My Post 4-7-19 The Ultimate Unseen Hand Behind the New World Order 666 Pandoras-BOX - THE ORIGINS OF MISINFORMATION
THE ORIGINS OF MISINFORMATION
The methods of recording the events of the past for posterity and the edification of future generations have changed over the millennia. Thousands of years ago knowledge of past events was passed on from generation to generation in the form of stories, related by fathers to sons and to others willing to listen.
The origin of the word "History" comes from that practice of narration in that each legend so recited would be "his story", but the advent of writing changed the method of recital.
Historians became relatively passive, relating their story just once, leaving the efforts of learning to the reader.
The spoken, or narrated story changed down through the ages and the telling, mutating into far more than the realities of the original exploits of the principal players in the drama into legends extolling the super human characteristics of the heroes of the saga, but also at the same time they would degenerate into nothing more than mere legends.
But transcribe "his-story" into writing thereafter cannot be changed, or can it?
Aside from the origins of the word which describes the discipline, there is also a related and unwritten law: History' has always been written by the winners.
Contrary to popular belief, it is neither a legal requirement nor a fact that the winner always writes a true account of history. If the victor is corrupted, or has interests to protect from the public, for example: why the war was created in the first place, he is in a position, being the winner, to make sure that the unsuspecting public never gets to know.
How? He simply writes and rewrites the history books, or causes the history books to be re-written, and everyone knows that the history books are correct, aren't they?
Wars have been fought down through the millennia, and almost always, when over, the victor always gets to write down the results. Where the "true" accounts of the "magnificent exploits" of the victorious are applauded and extolled to the world (whatever comprised "The World" at that time), the comments and observations of the vanquished have been (if not outright destroyed) suppressed, and consigned to a dusty, second rate status of "archives (written by nobodies)", thereafter to slowly decompose into the mists of antiquity and (hopefully) never again reach the light of day.
The victor is therefore exalted as the one who had "right" (and inevitably, God as well) on his side, and the vanquished become in posterity, if not criminals, then simply misinformed non-entities who fought for a lost and often evil cause. If anyone should doubt that, then consider how history would be written today (in either Japanese for the U.S. side of the Atlantic and the Pacific, or German for the European and North African theatre) should the "nasty other side" have won the second world war! What then would become of the British "Stiff upper lip, old chap" or the "American Way of Life", or any of the other colloquial cliches which are abused in describing this "wonderful?" Current way of life?
If the ownership of control of the Power and/or Lands and/or ideals (and "ideals" usually disguises want of either power or land, or both) have not been decided by the Act of War, then such "coups" have usually been accomplished in other ways.
(1). Assassination has always been a good, clean way. Simply kill the incumbent leader; this method has a time honored history.
(2). A more insidious method (but still effective) is the usurping of the authority and power by one or more individual(s) who while appearing to be loyal to the master, manage, through one means or another, take away his power. This method can be broken down into several sub-methods.
(a). Cause the incumbent leader to "fall from grace" (this most likely in the case of a politician), but, in this instance, make sure you are yourself popular in the public eye, in order to be able to take over, or:
(b). Wait until the King is incapacitated by some debilitating illness and unable to take care of his kingdom (or estate), then surreptitiously take it out from under him, or;
(c). Wait until just after the King dies, (even if prematurely) then.
(i). Place the heir on the throne while making sure he has no ability or opportunity to exercise any power until you have exerted enough influence over the inexperienced new monarch to get him to leave everything in your control, then you kill him; or