The Old World (Part One)

I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) have always been fascinated with history. It’s one of the reason’s I minored in Social Studies, where history is taught in Alberta. The article, What is the Difference Between History and the Past? states:

The past refers to all the events that have ever happened since the beginning of time until the present moment. History, on the other hand, is the interpretation of the past through the study of records and evidence left behind by previous generations. It is a process of interpreting evidence in a thoughtful and informed way, and it gives meaning, sense, and explanatory force to the past in the present. History is open to change and revision as new evidence is discovered and new interpretations are proposed.

This was my approach to teaching Social Studies classes. In the above quote, I especially like the sentence; “History is open to change and revision as new evidence is discovered and new interpretations are proposed.” In the past few months,  I have come across some thought provoking videos and articles, like the one I talked about in my last post, Is Canada Real? That video got me wondering: Is what I taught, and what our history books tell us, really true? Is it really reflecting the world’s past? It was Britain’s war time prime minister, Winston Churchill who allegedly said, “History is written by the victors,” and it was the author of 1984, George Orwell who said, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Why would they say such things? Are we missing something? Think about the word history—”his story.” Is history just someone’s, or some group’s story? Is the history we’ve been taught a lie or at the very least altered truth?

I am fascinated with historical buildings. Take, for example, the Canada Permanent Building, located in downtown Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. You can see a picture of this building and learn about it in the articles, CANADA PERMANENT BUILDING and HistoricPlaces.ca .  I have driven by this building many times.  It is said to be built of sandstone and red brick and constructed in 1909. No mention of when construction actually began or finished, so one can only conclude that it was built in 12 months or less. What I find interesting is that this was during the time of dirt roads, and horse and carts, at least that is what we were told. A new smaller sized building was constructed at the local college where I live and it took over 2 years to construct and that’s with modern equipment. It’s bewilders me how a stone and brick building could be constructed in one year in the 1900s when it took over 2 years to construct a building with modern equipment today. Something doesn’t add up.

Another example is First Presbyterian Church, also located in Edmonton. I have walked past this beautiful building many times. You can learn about this building in the articles, FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH and Wikipedia’s First Presbyterian Church (Edmonton). This brick and sandstone church is said to be constructed in 1911 in the first article, but Wikipedia says the present building was completed in November 1912. The first article says the architect is Wilson and Herrald, but has n/a (non-applicable?) listed for the builder. Why such little information? The first article implies it was built in a year or less, which seems unlikely to me. Like I said above, how can a stone and brick building be constructed in just one year in the 1900s, during a time of horse and carts when it takes two or more years to construct a building of smaller size today with modern equipment?  I question that. Question everything folks!

Teaching Social Studies, I often taught about various empires like the Roman Empire, Chinese Empire, and the British Empire. Never in my 35 years of teaching have I ever come across the Tatarian Empire (also known as Great Tartary and Tartaria). I first learned of Tartaria about two years ago. There is a map of Tartaria located in the Library of Congress which is located in Washington D.C. That means it is real. Here is a link to the Map of the Great Tartary.  Discover Magazine’s article, What Is the Lost Empire Of Tartaria? says:

People who believe in the Tartarian Empire contend it was once a sophisticated, worldwide civilization with impressive architecture. Because such an empire is not mentioned in history books, conspiracy theorists claim it has been intentionally erased. 

Notice that Discover Magazine tries to discredit Tartaria calling it “The Tartarian Empire conspiracy theory.”  If you want to learn about Tartaria, you can read about it in the articles, Tartaria Mud Flood Reset: A Missing Legacy and Tartaria: Lost Timeline of a Global Empire. My question is: why has Tartarian history been kept from us? If you do your own research, you will find lots of articles calling it a conspiracy theory and myth, but is it? The first article says, “the Tartarians were masters of masonry, brickwork, steam punk style technology, universally free energy, and grand architecture.” It also says, “Churches, cathedrals, mosques, and other buildings of worship were originally aetheric power stations, water stations, and sound resonating acoustical healing centers.” Could this be why they kept knowledge of the Tartarians from us? Are they (whoever they are) trying to hide a history with advanced technologies from us? There are various videos to watch in the second article. Watch them, and draw your own conclusions.

What happened to Tartaria? Many say it was wiped out with a mud flood. To understand what I mean, watch this video titled: The Mud Flood Reset that Time Forgot!?

You can also refer to the article, Mud Flood, Dirt Rain, and the story of the Buried Buildings, which has lots of pictures. Many of the buildings from Tartaria still stand and have been repurposed; many cathedrals for example. Could the two buildings I talked about earlier be Tartarian buildings? It would explain why the histories of these building are so vague. Has our history been re-written and hidden from us? Could this be why those who question it are called crazy conspiracy theorists? Question everything people.

Have you ever wondered about the “Great Fires” of cities that happened? I can’t help but think about this with all the news about fires in Los Angeles, California, like this news article, Eaton and Palisades fires. It reminds me of Lahaina in Maui which burned in August of 2023.

The article, Top 10 Most Famous Fires in History, lists—looking at 1800 and 1900s—Boston 1872, Chicago 1871, San Francisco 1906, Peshtigo, Wisconsin 1871, Texas City, Texas 1947, Halifax, Nova Scotia 1917, and Tokyo, Japan 1923 as the most famous city fires. Wikipedia’s List of fires in Canada lists 15 Canadian city fires in the 1800s, and 8 in the 1900s, with some cities being listed more than once with fires in different years. In the USA, I counted 16 great city fires in Wikipedia’s Urban fires in the United States throughout 1700s to 1900s. Why did so many cities burn?

Let’s look at the Great Toronto fire of 1904. The Canadian Encyclopedia’s article, Great Fire of Toronto (1904) has pictures. What’s interesting is the pictures show, what looks like a war zone of brick and stone buildings. How can a fire destroy at least 98 stone buildings? Stone doesn’t burn. Let’s look at the Boston fire of 1872 as explained in the above mentioned article, Top 10 Most Famous Fires in History. This article says, “some 776 building and twenty people—being turned into charred cinders, making it one of the East Coast’s most devastating fires”. Wikipedia’s article, Great Boston Fire of 1872 says,  the fire began “in the basement of a commercial warehouse,” and that “many of the affected buildings were made of brick and stone, but with wooden framing.” It also says “the fire could spread from rooftop to rooftop, and across narrow streets.”  Now I have questions. How can 776 buildings be destroyed and only 20 people die? Why would wood framing be used for brick and stone buildings? Is wood strong enough to support brick and stone? I can’t imagine it is. Something doesn’t make sense. Question everything friends.

I have to wonder if the history we’ve been told is really our true history.  Have we been indoctrinated to believe someone’s fake story? Have we been programmed to believe a history that has been falsified, altered, or hidden? Why would someone do that? If that’s true, then we have been indirectly bullied (#bullying, #antibullying). English writer, Kate Atkinson once said, “Alternate history fascinates me, as it fascinates all novelists, because ‘What if?’ is the big thing.” What if our history is false or altered? George Orwell, author of 1984, said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history,” and it was Napoleon Bonaparte who allegedly said, “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” Why would they say such things? Were they trying to tell us something?  It is time for us to do our own investigating instead of blindly believing what we’re told. I have more to say on this topic, and possible answers to my questions above, in Part Two.