From: Marx <marx@1.lol.li>
<Date: Wednesday, July 14 1999 00:09
Answers from Chris Marx c/o PAF
---
This exchange clearly shows how both Heinsohn & Peiser are completely negligent (as if ignorant) of good sense in arguing on the basis of Illig's grotesque "delete 300 conspiratorially immersed phantom years from the 1st millennium" theory. Their good sense is particularly lacking in not following the internal logic of the GCR proving the Last Jolt in the middle of the Trecento, as well as the invention of the "1st" XC-millennium timeline a couple of centuries before (ie from about 800 years ago) - cf attached file GCR-CCR-JE logic file (& anyone neither able to follow or then to break the inherent logic shouldn't really attempt to defend mainstream or newly invented scenarios which aren't recognising the natural history facts disclosed by it & thus become a holocaust supporter).
Neither do Heinsohn & Peiser consider the consequences to taught historiography (designed mainly in the "17th" XC-century by Scaliger, Petavius & Co) suggested by the sRHNH, as neither answers the statistically significant relationships between East & West Roman as well as Biblical dynasties. & besides, of course, they wouldn't dream of addressing other consequences as suggested in an earlier mail of mine, when a friend confronted me with this intriguing solution:-
"Could the "years from the destruction of the temple" be from the destruction of the FIRST (Solomon's) temple? I wouldn't expect most Jews to be aware of the destruction of the second (Herod's) temple. I'm just wondering, though. But that would sure close up some phantom years."
& I said:-
"I can only agree. When talking in strictly canonical terms the OT wouldn't really leave any other choice for dating. & following AiC, still the most plausible reconstruction for a relative date of the temple's destruction, we would thus have a sync from "the historical content of that year [...] 761 'after the destruction of the Temple' to the year 1126 of mainstream's Christian chronology, i.e., not to Carolingian but to Saxon rulers whose stratigraphical and artifactual evidence is overwhelming" [1] directly to Thutmose III of Egypt's "18th" dynasty. That is, Thutmose III according to the Jewish gravestone in Europe would have invaded Palestine 1126-761=365 XC, ie -1590 UC. Now this draws attention to Fomenko et al's dating (alas, however, impaired by astronomical retrocalculations to times before the middle of the Trecento) of the beginning of the 'Era of Nabonassar' to "about 490 AD" (Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest), putting the reign of Darius to "685-715 AD" & thus (following the RHNH again) bringing Near Eastern with Continental history well into agreement - including the following sequence of Mars cataclysms."
I'll comment Peiser's arguments on this basis:-
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Clark Whelton <whel@berk.com>
>To: Gunnar Heinsohn <gheins@uni-bremen.de>
>Date: Saturday, July 10, 1999 6:52 PM
>Subject: Jewish gravestones and conspiracy theories
>
> Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Jewish gravestones & conspiracy theories
>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:13:15 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Dear Clark
>
> I very much appreciate your balanced viewpoints which are fully shared by myself. It is this
> open-mindedness which is required to engage in a fair and scholarly discussion. Scholarly
> discussions have to be replaced by good sense discussions, or they end up in collective amnesia
> production, in our case repressing true history again in Peiser's case under mainstream XC "1st"
> millennium links, in Heinsohn's under the newly invented "shortened" (but not discarded) religiously
> defined "medieval" age.
>
> Let me now answer some of the points you make:
>>
>> Clark wrote:
>>
>> My interest is in the CE dark age... is it genuine or is it the result of erroneous assumptions and
>> inaccurate calendar calculations?
>
> Benny:
>
> 1) Calendar calculations:
Chris:
Calendar adherence is meant; calendars in principle are a matter of observation, not of "calculations"; after which they are used as timelines with an epoch at its beginning. Let's hope the Jewish timeline consists of solar years...
> Benny:
>
> There is written evidence that the Jewish calendar (including the basic chronology of the "world-era")
> was introduced to and used by Jewish communities around the world long before the onset of the dark
> ages.
Chris:
Very interesting: "around the world " in which Jewish colonies, pray? But then there aren't any "dark" in the sense of "medieval" ages: The GCR-background points to Schizo Time standing between Old & Modern Time, of which we know yet practically nothing - not even for how many generations it lasted - except that its end was marked of what Egon Friedell observes in his Kulturgeschichte der Neuzeit: "If it is true that at that time a great jolt, a mysterious concussion, a deep shudder of conception passed through mankind, then the earth, too, must have experienced something similar, and not just the earth, but also the neighbouring planets, indeed the entire solar system. The signs and miracles which were observed by the "inadequate cognisance" of those times, were real signs, distinct utterances emanating from wonderful relationships within the whole cosmic transpirings." Schizo Time's beginning, of course, due to the celestial excitation background, was marked by the destruction of what we know as "Rome" + its parallel cultures.
>
> Benny
>
> I.e. this evidence comes from documents of which we know that they belong to Talmudic times.
Chris:
But again, those "Talmudic times" are firmly linked into the impossibly retrocalculated schimera of the "1st" XC-millennium, as completely an absurd & misleading timeline as is its epoch deity. If possible at all, "Talmudic times" will have to be linked unconditionally to the UC timeline: when, then, do the first documents appear? 900 years ago? & how were they saved through Schizo Time (as, eg, were some of the "Ancient Sea Kings" maps)?
>
> Benny
>
> If some 300 years had been added to the Jewish chronology since, there should be a significant
> discepancy in the dates given for the "beginning of the world" prior and after the dark ages. There is,
> however, no evidence that this is the case.
Chris:
If you really want to present us with an undisputed & unambiguous Jewish "beginning of the world" calendar, then please do so. But there is no evidence that there is one, & particularly there is NO such calendar which isn't firmly linked to the XC. Above that, there is nothing at all to be said against Heinsohn's archaeological dating of the gravestones to the Trecento: what I wonder about is the reason why he doesn't defend the position in more detail & in relation with the consequences,
>>
>> Clark wrote:
>>
>> there is ample reason and motive to fake the tombs and remains of great figures from history. [...] But
>> faking the gravestones of ordinary people? On general principles I am inclined to doubt it but I would
>> not rule it out absolutely... especially if the gravestones were carved by people who were not entirely
>>sure what year it.
>
> Benny writes:
>
> Jews were pretty sure what year it was, given the calendaric knowledge required for their festivals and
> as documented in many texts from before the dark ages.
Chris:
If that were indeed the case: where, then, are the Jewish records of the late changes to the solar year , the one that occurred eg in the middle of the Trecento & then lead to the GCR (beginning to be observed from 573 UC (=1372 XC))? Where have the Jews recorded the CCR?
>>
>> Clark wrote:
>>
>> You make a special point that pious Jews would never have dared to fake gravestones or commit
>> the blasphemy of forging religious materials. First, as a general observation, it seems to me that pious
>> people of any faith are the ones who are most likely fake and forge religious materials.
>
> Benny writes:
>
> If you can show me any example where Rabbinical Jews in a concerted effort (i.e. including all
> communities from the Diaspora) have faked sacred documents, I would be more inclined to follow your
> argumentation. After all, what we would have to invisage is a 'world-wide' Jewish conspiracy that would
> account for the hundreds of 'faked' documents and artefacts dating from the period in question. Let's
> face it: How realistic is such a scenario?
Chris:
Absurd. On the other hand, today's Jews fake physics & history as their daily scholarly work mutually & in a concerted effort along with all their other PRS-colleagues without the slightest feeling of doubt, let alone guilt, even where they have to realise from the RHNH that their work of repression produces collective amnesia which in turn in times of crises leads to holocaust & war: so if they fake today, why shouldn't they have faked in earlier times for similar reasons?
> Benny:
>
> What might have been the motives for this Jewish conspiracy? And why isn't there any evidence for
> controversy or debate among Jewish scholars about a 'faked' chronology and whether or not the
> commentaries, legal texts and written histories from the Geonic period are authentic?
