by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog
On hearing the word ‘revisionism,’ suspicion lurks in the mind of some, and alarms sound in the mind of others. Suspicion is the elder sister of twins, credulity and incredulity. And of all kinds of credulity, the most obstinate and wonderful is that of zealots; of men who resign the use of their eyes and ears, and resolve to believe nothing that does not favor those whom they profess to follow.
Hence the law of truth, which most would accept in principle, is broken without penalty, without censure, and in compliance with inveterate prejudice and prevailing passions. Men are willing to credit what they wish, and encourage rather those who gratify them with pleasure, than those who provide them with fidelity, (or at least try to.)
Still, revisionism implies nothing else but an effort to seek historical truth and to discredit myths that are a barrier to peace and general goodwill among nations. There is nothing upon which more writers, in all ages, have laid out their abilities, than revisionism. And it affords no pleasing reflection to discover that a subject so controversial is anything but exhausted.
It may surprise some that the first undisputed revisionist was a relatively little known Renaissance scholar named Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457). He used his knowledge of classical Latin to prove that an important text written by Emperor Constantine, one thousand years before, was actually a forgery. To the skeptic who understandably asks, “So what?” the answer may surprise him. That discovery destroyed the historical justification for the Catholic Church to have a judicial right to the possession (essentially at will), of earthly lands and geographical domains.
The forged document titled “The Donation of Constantine,” stated, “I, Constantine, donated the whole of the Western Roman Empire to the Roman Catholic Church, as an act of gratitude for having been miraculously cured of leprosy by Pope Sylvester I.”
Lorenzo Valla proved that the vernacular Latin of the forged ‘donation’ was in use only in the 8th century AD, rather than the 4,th when the document had allegedly been written.
The incentive for Valla’s research was a land dispute between his patron Alfonso V of Aragon and the Pope of the time. Understandably the Church rejected the conclusion, but rather than been pilloried, insulted, derided, ostracized, banned or burned, Valla actually even enjoyed the patronage of Pope Callixtus III. Perhaps the spirit of the Renaissance inspired indulgence and forbearance, instead of hatred and revenge. Which is more than can be said about what happened to recent revisionists of more recent events.
To step back a little, let’s take the American Revolution for example. Patriotic historians have hailed the dumping of English-imported tea into Boston harbor as evidence of an unsullied love of freedom and of courageous revolting by idealistic patriots against a tyrannical enemy and extortionist import taxes.
But revisionists have shown that the first financier of the Revolution was John Hancock, a wealthy merchant from a family that made its fortune from smuggling. Tea happened to be a major item, generously drunk by colonists and locals.
It just so happened that England had a large overstock of stored and unsold tea from the East Indian Company. To dispose of it they sold it in America at a price that, even with the import tax, was less than the cost of the tea smuggled in America from Holland. This substantially cut into the profit of the Hancock business. Hancock but caught the stream in the torrent of occasion
In 1812 America wanted to conquer Canada to bring freedom thither, as pompously declared by Gen. William Hull in his annexation proclamation, before being defeated at Detroit. Two years later, during the peace negotiations with the British, the Americans denied of ever having intended to annex Canada. “But how about Gen. Hull’s declaration in Detroit?” asked the British. “That was not really government-sanctioned policy,” was the reply, as documented in the records.
And when the British requested some territorial exchanges and concessions that would have preserved independence for some American Indians, the Americans flatly refused. In a report to his boss in London, Lord Bathurst, the British negotiator Henry Goulburn wrote “…till I came here I had no idea of the fixed determination which there is, in the heart of every American, to extirpate (sic) the Indians and appropriate their territory.”
Yet, in the non-revisionist annals of history, the war of 1812 was “The War That Forged A Nation.”
To the Civil War (1861-1865), the term ‘revisionism’ has not generally been applied – though, to be pedantic about it, in the South the same war was called “War for Southern Independence.” Yet unofficial revisionists have focused on the causes of the Civil War far more than on the causes of either World War. Nevertheless, it is no longer impolitic to say that the war had little and only tangentially to do with slavery emancipation.
Revisionists have equally shown that, at the time of the Spanish American war in 1898, President McKinley, with the full Spanish concessions to his demands in his pocket, concealed the Spanish capitulation from Congress and demanded war. Which in turn required an excuse (“casus belli” is the technical term). The sinking of the Maine did nicely, with 268 dead American sailors. Blowing up the Maine was the 9/11 of the Spanish-American War.
