Articles

The History of ‘Histories’ [Addendum]

This is an addendum to Article #30: The History of ‘Histories’ (24-Oct-2017).

It was originally posted (on 26-Oct-2017) in the comments section of that article, as a reply to a question from Chad628.

Also see Full Member Video Update #07 (3-Nov-2017) which specifically covers both The History of ‘Histories’ and this Addendum.


Are you saying that the original primary source document for Histories is the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus discovered in 1900 but the Primary source documents cited in Wikipedia are translations of the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus supposedly done before the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus was discovered (Henry Cary (judge) 1849, George Rawlinson 1858, and H Stein 1883)?

-Chad628

I am suggesting that this is what the official story seems to imply. Obviously, this would be physically impossible.

A more likely explanation is that the Oxyrhynchus Papyri are blatant forgeries based on preexisting ‘translations’ of Herodotus (and many other ‘translations’ of historical works and figures).

These ‘translations’ are, of course, highly suspicious themselves, given that they do not appear to be based upon verifiable primary sources.

Using wikipedia as just one example, the only primary sources cited on the Histories page are all from the the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri was ‘discovered’ around 1900.

The ‘translations’ of Histories are dated much earlier than that.

The obvious question which follows is, just what were those ‘translations’ based on, if they came before the Oxyrhynchus Papyri?

I have tried to demonstrate that if one traces the sources of these ‘translations’ for themselves, they will find no actual, legitimate, primary sources.

This leads me, personally, to the inference that there are no primary source documents upon which the translations could be based.

That is, there are no tablets, no papyri, and certainly no books, written in Greek (ancient or otherwise) by Herodotus, in existence today.

Moreover, there do not appear to have been any such primary texts available when the ‘translations’ were created.

This I infer from the fact that none of the ‘translations’ cite an original Greek source.

-> although some ‘translations’ claim to be based on ‘the original Greek’, none explain where or how or when they saw the ‘original Greek’ i.e. where we might look to verify their claims.

The inference I make from all of this is that we are dealing with a sham, a ruse, an elaborate hoax, the likes of which most normies could never possibly even entertain let alone investigate let alone discover let alone accept let alone share publicly.

Welcome to the History Hoax!


Further to the article proper, I have taken the time to sift through yet more ‘translations’ of Herodotus’ Histories.

If you read Cary’s book (1859) you will note that he cites four English translations of Herodotus prior to his own:

Beloe (which Cary says is a translation from French)

Littlebury (“a poor rendering from a bad Latin version”; plus a revised version by somebody else)

Taylor (in which “the translator has sacrificed the meaning of his author to purity of thought or elegance of diction”)

Laurent (“an inaccurate Greek scholar and a far worse English one”)

Let’s consider these, one by one.

Littlebury (1737)
https://archive.org/details/historyofherodot01heroiala

In his 15-page preface he does not explain where he sourced the original on which his ‘translation’ was based. He does however offer this:

“…upon the whole, I am not insensible that many Errors may be found in my Translation; which I might offer to excuse in some measure, by charging part on the Faults which thro’ the Negligence of Transcribers have crept into the Original, and part on the difficulty of forming (at so great a distance of Time, in which the whole Face of the World is in all respects so much chang’d,) a certain and just Notion of several Things maention’d in the Source of History: But I shall content myself to say, that I have not willingly left any Passage erroneous or obscure, tho’ I had not Ability to mend all that I saw or suspected.”
-page xv

The negligence of ‘transcribers’ allowing errors into the ‘original’?

This leads to the obvious inference that the ‘original’ on which Littlebury’s ‘translation’ is ostensibly based was no original at all, but a copy of a copy of a copy, so much so that ‘errors’ had ‘crept in’.

Beloe (1830)
https://archive.org/details/herodotustrwith02unkngoog

He mentions that the only translation prior to his own is Littlebury’s:

“Yet Herodotus, though mentioned always with respect, and dignified by courtesy with the title of the Father of History, has been treated with some neglect by English literati. While Thucydides and Xenophon have been naturalized among us, in correct and elegant translations, this Historian, the first remaining link of that important chain, has hitherto only been represented by Littlebury. The scarceness of that translation, notwithstanding the inconvenience of its form, from wanting the usual subdivisions; the entire absence of notes, so particularly necessary to this author ; and other defects, which it might seem invidious here to mention, first pointed out the necessity of supplying the public with another.”
-page iv

So Beloe claims that his is the first English translation since Littlebury (which was ‘defective’).

And on what does Beloe base his own translation? A French translation by somebody else!

“From the notes to M Larcher’s celebrated French translation, which are very numerous, and intended evidently to the critical and learned, rather than the common reader, I have extracted such as seemed most suited to my own design: to these I have subjoined his name. For the rest, which have the signature T. annexed, I confess myself responsible: except in the case of a very few, the contribution of one or two friends, which for many reasons, I should have been glad to have had so numerous, as to have demanded separate signatures.”
-page v

Okay, so let’s move on to Larcher. His work was originally published in French in 1786.

Larcher (1786)
https://archive.org/details/histoiredhrodot00nyongoog

Larcher’s work does not appear to cite a source either. I took the time to translate its title page:

“avec des remarques historiques & critiques, un essai fur la chronologie d’Herodote, & une table geographique”

roughly translates to

“With historical and critical remarks, an essay on the chronology of Herodotus, & a geographical table”.

It does not appear to even be a ‘translation’ of Herodotus’ Histories, but some kind of summary of names/places which are listed in alphabetical order.

Larcher was then supposedly translated to English by Cooley in 1844.

Cooley (1844)
https://archive.org/details/larchersnotesonh01larc

Worthy of note is this:

“…the constant progress of critical inquiry, and the increasing perspicacity with which the world, as it grows older, investigates the past, render such an attempt in the present instance a duty. The discoveries and writings of Young, Chapollion, and Rosellini, have thrown a flood of light on ancient Egypt; and graven monuments now tell us how little the Greeks knew of the history of that country. The cuneiform inscriptions, interpreted by the labours of St. Martin, Burnouf, Lassen, and others, have in like manner revealed some curious particulars respecting ancient Persia. In short, the contributions made of late years to philology and archaeology have been so numerous and important, as to even throw into the shade the consummate learning of the last century.”
-page v

Remember what I was saying about ‘history’ being pushed back? That is, the ‘past’ is growing longer; as our present, linear time moves ‘forward’, so too does the ‘history’ of civilisation move backwards, tailing further and further back into the ‘past’. In this preface Cooley fully admits it! Take a look at those names: Champollion, Young, Rosellini, Burnouf, Lassen: these guys are all from the 1800s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Champollion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ippolito_Rosellini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Burnouf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Lassen

Cooley is saying that the ‘discoveries’ of these dudes in the 1800s ‘throw into the shade’ what had been known before!

And of course Cooley offers no explanation of what Larcher based his ‘translation’ on, either in the preface or anywhere else in his book.

Taylor (1829)
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PwNgAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

The title page is styled:

Herodotus
Translated from the Greek for the use of general readers

The problem is that he does not explain where he got his ‘Greek original’. Nothing is said of it in the preface (and the rest of the book is simply the ‘translation’).

Taylor does however offer some pertinent observations:

“Herodotus has been known to the English public till late through the medium of two translations only. The first was that of Littlebury, published nearly a century ago. Whether actually derived from the Greek cannot be ascertained; but if so, it must have been done under the guidance of a faulty Latin version, and in fact abounds with misinterpretations of the author’s meaning.”
-page vii

So Taylor is stating that even he doesn’t believe Littlebury’s translation was based on Herodotus’ words. He is also stating that Littlebury’s source ‘cannot be ascertained’! It is right there. They are admitting it. He goes on:

“Indeed it is fair to say that the requisite means for fully understanding Herodotus were not, at the time, in existence; and nothing less than the most extensive learning, and the utmost industry, could then have ensured a tolerable measure of success in so difficult a task.”
-page vii

Wait, so the ‘requisite means’ for understanding Herodotus did not exist in the 1700s? Just think about that for a moment. Here Taylor is again confirming what I have been saying: history had not yet been properly created (‘discovered’) for a thorough analysis of Herodotus when Littlebury wrote his ‘translation’ in the 1700s — it took for the ‘Egyptomania’ (Young, Champollion, etc) of the 1800s for the story (‘history’) of characters like Herodotus to become fully developed.

