Japanese almost didn't notice their children getting brainwashed with fake history. Now think about the fact that they probably did this sort of historical revisionism in Western countries many many times over as well without westerners noticing it.
he published a bunch of fake history, cited himself, and then expanded circular citations of that fake history to manufacture blood libel against an entire nation of people.
this is the problem with "authoritative sourcing" and "consensus seeking" as empirical methods. something is not authoritative merely based on the source it comes from. it only becomes authoritative by that source exercising rigor in verification. for example, wikipedia lists SPLC in the list of authoritative sources, even though SPLC has lied so badly they were forced to pay out millions of dollars in damages for defamation.
and consensus seeking is not empirical at all. no amount of people agreeing that the universe revolves around the earth makes that true. he manufactured enough fake shit that cited each other, and duped people with that phony consensus. it's a scam.
he published a bunch of fake history, cited himself, and then expanded circular citations of that fake history to manufacture blood libel against an entire nation of people.
Could you explain this usage of "blood libel"? All I get from Google is the historical usage (Jews baking bread with the blood of Christians).
Japanese almost didn't notice their children getting brainwashed with fake history. Now think about the fact that they probably did this sort of historical revisionism in Western countries many many times over as well without westerners noticing it.
yeah, this guy is a citogenesis scammer.
he published a bunch of fake history, cited himself, and then expanded circular citations of that fake history to manufacture blood libel against an entire nation of people.
this is the problem with "authoritative sourcing" and "consensus seeking" as empirical methods. something is not authoritative merely based on the source it comes from. it only becomes authoritative by that source exercising rigor in verification. for example, wikipedia lists SPLC in the list of authoritative sources, even though SPLC has lied so badly they were forced to pay out millions of dollars in damages for defamation.
and consensus seeking is not empirical at all. no amount of people agreeing that the universe revolves around the earth makes that true. he manufactured enough fake shit that cited each other, and duped people with that phony consensus. it's a scam.
Could you explain this usage of "blood libel"? All I get from Google is the historical usage (Jews baking bread with the blood of Christians).