Friday, August 1, 2008


What passes for history depends on who is telling the story. Separating fact from fiction creates a competition among researchers clamoring for authority status. Those in high places decide what is fact and what is fiction.

Parents are authority figures for their children and if told, there is a Santa Claus, that belief becomes a fact. Later our teachers become the authority figure and what they say becomes a fact. As we mature we should begin to question some of the things we were told. After all our teachers were only passing on what they had learned from authority figures. The hallmark of a scholar is to look at so called authoritative statements and determine if they are fact or fiction. That is not so easy in a religious context because a predetermined truth is not to be questioned.

Many of our great centers of learning to which we look for authoritative pronouncements were founded by clergy already enmeshed in a predetermined truth. Science, history and logic were fitted into that framework. Over time new discoveries forced that framework to be modified to such an extent that we no longer think of places like Yale, Harvard, or Princeton as religious institutions. But they continue to issue statements in the same fashion as papal edicts. The clergy have turned their collars around and donned the robes the of secular clergy.
If the chairman of a department in one of these institutions or some authoritative publication tells us that it is impossible for man to fly, who are bicycle mechanics to question that authority. Or on what authority does a physician suggests that the learned doctors teaching in the higher institutes of medicine should wash theirs after handling cadavers.

Oh, you say, but things are not like that today. Think again. Nothing has changed. Those who challenge the paragons of truth are subjected to an inquisition which may go on for decades or what is worse completely ignored or ridiculed. Learned debate is not allowed if authority is questioned or unfavorable economics are engendered.
To mention a few of the better known cases of the 20th century are Tesla, Schauberger, Bechamps, Reich, Priore, and Velikovsky.

One of the most amazing stories in the annals of history is the question, Was King Arthur, as told in the story books, fact or fiction or partly fact and partly fiction. Authoritative pronouncements from Oxford and Cambridge decided what would go in the history books. Their actions would be indictable offenses if committed in any other field. Because two fundamentalist professors in the 19th century wanted history to conform to some preconceived Biblical interpretation, they rewrote history without regard to evidence or documentation, both of which were ‘lost’, destroyed, or ignored. The true history of England and Wales was kept alive in Welsh records, only to be suppressed or declared forgeries. The authors of the official British version are guilty of perpetuating a history without foundation and in effect robbing the Welsh nation of its intellectual integrity. These are the contentions of the book, THE KING ARTHUR CONSPIRACY, By Grant Berkley.

No comments: