The fact there's even any historical references to him is a klaxon for his existence

"He's real because it was weird that someone made him up" 🙄

I'm from an area of the world that has next to no written records for the entire peoples that lived here throughout several centuries of the early middle ages, and yet it's not doubted they existed

Yeah, those WILL leave traces beyond the written records. Where's your archaeological proof of the significant carpenter?

It seems then pretty difficult to doubt the existence of a single man with which there's so much written from an even earlier period.

Yeah, someone being written about a lot even though they're not rich DOES prove that they're real! Case in point:

If Jesus existed in modern times I'm sure there'd be conspiracies that the CIA is trying to wipe out the memory of the slave abolitionist and communist revolutionary

Nah, if he lived in modern day, he'd probably be murdered by the IOF, being a Palestinian from the West Bank.

But because a cult ~~of personality~~ and religion got built around ~~him~~ a bunch of different people that they turned into one like Arwen in the LotR movies

Fixed it for you.

now one of the dominant philosophical and political powers in the world

Bolded the operative words.

The myth have been kept alive not by being true, but by being a tool of domination for those who have and want to maintain power.

Or to quote Eleanor Ferguson, "Christianity didn't become a world religion because of quality of its teachings, but by the quantity of its violence"

Similarly, the Liberal Zionism-esque "compromise" of Jesus being real but not divine was established not from the preponderance of evidence or even reason, but from being overly trusting of biased authority figures.

Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus

A braggart known to exaggerate and embellish accounts to make himself and the Jewish people look good.

And he wasn't born until the supposed Jesus had already died, making all the things he "reported" about it as an adult historian decades old hearsay at best.

As for Tacitus, that was one passage in 116 CE, a modern day lifespan after the events described where he gets names and titles wrong and doesn't reference a source.

Hardly the irrefutable evidence you like to pretend it is.