Chris:
However, where on the UC timeline is this "Geonic period"? & if it is related to other dynasties, where on the UC timeline are those? That, of course, has to be cleared with the sRHNH.
> Benny:
>
> And lastly, why does Heribert carefully conceal all of this material evidence if not for the reason that
> he is only too aware that nobody would be inclinded to accept his "the Jews faked their gravestones"
> theory?
Chris:
Illig sits as Heinsohn's & Peiser's companion in the very same rudderless "300 Phantom Years + Conspiracy" boat.
>>
>> Clark wrote:
>>
>> My point is simply that in a debate of this kind we have to go where the evidence takes us, keeping in
>> mind always that any piece of evidence might not be genuine. We are not obliged to believe that a
>> particular medieval relic is genuine, no matter how devoutly it is venerated. Nor should we condemn it
>> as a fake simply because it interferes with a theory we believe in.
>
> Benny writes:
>
> I agree. But when the evidence is overwhelming, as in the case of the Geonic period of Jewish
> history (not to mention all the material evidence from the world's other civilizations), how realistic
> is the assumption that all of these documents are fakes?
Chris:
What "material evidence from the world's other civilizations" is directly related (not by the intermediary of the XC timeline!) to the Geonic period?
>>
>> Clark wrote:
>>
>> Clearly, Gunnar is saying that if the CE dark ages were not genuine, NOBODY
>> existed during those years, Jews or Gentiles.
Chris:
This is the very crux of the absurdity when removing centuries from a supposedly existing religiously designed timeline.
>
> Benny writes:
>
> Yes, I know that. But Gunnar has been particularly keen to show that there is no evidence for Jewish
> existence in that period, rejecting all of the facts presented out of hand. You have to ask him why he
> has specialised his research on the Jewish aspect of this conspiracy theory (and why he has
> mispresented the views of Jewish historians for that matter). And don't forget that Gunnar has a
> very responsible role as the speaker of an institute that deals, on a daily basis, with other forms of
> Jewish conspiracy theories and historical revisionism.
Chris:
Alas, this responsibility has been betrayed since replacing Collective Amnesia as the reason for IBC provoking the late Jewish holocaust by Hitler's genius (in Warum Auschwitz?).
> Benny:
>
> Of course there is the general worry that many people have lost trust in such an institute once they
> realised that its speaker advocates radical revisionism and 'world-wide' conspiracy theories too. Gunnar
> is only too aware of this problem, given that the liberal press has compared his "method" of radical
> revisionism with that of the Holocaust deniers.
Chris:
Why should anyone take note of any press or any other PRS agents - none of them having any authority in RHNH matters.
>>
>> Clark wrote:
>>
>> You counter this position with a very reasonable argument: that there is hard physical evidence from
>> CE Jewish history that shows Jews DID exist during this period, and that Illig's thesis must therefore
>> be wrong. Gunnar answers that the evidence exists, and the Jewish culture it represents also existed,
>> but both should be dated to a later time, along with all other evidence from this time period.
Chris:
Correct.
>
> Benny writes:
>
> The problem is that it doesn't work. That's exactly what I've been trying to show. From a purely Jewish
> perspective, there is not even the slightest hint for such a scenario given that there is ample material
> and archaeological evidence for the reality of the 300 years in question. In fact, Heribert and Gunnar
> are not even aware of the basic documents from before the dark ages outlining the Jewish calendar - or
> the mass of written texts and material finds from the early dark ages.
Chris:
Which are all linked to the XC & thus worthless for the UC timeline.
> Benny:
>
> And here is my last point: If there were a core of truth in what Heribert and Gunnar suggest, i.e. that
> 300 phantom years were made up by essentially every single culture and civilisation of the world, that
> all of their histories, all of their stratigraphies, all of their archaeological and documentary finds from
> that period are nothing else than fakes, don't you think that - appart from their fan club - some
> open-minded people (let alone a few experts) would sympathise with such a scenario? Even Velikovsky
> had some limited support from a number of scientists. In contrast, there is not a single (!) scientist in the
> field of medieval history or archaeology who has shown any sign of approval. What does that tell you?