Taylor then goes on:

“Beloe, whose translation of Herodotus has passed through several editions, is believed to have made more use of Larcher’s French than of the Greek original.”
-page vii

Later he criticises Larcher’s translation as “an annotaters paraphrase” (page viii footnote).

He then says:

“A French Homer, or French Herodotus, is as like the original as the Hectors and Caesars and Catos of the stage in the last century were, in their costumes, like the warriors of Greece and Rome.”
-page viii footnote

Taylor is saying that the translations of both Larcher and Beloe are bullcrap.

Laurent (1846)
https://archive.org/details/ninebookshistor00laurgoog

This one states at the outset that it is “from the text of Thomas Gaisford”.

Okay then, so I went and tracked down the text of Thomas Gaisford.

Gaisford (1824)
https://archive.org/details/herodotouhalikar01herouoft

The title page reads:

Herodoti
Historiarium Librari IX

The entire book is in Latin.

So I tried to translate the short introduction page using google translate. I got this:

“Majorem herodoti editionem, quae brevi interjecto tempore proditura est variorum animadversionibus aucta et illustrata, comitabitur praefatio Wesselingii, cui accedet appendix hujusce nostri operis consilium breviter aperiens. Interim compendium, quibis in codd. mss designnandis usi siumus, catalogum subjicere placuit.”

roughly translates to

“The edition of the mayor of herodoti, which for a short time after it is produced and illustrated by the various observations have been increased, will accompany the preface Wesselingii, to whom shall he approach of this appendix briefly revealing the plan of our work. In the meantime, a short cut, exultation in the codices. MSS designnandis used to Shiraz, decided to submit the list.”

He then lists a short selection of codices, none of which I have been able to track down.

RECAP:

Cary (1849) cites four version prior to his own:

Littlebury (1737) Cary describes it as “a poor rendering from a bad Latin version”; Littlebury does not explain his source but implies it was a copy of a copy (etc).

Taylor (1829) Claims to be based on the Greek, but does not explain in any detail where he sourced the Greek copy on which his translation was supposedly based.

Beloe (1830) Cary says is a translation from French; Beloe himself admits it is based on the work of Frenchman Larcher*.

Laurent (1849) Cary describes as “an inaccurate Greek scholar and a far worse English one”; Laurent claims to base his work on Gaisford.^

*Larcher (1786) was translated to English from French by Cooley (1844). No apparent mention of any primary source.

^Gaisford (1824) is in Latin (i.e. not Greek).

If the pattern was not already clear, it ought to be by now.


Reflecting on this article and the topic of Herodotus

i) Some thoughts on this research
ii) Further research
iii) Who is Schweighauser?
iv) Laurentias Valla aka Lorenzo Valla
v) Henricus Stephanus aka Henry Stepehens aka Henri Estienne
vi) The oldest publicly-accessible copy of Herodotus’ work I have found thus far
vii) 1761 General Dictionary

i) Some thoughts on this research

As you can see, I have put a lot of time into trying to trace the sources. Just that reply above took about six/seven hours of dedicated research and writing to put together. I had to track down each book (most of them in pdf from internet archive), read through the book (every single preface and certain portions of the body), and then trace through to the next source.

Is it any wonder that nobody else is doing this? If my theory is correct and Herodotus is a relatively recent creation, would it be so surprising that nobody else (from our level of society) has figured it out yet? What kind of madman dedicates this kind of time to this kind of research?

Me, that’s who. And nobody else. I wouldn’t expect anybody else to do this. It is boring, frustrating work. Like banging your head against a wall.

