History – Fiction or Science ?

tiwc-af

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B011VIZ95A/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Fomenko, Anatoly Timofeevich (b. 1945). Full Member (Academician) of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Full
Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics
and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Section of
Mathematics of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics. Solved Plateau’s
Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants
and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems. Laureate of
the 1996 National Premium of the Russian Federation (in Mathematics) for a cycle of
works on the Hamiltonian dynamical systems and manifolds’ invariants theory. Author
of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a
specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology,
Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry. Author of a number of books
on the development of new empirical-statistical methods and their application to the
analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chronology of antiquity and the Middle
Ages.

FROM THE PUBLISHER
The Issue with Chronology crowns 30 years of meticulous and extensive research
performed by the eminent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko and his colleagues. This
research started actually as an unbelievable byproduct of Russian-American
competition in Moon exploration, when famous NASA scientist Robert Newton
discovered a very strange phenomenon in lunar mechanics. This book is also the first
volume in History: Fiction or Science? series, the fundamental oeuvre that exposes
and expounds the numerous inveracities of the traditional version of history.
The series History: Fiction or Science? contains data and conclusions that aren’t
anything short of revolutionary. The alternatives offered to classical history are
stunning, unorthodox to the extent of being labelled heretical by virtually every scholar
of history, and daring enough to be considered preposterous at first sight, although this
impression never lasts longer than it takes one to read a few pages attentively.
In The Issue with Chronology we are reminded of when the contemporary
chronological scale was created and by whom, with the culprits named as the XVI-XVII
century clergy that was in charge of all matters historical in that age. We also learn that
the consensual model of history had prominent critics ever since its creation – among
them such names as Sir Isaac Newton and Jean Hardouin, curator of Louvre and chief
librarian of Louis XIV, the Sun King of France.
The author dissects every historical age and analyses the data from every source
imaginable – Roman and Egyptian chronology take a good beating, and it goes rapidly
downhill from there. Poggio Bracciolini and Petrarch take the blame for creating the
legend of a mythical Classical Age that never was.
The Biblical events are moved a lot closer to us historically, as well as
geographically (the Biblical Jerusalem being identified with the mediaeval
Constantinople, for instance). The New and the Old Testament swap their positions on
the chronological scale, both exposed as referring to mediaeval events. Our perception
of history begins to change dramatically even before we’re through with The Issue with
Chronology.
Franck Tamdhu
July 2015

 

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened
told by people who weren’t there.
George Santayana,
American philosopher
(1863-1952)
Be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth.
St. Augustine
History repeats itself; that’s one of the things that’s wrong with history.
Clarence Darrow
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past.
George Orwell, 1984

