Does it refer to

Chronology - do you trust the currently widely accepted time placements of historical events?
Historical cause and effect - do you trust that historical events took place for the causes presented, leading to the effects presented?
An overall, more detached feel about human history - do you trust the general historical patterns that have been drawn for us by the historiographers?



on the 1st point, as PotatoFieldsForever alluded to, I am and stay impressed by the enormous task that Soviet-Ukrainian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko has taken on. Since getting to know about him, from the Bulgarian lady, Silvia is her name I think, running the newearth channel on YouTube, I like his approach, taking the right, globally observable phenomena, like celestial, Gaia-related and other phenomena.

It makes me highly suspicious of especially the times (chronology, (non)veracity of historical figures, overal history with "Rome" being so-called modern and advanced and suddenly Europe "forgot how to live normally for 1000 years") before the Renaissance, I coined as Prenaissance.

For those for whom a 1052 year "leftover time" in history is too much, other researchers, like German Herman Illig, have proposed shorter but equally exaggerated chronologies, rejecting the existence of famous Charles the Great, the alleged first Holy Roman Emperor as a single historical figure, proposing an amalgamation of several historical characters in one, created one...

The 2nd point, we as Fakeologists, we CAN only be highly suspicious of, simply because we reject those cause and effect narratives given to us now:

like "the US Military Industrial Complex invaded and occupied and regime changed Afghanistan and Iraq because of tewwowists"

so it would not make sense that in historical times this principle would be invalid.

And if someone proposes such idea, my question is "when did they go from real history to fake history then, what moment or what division defines that?"

The 3rd point is my own focus. I try to approach history as holistic as possible, trying to imagine how and with what people lived in a certain place and a certain time (focusing on post-Prenaissance or the placement of a historical situation irrespective of when that actually was according to mainstream (Scallagher) chronology).

I am interested how you, and also others, approach this set of historical questions.

[rachel]

Fifth column
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation. According to Harris Mylonas and Scott Radnitz, "fifth columns" are “domestic actors who work to undermine the national interest, in cooperation with external rivals of the state." The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to organised actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, espionage, and/or terrorism executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an external force.