And it will not be enough to convince even people who call themselves ‘skeptical’, because they have been thoroughly programmed to trust the establishment, to trust the authority, to turn away from the blasphemer. They will imagine that somewhere, somebody has a genuine copy of Herodotus’ work, and that it is from this imaginary copy that our modern versions must be derived. I could show them 100 official story books, each with no actual primary source citation, and still it would not be enough to convince them. A human is nowhere near as rational or logical as we have been indoctrinated to believe humans are.

We are nowhere near as rational or logical as we have been indoctrinated to believe humans are.

Even now as I sit here typing this, after another solid four-hour research/writing session which only revealed more evidence for my theory, I wonder if perhaps a genuine version of Herodotus might surface. Or, at least, a silly piece of papyrus which is purported to be legitimate. Something to scrutinise, something to finally look at and evaluate as an ostensible ‘primary source’.

Of course, I doubt it.

The obvious is staring us in the face, and it has been the entire time.

ii) Further research

While putting together these replies, I also stumbled upon some more interesting information, which I might look into further at some point.

On page 46 of the Cooley translation of Larcher you will find the following:

“Gaisford may be presumed to follow Schweighauser’s interpretation throughout”

iii) Who is Schweighauser?

He is mentioned here, in what I would describe as the best Herodotus bibliography (or summary of existing Herodotus ‘translations’) I have found so far.

Fordham University: Herodotus
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/eb11-herodotus.asp

“The history of Herodotus has been translated by many persons and into many languages. About 1450, at the time of the revival of learning, a Latin version was made and published by Laurentius Valla. This was revised in 1537 by Heusbach, and accompanies the Greek text of Herodotus in many editions. The first complete translation into a modern language was the English one of Littlebury, published in 1737. This was followed in 1786 by the French translation of Larcher, a valuable work, accompanicd by copious notes and essays. Beloe, the second English transLator based his work on that of Larcher. His first edition, in 1791, was confessedly very defective; the second, in 1806, still left much to be desired.

A good German translation, but without note or comment, was brought out by Friedrich Lange at Berlin in 1811. Andrea Mustoxidi, a native of Corfu, published an Italian version in I820. In 1812 Auguste Miot endeavoured to improve on Larcher; and in 1828-1832 Dr Adolf Scholl brought out a German translation with copious notes (new ed., 1855), which has to some extent superseded the work of Lange. About the same time a new English version was made by Isaac Taylor (London, 1829).

In 1858-1860, the history of Herodotus was translated by Canon G. Rawlinson, assisted in the copious notes and appendices accompanying the work by Sir Gardncr Wilkinson and Sir Henry Rawlinson. More recently we have translations in English by G. C. Macaulay (2 vols. 1890); in German by Bähr (Stuttgart, 1867) and Stein (Oldenburg 1875), in French by Giguet (1857) and Talbot (1864); in Italian by Ricci (Turin, 18711876), Grandi (Asti, 1872) and Bertini (Naples, 1871-1872). A Swedish translation by F. Carlstadt was published at Stockholm in 1871.

The best of the oldcr [sic] editions of the Greek text are the following:- Herodoti hisforiae, ed. Schweighauser (5 vols., Strassburg, 1816); Herodoti Halicarnassei historiarum libri ix. (ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1840); IIerodotus, with a Commentary, by J. W. Blakesley (2 vols., London, 1854); Herodoti musae (ed. Bähr, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1856-1861, 2nd ed.); and Herodoti historiae (ed. Abicht, Leipzig, 1869).”

A few key points to take from this.

First, Shweighauser is from the 1800s. He is cited by Fordham University as ‘the best of the older editions’.

iv) Laurentias Valla aka Lorenzo Valla

‘Laurentias Valla’ appears to be another name for Lorenzo Valla
http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4563

According to the link above, Valla was the first to publish a copy of Herodotus’ Histories circa 1400s.
-> Valla was also the first person to publish a work on Thucydides (another key ‘historical figure’).^
-> It was Valla’s copy (printed in Latin) upon which subsequent versions were based.