A Global Falsification of History
Foreword by Alexander Zinoviev
I familiarized myself with the works of A. T. Fomenko comparatively recently, and they
impressed me greatly. What part of them struck me as the most stunning? First and
foremost, it was the intellectual capacity observable behind them. The authors reveal a
way of cogitating that manages to fuse austere logic with dialectic flexibility; this is
truly a rare occurrence in the field of social studies. Reading the oeuvres of A. T.
Fomenko and his co-author G. V. Nosovskiy – occasionally several times over – was a
veritable intellectual delight for yours truly. They flabbergasted me with their sheer
disquisitive might as well as the research results which, in my opinion, can by rights be
called the greatest discovery in contemporary historical science – what A. T.
Fomenko and his colleagues had learnt over the course of their research was the fact
that the entire history of humanity up until the XVII century is a forgery of global
proportions (“old history” in their terminology) – a falsification as deliberate as it is
universal. I shall be referring to this falsification as the first one. My sociological
research of the great evolutionary breakpoint demonstrated that a new, blatant, global
and premeditated falsification was already in full swing.
Prior to becoming familiar with the writings of Fomenko, I had already known that
the falsification of the past was a rather common phenomenon inherent in human
existence. However, I was neither aware of the scale of this fraud as described by
Fomenko and his fellow scholars, nor of its social type. My assumption had been that
the blatant falsification of history on a planetary scale that I discovered was the first
one in what concerned the proportions and the ulterior motivation, as well as its
historical role. Let us call it the second falsification of the same variety. It differs from
the first in terms of pertaining to a different epoch. Its main subject is modern history
and whatever historical period can be claimed as relevant to, and seen as fitting for, the
purposes of this falsification. The second falsification also differs from the first one in
its primary means and methods, which shall be described below.
One has to differentiate between the two kinds of falsification, the first one being the
involuntary routine falsification of minor details that results from the mechanisms of
gnosis and those of the actual description of historical events, or the entropy inherent in
the framework of humanity’s historical memory. The second is the extraordinary,
premeditated and complex falsification that has distinct social causes.
Let us consider the former kind first. We shall disregard the period preceding the
epoch of literacy and symbolic systems. The mnemonic means available back then were
less than meagre, which automatically diminished the arsenal of the hypothetical
falsifiers. We shall turn to the era of literacy instead. It is common knowledge that
historical events become immanentized in human language – and a statement uttered is a
lie, as the old saying goes. We cannot fathom the unfathomable. What we end up doing
is raking the vastness of history for tiny morsels of information and adding some of our
own narrative in order to produce wholesome and coherent textual material.
The modern information technology does not affect the principles that the status quo
relies upon. Let us introduce the concept of historical “atoms”, or particles that aren’t
subject to further division. One may well calculate that the verbal description of a
single year of real history the way it really happened, including all manner of events, no
matter how minute, would require the processing power of all the computers on the
planet, with all people made computer operators. De facto, this technology serves as a
powerful instrument of historical falsification. It allows for the possibility of drowning
a scientific approach to historical events in an ocean of meaningless facts.
Furthermore, the description of actual historical events is done by humans, and not
perfect divine entities. People are brought up and educated in a certain way and have a
certain social standing, as well as egotistical goals and aims of their very own. All of
this affects the way the information is processed. Over the course of time, the
overwhelming majority of events are wiped away into oblivion without leaving the
merest trace. They are frequently not even realized as events. The people’s attitude to
the past begins to alter as past events gradually drift into an altogether different
observational and interpretational context.
Evolutionary process discerns between two kinds of events – preliminal and
superliminal. The former kind does not affect the general character of evolution; the
latter one does. However, humans, including specialists, fail to recognize the difference
between the two. Everyone knows perfectly well how much attention is poured over
rather insignificant individuals, such as kings and presidents, whereas the really
important events often don’t even get so much as a passing reference. This affects the
relations between historical events so much that all sense of measure is often lost. Even
if we are to suppose that all those who partake in the creation of historical records see
veracity as their mission, the result of their collective efforts is often the rendition of
their own subjective views on history as opposed to what happened in reality. As
centuries pass by, the stream of disinformation is fed by various sources and tributaries,
which, in their multitude, produce the effect of impartial falsification of historical
events. This stream also feeds on murky rivulets of countless liars and swindlers.
The false model of history serves its function for a certain while. However, humanity
eventually enters a period when this distorted representation loses efficacy and stops
serving its ends. This is where people are supposed to start searching for explanations
and set out on their quest for a “truth”. However, there is the abstract scientific kind of
truth, and the actual historical variety – that is to say, something that people regard, or
will at some point start regarding as truth. The very word “truth” is confusing here. We
shall be on safer ground if we are to consider the adequacy of having certain concepts
of the past for the new needs that have manifested as a result of the historical process.
These concepts stop being valid for satisfying these needs. One becomes aware of the
necessity to update our view of the past in accordance with whatever the present
stipulates. This awareness is the kind of craving that can only be satisfied by a “bona
fide rectification” of history, which has to occur as a grandiose paradigm shift –
moreover, it has to be a large-scale organized operation; one that shall result in an
epochal falsification of the entire history of humankind. The issue at hand is by no
means the falsification of individual observations of historical events, but rather the
revision of the entirety of historical records describing the events which cannot be
observed as a principle since they belong to the past. What we are talking about is not a
mere change in the perception and interpretation of the same old existential phenomena
– it is the adaptation of the charactery, which naturally used to refer to certain
commonplace realities at some point, to the exigencies of people who have to live in an
altogether different environment. Trained specialists are a sine qua non for this – people
whose activity shall have to be organized in such a manner that their collective output
will result in the creation of a coordinated historical Gestalt. What they really have to
do is create exactly the kind of past that is needed for the present, making use of
whatever available material presents itself.
The first global falsification of history as discovered and brilliantly related by
Fomenko was based on an erroneous temporal and spatial coordinate system of
chronological events (the chronological system and the localizations of events wedded
thereto). The more recent and ongoing second global falsification of history is based on
a system of erroneous pseudoscientific sociological concepts based upon ideology and
aided greatly by the modern information manipulation technology. This is why I call the
second falsification conceptual and informational, or merely “conceptual” for brevity’s
sake. Fomenko’s works describe the technology of building a false model of human
history which uses the art of manipulating the temporal and spatial coordinates of
events. Many thousands of specialists in false historical models are already working on
this second falsification – their forte is the ability to misrepresent historical events
while giving correct temporal and spatial coordinates and representing individual facts
veraciously and in full detail. The actual falsification is achieved via the selection of
facts, their combination and interpretation, as well as the context of ideological
conceptions, propagandist texts that they are immersed into, etc. In order to describe the
technology behind the second falsification with any degree of clarity at all, exhaustively
and convincingly, one needs a well-developed scientific system of logistics and
methodology, as well as sociological theory. I call such a system logical sociology;
however, it is a thing of the future, which means that the second falsification of history
shall continue in its present manner, with as much ease and impunity as the first. Tens
and hundreds of years hence, a number of solitary researchers shall “excavate” the socalled
“modern history” in very much the same manner as Fomenko (and his
predecessors, including N. A. Morozov) have treated “old history”.
I would like to conclude with an observation concerning the exceptional scientific
scrupulousness of the works of A. Fomenko and G. Nosovskiy. I have examined them
from exactly this position many a time, and I have neither found a single ipse dixit
statement, nor any categorical pontificating of any kind. The general narrative scheme
they employ is as follows: the authors relate the consensual ( textbook) historical
concepts and then cite historical facts which either fail to concur to said concepts, or
contradict them explicitly. Other authors who have noticed these inconsistencies are
quoted. Then Fomenko and Nosovskiy put forth hypotheses which allow to find
logically correct solutions for the problems under study. They keep on emphasizing and
reiterating that the issue at hand is all about hypotheses and not categorical statements
presented as the truth absolute. The readers are invited to take part in the solution of
problems that arise as a consequence of the consensual chronological concept of
history. I am amazed by the horrendous injustice of the numerous critics of Fomenko and
Nosovskiy, who obviously distort their ideas, either failing to understand them
completely or being altogether unfamiliar with their content. It is also quite astounding
that whenever a publication occurs that voices ideas that bear semblance to those of
Fomenko and Nosovskiy, but are a lot more tame and local, providing a lot less factual
information, this publication is usually accepted with a great deal more benevolence. I
understand the psychological groundwork beneath this – Fomenko and Nosovskiy have
performed a great scientific feat of epochal significance, one that affects the
sentiments and interests of too many people. Acknowledging this feat as such, or at the
very least the mere fact of its creative relevance, obligates one to actions that are
apparently beyond these people due to their incapacity and immaturity. The trouble with
Fomenko and Nosovskiy is that they have reached out too far and dealt the dominating
historical discourse too heavy a blow.
Alexander Zinoviev
10 October 1999,
19 April 2001.
Alexander Zinoviev (1922–2006), Professor of the Moscow State University, logician, sociologist, writer, member of
the Finnish, Bavarian and Italian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Polite Letters and several others.
Laureate of the 1982 Alexis Tocqueville prize for sociology and the “Best Sociology Essay of 1979” prize, as well as a large number of European and international prizes for literature. Honorary citizen of several French and Italian towns and cities. The works of A. A. Zinoviev are published in more than 20 languages and considered

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8cZZ8vNfLrRUXBKVks1OThKbFU?pageId=118343977360980090959

 

 

 


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Switch to mobile version
Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com