Chris:
Merely that the whole PRS-conglomerate is nothing but the repression apparatus producing Collective Amnesia. Plus, of course, that while Velikovsky was still operating in the Twilight of the Gods in a nearly unapproachable past, now we have proceeded to the Toilit of the Guts proper, at the very source of
present IBC.
> Benny:
>
> It tells you that the line of argumentation is unconvincing, weak and very easy to counter.
Chris:
Just as for good sense it is still easier to counter any PRS opinion.
> Benny
>
> I will refer to all of your points and questions in greater detail in the paper I'm currently working on.
Chris:
Which, as usual, willl surely be interesting for all the data withheld rather than the arguments presented.
-----Original Message-----
From: Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
To: Marx <marx@1.lol.li>
Cc: Henry Zemel <henryz@interport.net>; Gunnar Heinsohn <gheins@uni-bremen.de>; Bill Mullen <mullen@bard.edu>; Jan Sammer <sammer@interpres.cz>; Clark Whelton <whel@berk.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Jewish gravestones and conspiracy theories
>
> This is just for the record: I have warned Gunnar for some time that the radical revisionism of medieval
> Jewish history advocated by Illig and himself has all the hallmarks of an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory.
> I hold both of them responsible for the manifest anti-Semitism which is now openly voiced by some
> members of their circle.
>
> Benny J Peiser
> 14 July 1999
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:09:31 +0200 Marx
marx@1.lol.li wrote:>
>>
>> Absurd. On the other hand, today's Jews fake physics & history as their daily scholarly work mutually
>> & in a concerted effort along with all their other PRS-colleagues witout the slightest feeling of doubt,
>> let alone guilt, even where they have to realise from the RHNH that their work of repression produces
>> collective amnesia which in turn in times of crises leads to holocaust & war: so if they fake today, why
>> shouldn't they have faked in earlier times for similar reasons?
>>
From: Marx <marx@1.lol.li>
To: Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
Cc: Clark Whelton <whel@berk.com>; Jan Sammer <sammer@interpres.cz>; Gunnar Heinsohn <gheins@uni-bremen.de>; Henry Zemel <henryz@interport.net>
Subject: Re: Jewish gravestones and conspiracy theories
Date: Wednesday, July 14 1999 12:16
Answers from / Antworten von Chris Marx c/o PAF
---
Well thanks, Benny Peiser, but your post for the record leaves me somewhat at a loss for meaning, & even good sense. You mean that the RHNH for the so-called Dark Medieval Ages has at its root anti-Semitism for getting rid of a so-called "1st" XC-millennium together with an absurd Christian historiography beyond ~700UC, & onto which Jewish sources have been hooked chronologically which would better stand by themselves?
What utter nonsense!
& how could you have reviewed, let alone studied within a mere couple of hours all the arguments I gave you to consider?
Chris
---
XC = Christian Calendar
UC = Universal Calendar (its epoch the spring equinox of 1945 XC)
GCR = Gregorian Calendar Reform -370/-363 UC (1577/1582 AD)
CCR = Canopus Calendar Reform (=the "Julian" reform), following the sRHNH around -950 UC (1000 XC)
EVU = Electric Vortex Universe
DGU = Dead Gravity Universe
(s)RHNH = (statistical) Reconstruction of Human & Natural History
PRS(-conglomerate) = entirety of the collective thinking systems, ie the Philosophies, Religions & [exo- & esoteric] sciences, ruled by the
CREDO = "What is OBSERVED is NOT to be PERCEIVED, & what is to be BELIEVED is NOT to be OBSERVED"
IBC = Irrational Behaviour of the Collective (knowledge adulteration, holocaust, war)
A free overview of the RHNH: Collective Amnesia and the Compulsive Repetition of Human Sacrifice (1984, English & German) is available from <pakaf@1.lol.li> (please give snailmail address).
"The resolution of contradictions in relevant data renders unnecessary 99% of all theories" [AI & common sense]
«CM : Everything must be done to destroy Collective Amnesia»