This is confirmed by the University College of Dublin.
http://www.ucd.ie/readingeast/essay1.html

According to the link above, March’s Library* in Dublin holds two copies from the 1500s
-> Both copies supposedly made their way to the library in the 1700s.
-> These copies are based on Valla‘s translation, and edited by Henricus Stephanus.

^According to Encyclopedia Brittanica, Valla was commissioned to translate Herodotus and others by the Pope!
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lorenzo-Valla

*For more info on Marsh’s Library see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh%27s_Library

v) Henricus Stephanus aka Henry Stepehens aka Henri Estienne

Now who is Henricus Stephanus? I suspect this is another name for Henry Stephens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Estienne

I will have to find a better source than wikipedia but this is what stood out to me on that page:

“He then distinguished himself as the publisher, editor, and collator of manuscripts. Works of Athenagoras of Athens, Aristotle, and Aeschylus appeared in 1557; Diodorus Siculus, 1559; Xenophon, 1561; Sextus Empiricus, 1562; Thucydides, 1564; Herodotus, both 1566 and 1581; and Sophocles, in 1568. He improved old translations, or made new Latin translations, of many Greek authors.”

vi) The oldest publicly-accessible copy of Herodotus’ work I have found thus far

Putting this together, the oldest copy of anything even claiming to be Herodotus that I have so far found is reportedly in a library in Ireland.

They claim to have two copies of this book.

-> This book is supposedly a translation by Valla into Latin (circa 1400s).
-> It is supposedly edited/published by Stephens/Stephacus (circa 1500s).
-> The same Stephens also is responsible for publishing works on many other major figures of ‘ancient history’ including Xenophon, Thucydides, and Aristotle.
-> This book supposedly made its way to the library which now holds it in the 1700s.

Even on the most generous reading of these facts, ‘Herodotus’ came into literary existence in the 1400s (i.e. 1700 years after he died – not unlike Jesus).

On a slightly more skeptical reading, it appears he may have come into literary existence in the 1500s (when Stephens got control of his dad’s printing press).

On a more skeptical reading, it appears he may have come into literary existence at some point in the 1700s (when Marsh’s Library obtained their current copy).

I personally would be happy to go with the more skeptical interpretation, if I could somehow verify the Marsh’s Library claims of receiving their copies in the 1700s. They are supposedly open to the public and I plan to visit the UK at some point in the next couple of years; perhaps their librarians might be so kind as to talk me through their process for verifying the provenance/age of their rare books.

In the meantime, for all I know, their two copies of ‘Herodotus -> Valla -> Stephanus’ were whipped up at some point during the last century.

And I still haven’t seen anything even presented or claimed to be original text, other than the Oxyrhynchus Papyri circa 1900!

vii) 1761 General Dictionary

Finally I also found this which I thought was interesting.

‘A New and General Biographical Dictionary; Containing An Historical and Critical Account of the Lives and Writings of the Most Eminent Persons in every Nation’
1761
https://archive.org/details/anewandgeneralb15unkngoog

On Volume 6, pp 386-387, it has this to say about Herodotus:

“There have been several editions of Herodotus; two by Henry Stephens in 1570, and 1592; one by Gale at London in 1679; and one by Gronovius at Leyden in 1715, which is the last and best, though not the best printed.”

This confirms the rough timeline of Henry Stephens/Henricus Stephanus/Henri Estienne.

I found a copy of the Gronovius copy
https://archive.org/details/herodotihalicar04unkngoog

But not the Gale one. The Gronovius copy is in Latin and does not appear to give any detail whatsoever about its source; there is not even a preface to the book.

Which is to say that the 1700s tertiary source of the ‘New and General Biographical Dictionary’ lists as the ‘best’ edition of Herodotus a copy with no source.

This nonsense has been going on for some time.


Addendum originally published 21-Oct-2017 for Full Members only. Set to public temporarily for RER listeners 19-Oct-2024.