Today it is acceptable to tell the truth about the Maine, partly or mostly because 120 years have worn out the print of remembrance, and much greater horrors have shown the immense power of immense evil.
Besides, the relatively recently published “Operation Northwood” papers show a detailed plan for a false flag operation that included the killing of an unspecified number of Americans, to justify the invasion of Cuba during Kennedy’s time. And, as universally acknowledged, the false North Vietnamese attack on an American frigate in the Gulf of Tonkin was the notorious excuse for the Vietnam War.
It is somewhat disheartening to agree with Oscar Wilde that “truth is a matter of style.” And if use almost can change the stamp of nature, habituation to mass media bombardment using the same story can make the story appear true and quell the power of independent thought.
Furthermore, insensibly and by degrees, the popular media, controlled by a state-within-the state, has cleverly assuaged the mesmerized audience to believe and accept that astuteness redeems any evil. Actual cases have literally shown that with lots of money even a moderately unintelligent criminal can get away with murder.
As for 9/11, I will not repeat what has been said, written, debated or demonstrated by thousands of others. In my mind there remains printed the expression of Larry Silverstein, either owner, or renter, or lessee of the towers, depending on intricate legal arguments and definitions. When he claimed on television that he did not go to his office on 9/11, because he had an appointment with a dermatologist, and his wife insisted that he keep it. Physiognomy, however, is a justly debatable science, immune to revisionism.
It was WW1 that actually brought the term “revisionism” into general use, and for good reasons. For the revisionists counted on an accurate assessment of the causes of the War for a review and re-write of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty assigned to Germany and Austria the sole responsibility for the conflict.
The Germans were ‘Huns’ (sic), suggesting wild hordes of horse-mounted barbarians who brought havoc to the Roman Empire. That the German ‘Huns,’ in 1914, had the most socially advanced measures and safety-net for workers in Europe, including the equivalent of social security, was deemed irrelevant.
But at the onset of the war new methods of communication, mass journalism and propaganda could whip up popular opinion and mass hatred as never before in the history of warfare. By then propaganda, especially of the Edward Bernay’s type, was the arbiter of good and evil, as discussed in the article “The Fraud of Freud.” Propaganda, then and now, is ever ready to surprise the unawareness of the thoughtless, prone to be misled by meteors mistaken for stars.
Media-whipped-up hysteria made Germany entirely responsible not only for the outbreak of war in 1914 but also for the American entry in April 1917.
President Wilson, who decided to join the war to make the world safe for democracy, even imprisoned union leader Eugene Debs for having said that profit, not democracy was the only motive for that decision.
Other revisionists connected the entry of America in WW1 to the quid-pro-quo worked-out in England by certain bankers, in exchange for the Balfour declaration and the consequent eventual ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
At Versailles, the victors alleged that, on July 5, 1914, the Kaiser had called a Crown Council of leading German government officials, ambassadors, and financiers. Where he told them to ready themselves for the war he would shortly declare. Whereupon the financiers asked for a two weeks delay, to sort out loans and securities. The Kaiser agreed and then left for his habitual summer North Sea vacation on his yacht. All this was, allegedly, concocted to give the enemy a false sense of security.
An American revisionist proved from available documents that the Crown Council legend was a complete myth. Some of the alleged participants were not in Berlin at the time. And the Kaiser’s actual attitude, on that 5th of July, was 180 degrees opposite to the official narrative, while the two-week time requested by the bankers was imaginative fabrication.
What actually happened has a tinge of Clintonian-style scandal. The secretary to the German Ambassador in Constantinople, Baron Hans von Wangenheim, revealed the facts.
Von Wangenheim had a mistress in Berlin and, in the early days of the crisis of 1914, she demanded that he return at once to Berlin to settle some critical matters with her. He complied and, to conceal from his wife the real reason for the trip, he told her that the Kaiser had suddenly summoned him to Berlin.
On his return, he told his wife about the fanciful Crown Council he had dreamed up. Shortly later, with his wife by his side, von Wangenheim met Morgenthau, then the American Ambassador at Constantinople, at a diplomatic reception.