8 thoughts on “The History of ‘Histories’ [Addendum]

  • mezzie

    Sounds like a “round-robin” to me, confusing! Is is meant to be?

    I appreciatiate all the work you did here JLB

    • Thanks, Mezzie.

      Yep, it almost seems like the academic discipline of ‘history’, particularly the methods they employ when it comes to writing about characters like ‘Herodotus’, is designed to make investigations like mine time-consuming and frustrating.

      It takes a certain mental stamina to sift through book after book after book, searching for primary sources.

      It takes a certain eccentricity to even begin a serious investigation of this kind in the first place.

      My hope is that this article on Herodotus is that it will encourage the reader to take a step back and consider the broader questions which logically follow, such as:

      1) If this much work is required to demonstrate that ‘Herodotus’ is not based on primary sources, why would we assume anybody has attempted this kind of investigation in the past?

      2) If nobody could be reasonably expected to attempt this kind of investigation, then why would (whoever is at the top of all of this) worry about ever being ‘found out’?

      I can’t know if the gravity of the situation has begun to dawn on others yet, but it has been dawning on me for some time now.

      If hope is in the masses, then THERE IS NO HOPE. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

      ‘Humans’ are nothing like what we have been raised to believe they (or ‘we’) are, nothing like what we want to believe they (or ‘we’) are.

      Humans are absolutely and incredibly STUPID and will believe the most ridiculous tales about the ‘past’ and the ‘future’.

      Even the ‘smart’ ones: dumb as rocks. Closer to farm cows than to the idealised version of intelligent creatures I once held about ‘humanity’.

      I never created this website to dole out black pills. I never set upon this path to consume black pills myself.

      Perhaps, deep down, I had an inkling about where this journey would take me. And, for better or worse, I have laid out a path for others.

      In my defence, the first two Full Members videos were designed to serve a solemn caution.

      Perhaps I might have heeded my own warning. It is too late now. Or is it? How much worse can the reality possibly get?

      Well, believe it or not, the History Hoax (and its consequences) aren’t even the apex. It gives a hint, it lays the groundwork, but there is more.

      What. A. Time. To. Be. Alive.

  • Negentropic

    Whoever wrote those books was writing for a more sophisticated reader than today’s pathetic academics to give it that air of cultural authority, that’s for sure. That’s why they became “classics” in a very short period of time, due to their literary and philosophical value rather than the unverified historical value.

    They either made these people of ancient times greater than they actually were or worse than they were, but either way they did it with a lot of hard work and style, the “stamp of the cultured mind” so hard to acquire for more ordinary folks which was good enough to convince even the more sophisticated and strict readers of the past to forego checking of primary sources. If they worked this hard on their lies and fakery, then it must have been worth it a hundred times over, since it sets the false historical foundations for all further research, dialectics and structures of logic based on it in academia and this much more meticulous method stands in stark contrast to the very sloppy methods in TV-based PsyOps, probably born out of pure disrespect for the gullibility of the mass mind of today as well as a strategy to confuse and baffle everyone “smarter” who might find it hard to believe that these very powerful people, who can easily do a far better job, would be so “amateurish” in their methods.

    In short, forged and phony or not, the very high-culturedness of style went a long way in the old days to establish the con, the con-fidence of the “marks” in their supposed value without verifying the primary source (just assuming someone smarter than them must have already done it, which is the vulnerability or abdication of responsibility exploited by the con). The suckers of academia first push the con and then any members of the general public seeking to go to university to learn “history” from these academics have to repeat these histories and begin all their “later” investigations by referring to the false premises and foundations, the source-ry established by them.

    After all, a genius or a truly cultured mind is not easy to forge unless by a similar level of intelligence and culture. And in the end, isn’t it the culture left behind that really matters? Well, the answer is both yes and no. High culture or a sophisticated culmination of methods and rituals of inquiry into all things that is always available for use should it be necessary really matters in and of itself. But the fact of this high-value also makes it the best bait for unsuspected hooks.

    “Naturally, the educated man does not believe in propaganda, he shrugs and is convinced that propaganda has no effect on him. This is, in fact, one of his great weaknesses, and propagandists are well aware that in order to reach someone, one must first convince him that propaganda is ineffectual and not very clever. Because he is convinced of his own superiority, the intellectual is much more vulnerable than anybody else to this maneuver.” ~ Jacques Ellul — “Propaganda, The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

    “False opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing.” — Joseph de Maistre

    “The individual’s adherence to his group is ‘ conscious’ because he is aware of it and recognizes it, but it is ultimately involuntary because he is trapped in a dialectic and in a group that leads him unfailingly to his adherence. His adherence is also ‘intellectual’ because he can express his conviction clearly and logically, but it is not genuine because the information, the data, the reasoning, that have led him to adherence to the group were themselves deliberately falsified in order to lead him there.” ~ Jacques Ellul – “Propaganda, The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

    “At one time I thought the most important thing was talent. I think now that — the young man or the young woman must possess or teach himself, train himself, in infinite patience, which is to try and to try and to try until it comes right. He must train himself in ruthless intolerance. That is, to throw away anything that is false no matter how much he might love that page or that paragraph. The most important thing is insight, that is … curiosity to wonder, to mull, and to muse why it is that man does what he does. And if you have that, then I don’t think the talent makes much difference, whether you’ve got that or not.” [Press conference, University of Virginia, May 20, 1957] ― William Faulkner

     “See, the ‘Big Lie’ professionals in the business of deceiving this entire world’s population on a daily basis probably know better – when it comes to fooling BOTH the experts and the average Joe Public. The BIG LIE has to seem too bloody stupid in the eyes of the experts – and too bloody smart in the eyes of Joe Public. There is no quest either for the lowest or the highest common denominator in these psy-op schemes – or much less to target any specific IQ group (if you may pardon this unsavory way to put it). The aim is to strike the human consciousness somewhere ‘in the middle’ – so as to befuddle EVERYONE – and of course – to make EVERYBODY endlessly quarrel with each other.” —  Simon Shack, December 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    • Whoever wrote those books was writing for a more sophisticated reader than today’s pathetic academics to give it that air of cultural authority, that’s for sure. That’s why they became “classics” in a very short period of time, due to their literary and philosophical value rather than the unverified historical value.

      Funny you should mention this. I couldn’t help but notice it myself; it was actually a guilty pleasure to read some of the prefaces to the books in question, because they were written so well. As though the author cared not only about the work they were prefacing, but also about the reader, the English language, and academia/knowledge itself. Ironic, of course, given the nature of the works in question, but pleasant to read all the same.

      In short, forged and phony or not, the very high-culturedness of style went a long way in the old days to establish the con, the con-fidence of the “marks” in their supposed value without verifying the primary source (just assuming someone smarter than them must have already done it, which is the vulnerability or abdication of responsibility exploited by the con). The suckers of academia first push the con and then any members of the general public seeking to go to university to learn “history” from these academics have to repeat these histories and begin all their “later” investigations by referring to the false premises and foundations, the source-ry established by them.

      This may well be the case. I am open to the possibility that the average person was smarter and more incredulous back in the 1800s. I am also cognisant of the wise words of Father Gustave:

      Were ‘humans’, the masses, ever so thoughtful that colorful prose was required to convince them of absurdities? Or are they by their very nature utterly incapable of serious thought?

      A question of nature and nurture which I am trying to accept that I will never have a good answer for. Perhaps I don’t really want to know the truth, anyway.

      What if ‘we’ are capable of so much more but the system retards us to a fraction of our capabilitiy? That would be a sad reality.

      What if ‘we’ are inherently incapable of critical thought, regardless of nurture? That would also be a sad reality.

      Perhaps by never knowing the ultimate reason for the masses’ buffoonery I can escape dealing with the consequences of the fundamental ‘why’.