Morgenthau had heard about von Wangenheim’s trip to Berlin and pressed him to say something about it. Under the circumstances, von Wangenheim could only repeat the myth he had told his wife. To what extent liquor may have lessened his restraint, and how much Morgenthau elaborated on what von Wangenheim actually said will be forever buried several fathoms in the earth, or sunk into the bottomless sea of things unknown.
Still, that preposterous tale demonstrates the value of revisionism and how momentous and tragic events hang on the most palpable fabrications. For on its basis, the then British Prime Minister Lloyd George advocated the hanging of the German Kaiser (which the Dutch refused to do, for the Kaiser was in exile in Holland).
More recently, Colin Powell’s vial full of milk, paraded as antrax at the United Nations, was the excuse to wage a war on behalf of Israel that netted the destruction of a country, the death of over thousands of American soldiers and a million plus Iraqis.
What caused WW2 would demand an equal or greater volume of revisionism, if free speech were not equated to heresy. To name just one, mostly-buried and poorly-answered question – England declared war on Poland because Germany had invaded part of it, to recover lands lost in WW1. Why did not England declare war on the USSR, who invaded Poland from the East to recover land lost under the terms of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty in WW1? Here the revisionists hit a lexical wall. England and France did not declare war on the USSR because the USSR was “in a state of neutrality.”
One current hot topic for revisionism is the so-called “Russia-gate.” In the US – according to statistics – less than 10% can even locate Ukraine on a map, as fascination for sports alone dramatically outweighs any potential interest in foreign things, let alone foreign history or the policies of foreign governments.
But even for millions in business or business related occupations, concern in foreign matters yields no physical, tangible residue, in the way of durable goods or profit. Consequently, such interests are deemed imbecile and distasteful to men whose habitual occupation is with the acquisition of wealth or the thought of it.
Therefore to suggest that Russia influenced the American electorate to vote for Trump, brings sublimity to the ridiculous. Yet even the “The New York Times,” which usually exhibits a shrewd eye to the limits within which dishonesty is the best policy, has succumbed to the temptation of promoting a legless fabrication. While the insupportably disagreeable lackeys of the information industry continue to lie without being belied, deceive without being unmasked, and wear the medals of their own crimes.
I will conclude this scant and thoroughly incomplete anthology of revisionism by referring to the Spanish Inquisition, which, more than from history books, is remembered thanks to the related satirical sketches of Monty Python.
Telegraphically compressed, the history goes as follows. In 1391 various rulers of Spain banned the Jews from their respective kingdoms. Or rather, the Jews were told to convert (to Christianity), or leave. Those who could leave left, those who didn’t and did not convert suffered persecution. Of those who converted, henceforth called “conversos”, many maintained their important and lucrative positions inside what today we call the establishment.
As an instance – and the related documentation is ample – take the case of Alonso de Cartagena. When 4 or 5-year old, he was baptized by his father Shlomo ha-Levi. Ha-Levi, in turn, had converted to Christianity just before the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1391, and later was elected bishop of Cartagena and Burgos, while his wife remained faithful to her original faith.
Anyway, the perception at large that the conversion to Christianity was just a front, led to two important developments. In 1492 King Ferdinand, who now ruled Castile and Aragon, banned from Spain the unconverted Jews with no exception, while the Inquisition (a kind of National Security Agency), set itself to determine if the conversion was sincere or not.
This decision to expel had been brewing for some time. In the meantime Pope Eugenius IV had nominated Cartagena Junior as Bishop of Burgos. Cartagena was a very learned man who translated Cicero and the books of Seneca in Castilian. And he also set himself to combat the view that Jews could not really be Christian, in his treatise titled “Defensorium.”
According to his (we can call it revisionist) view, the idea of the Jews being the “chosen people” was a misinterpretation. Abram’s circumcision – he wrote – was just a mark of an alliance, not a result of his merits. This is why “(God) generously decided to give his people the law, so that the distinction among peoples be perceived not only in the flesh by cutting off the foreskin, but also in the customs by cutting off vices.” [Dios] se dignó darle generosamente la ley para que la diferencia no fuese percibida sólo en la carne, por el corte del prepucio, sino en las costumbres, por el corte de los vicios” (Cartagena, Defensorium).