  • TheProphet49

    In graduate schools of History the professors tirelessly reinforce the importance of primary sources. At the same time that they make constant reference to just a few authors of note for any given period or subject.
    However, we were also ridiculed harshly for deviating outside of the AHAs (American Historical Association) version of the ‘Overton window’ for acceptable history. As someone that once planned on being a professional historian and professor, this played havoc with my then ambitions. It is the same ‘Everything worth knowing is already known’ idea that permeates our schools.
    Thank you for the fine work JLB.

    • Thank you very much for the kind words. I am not surprised that a man who has been inside the institutions can see the merit in what I am doing, and yet it is affirming to read that my own conclusions resonate with what you saw with your own eyes.

      It may seem tangential but in fact it is far from: consider Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media and his focus on what he calls the ‘Trivium’. There is a lot of merit to what he has to say. The question is, does he follow his own method? If he did, he might see that the primary source material for his own ‘Trivium’ method does not go back more than one hundred years or so, and certainly nothing close to the thousands of years he seems to believe.

      This is no mere flaw of Irvin; he is far from alone in his contradictions. This is apparently how every history ‘researcher’ seems to operate: they like the sound of the theory, but they fail to consistently implement the practise.

      And who is going to call them out on it? Listeners tend only to listen. If they like the sound of what they are hearing, they will return. If not, they will move on.

      So it is in the ‘history’ departments of the universities around the world. Is TheProphet going to waste his own time and energies trying to turn ‘history’ on its head from within the institution? If he is smart, probably not. The writing is on the wall. The system is what it is. He can either go along to get along or he can get out. I for one wouldn’t judge somebody in your shoes for going down either path.

      I do however know many people who would judge. Hypocrites, one and all.

  • All pretty mind-blowing and actually very funny too. Absolutely hilarious that the donor of the Herodotus bust to a museum was a filthy rich national banker type and that the finder of the Herodotus bust was involved with Aleister Crowley! LOL.

    One tidbit I expected to see in the addendum or the comments but didn’t is someone doing the translation of the German preface from Stein to see if he claims any original sources. So I looked up the Stein preface, realized I’d have to type in the German myself, and couldn’t be bothered! I’m just like everyone else!

    But I did find something else that tickled me, a completion of the circle (-jerk) if you will: a GREEK version of Herodotus….translated from Stein’s German! LOL.

    • Firstly, it is always pleasing to see that new members are going back through the ‘older’ material. Of course, the History of Histories articles are only six months old, but that feels like an eternity to me.

      Secondly, excellent pickup on the Crowley/Herodotus connection. There is, of course, a gigantic overlap/connection between occult practices and ‘ancient Egypt’. I intend and expect to be the first person to expose the corollaries of occult knowledge informed by History Hoax awareness. In other words, by combining an understanding of occult knowledge/theory, with an understanding that ‘ancient egypt’ is a myth, one can see both the occult and ‘history’ in a whole new light. The two are intertwined, but in a very different way to what most ACTors imagine.

      To put it bluntly:

      The masses are oblivious to the occult, secret societies, etc, AND oblivious to the History Hoax.
      The ACTors (‘truthers’) are aware of the existence of the occult, secret societies, etc, BUT remain oblivious to the History Hoax.
      -> They therefore buy into the notion that the occult societies date back thousands of years, to ‘ancient egpyt’ (lol).
      Those with eyes to see will soon understand that the ‘secret societies’, as we know them, are built upon a foundation no more than a couple hundred years old.

      The questions then become: Did the ancient history myths predate the modern secret societies? Or did the secret societies create them? Or do the two go hand-in-hand? How high up in the occult chain does one have to be to understand that the ‘ancient egyptian’ mythos which is intertwined with initiation theory and/or ceremonial practise is itself based on a deception?

      To those who might read these words, how many of you have seen The Village (2004), and how many of you have considered the possibility that even those nearer the top of the system themselves remain oblivious?

      I still consider this History Hoax material to be among my most important contributions not merely to ‘alternative research’ but to this thing we call existence. We are onto something truly gigantic here, my friends. And apart from us, at least at this level of society (and possibly well beyond), nobody else knows.

Leave a Reply