But this was not enough. Unsubstantiated historical rumor says that Ferdinand was reluctant to pass the expulsion measure, considering that he had received a very generous offer from prosperous members of the Spanish AIPAC of the time. At which Torquemada allegedly threw a cross at the feet of Ferdinand and said, “Christ was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Would you betray him, just because the reward is higher?”
Even so, the debate did not end, after the Jews’ expulsion of 1482. For in 1539 Ignatius of Loyola along with four other conversos and one established Christian, founded the Jesuit order. Bitter fights between the parties of “Jesuits-conversos-in” and “Jesuits-conversos-out,” lasted well into the 17th century.
In the overall context, it is interesting to consider the views of Benzion Netaniahou, father of Benjamin Netayou-know-who.
Benzion died in 2012 aged 102, and in 1995 published his book titled, “The Origins of the Inquisition.”
According to a commentary by a critic, B. Netaniahou’s intent was ,“to dissect the consequences of Jewish naiveté. His fascination with medieval Spain wasn’t based only on the behavior of the victimizers but of the victims. He not only drew a line connecting what he defined as the racial anti-Semitism of the Inquisition with Nazism, but implicitly drew a line between the Jews who saw medieval Spain as their golden land and the Jews who saw modern Germany as their new Zion. It is precisely that dread of Jewish self-deception that has defined the politics of Benzion’s son.”
Other revisionist critics have disputed that B. Netaniahou wished to portrays Jews as naive, by quoting the following passage from his book,
“It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation. By serving as they did the interests of the kings, the Jews seemed to be working against the interests of the cities; and thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to: the fundamental conflict between the kings and their people—a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people’s life. It was in part thanks to this conflict of interests that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages, and it is hard to believe that they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe. Indeed, their requests, since the days of the Carolingians, for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show (a) that they realized that the kings’ positions on many issues differed from those of the common people and (b) that the kings were prepared, for the sake of their interests, to make common cause with the “alien” Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects. In a sense, therefore, the Jews’ agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world.”
Conclusion? The resentment against the Jews was the fault of the kings. Or rather, Jews were not naive, as one of the book reviewers suggested. Instead they realized that in allying themselves with exploiting ruling elites, they would incur the wrath of the people and thus require princely assurances of protection.
The Jewish alliance with local exploitative elites is a constant among alleged causes of anti-Jewish resentment, in Europe and elsewhere. Whether this set of affairs can be observed in the current Zeitgeist of American history, I do not feel qualified to determine. Considering that the purpose here is/was to review revisionism, not to draw, declare or dismiss sundry articles of truth.
Furthermore, of things that revolve around human life, the world is the proper judge. To despise its sentence, if it were possible, is not just; and if it were just, is not possible. For in the end, as it was said, and not by me, “Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
“Lorenzo Valla proved that the vernacular Latin of the forged ‘donation’ was in use only in the 8th century AD, rather than the 4,th when the document had allegedly been written.”
Was Lorenzo Valla’s opponent Pope Boniface IX? Being a good Presbyterian I have not studied the Catholic Popes much, but apparently One of the Henry’s of England brought Boniface’s elder brother to England and made him Duke of Kent. Then the younger brother was bought to England and made Archbishop of Canterbury and from there the ‘Archbishop’ was able to become Pope Boniface IX The two brothers were of Europe’s ‘Black Nobility’. It was Boniface who declared that the world was the property of the Church.
It was interesting to note that by 1916 and the end of the ‘Battle of the Somme’ That Germany had won the war, but England had not yet won Palestine. The German Foreign Secretary, Arthur Zimmerman offered in November of 1916 to end the war, but that was not to be. The British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith was replaced by the Zionist Lloyd George, and although Britain was almost bankrupt, refused Zimmerman’s offer of peace.
Next there was the ‘Zimmerman Telegram’ which was an absolute forgery and a plan devised by both British and Americans to bring America into the war. And finally the Balfour declaration of which there were many authors, or participants if you so desire, the last being the American Jew, Jacob De Haas.
(Jacob) De Haas continues:
Then one morning Baron Furness, one of England’s unostentatious representatives, brought to 44 East 23rd Street, at that time headquarters of the Zionist Organization, the final draft ready for issue. The language of the declaration accepted by the English Zionists based as it was on the theory of discontent was unacceptable to me. I informed Justice Brandeis of my views, called in Dr. Schmarya Levin and proceeded to change the text. Then with Dr. Wise, I hurried to Colonel House. By this time he had come to speak of Zionism as “our cause.” Quietly he perused my proposed change, discussed its wisdom and promised to call President Wilson on his private wire and urge the change. He cabled to the British Cabinet. Next day he informed me that the President had approved. I had business that week-end in Boston and it was over the long distance wire that my secretary in New York read to me the final form as repeated by cable from London. It was the text as I had altered it.
as for the European Jews being expelled from the various European countries, there is another point in history that should be considered. The Jews were always considered to be ‘the king’s personal property. Thus it was only the king that was permitted to milk the Jewish moneylenders whenever he needed the cash. But in 1290, Edward 1st of England (Longshanks) invented ‘The Parliament’ to raise taxes for him which thus made the Jewish moneylenders redundant. However Edward could not leave the moneylenders in England as that would give his opponents the opportunity to raise funds to threaten the king. Thus the Jews had to go.
And how long did it take for the other European kings to realise the benefits of ‘Parliaments’ raising taxes instead of relying on the torture of a captured moneylender.
History is full of lies going back to when God made Adam.
@ Boniface who declared that the world was the property of the Church.
It was rather Boniface VIII (1294-1303).
Thank you! As I said, I hadn’t studied the Catholic Popes that much.
Thank you, that explains why Dante held such a dim view of Boniface, the evil genius whose spirit pervades Hell and whose presence on the throne of Peter enrages the Saint in Heaven. Dante was very strong on Separation of Church from State, and of Religion from Business.
So the Society of Jesus emerged from ‘conversos’?….
Wonder what the scattered Templars thought of that!
@Wonder what the scattered Templars thought of that!
Not much probably. They were dealing with the non-conversos.
Benveniste (de la Cavalleria). The honor ‘de la Cavalleria’, according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, was given to the Jewish Benveniste family by the knights Templar who protected the family and the family in turn administered the tax system of the Templars.
“Benveniste is the surname of an old, noble, rich, and scholarly Jewish family of Narbonne, France and northern Spain from the 11th century. The family was present in the 11th to the 15th centuries in Provence, France, Barcelona, Aragon and Castile’ Spain. Family members received honorary titles from the authorities and were members of the administration of the kingdom of Aragon and Castile. They were the Baillie (“Bayle”) – the Tax Officer and Treasurer, Alfaquim – Senior Advisor to the King and Royal Physician in Barcelona and Aragon in the 12th and 13th centuries.
They held the title of “Nasi” (prince in Hebrew), a name given to members of the House of David, in the Jewish communities (mainly Barcelona) and were prominent religious and secular leaders in the 11th to the 14th centuries. In the 14th to the 15th century they held the titles of “de la Cavalleria”—”of the knights” (a name given by the Templars to their treasurers and tax collectors) and Don—a noble person in Aragon and Castile.
After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 they were dispersed mainly to Portugal, Greece – Salonica other parts of the Turkish Empire and North African countries. In Portugal they were forced to convert to Christianity in 1497 and became one of the rich traders and bankers (the Mendes family) of Europe”
The House of Mendes|Benveniste probably began as a company trading precious objects. Following the beginning of the Age of Discovery and the finding, by the Portuguese, of a sea route to India, Goncalo Mendes financed ships (and possibly participated) in the Vasco di Gama missions.
They became particularly important as one of the six families that controlled the spice trade in the Portuguese India Armadas (the kings of black pepper). They established with the other families a trading post in Antwerpen from where they controlled the distribution of black pepper in Europe. They also traded in silver – the silver was needed to pay the Asians for those spices. They financed the kings and queens of Portugal, Spain, England, the Flanders and the popes in Rome.
@https://www.geni.com/projects/Benveniste-Family/18534.
The ‘mystery’ of the Templars becomes less mysterious.
Sorry but link doesn’t appear to work.
Try this, omitting the ‘@’. Works for me.
https://www.geni.com/projects/Benveniste-Family/18534
@Shlomo ha-Levi (aka Pablo de Santa Maria, Paul de Santa Maria, and Paulus episcopus Burgensis)…. had converted to Christianity just before the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1391, and later was elected bishop of Cartagena and Burgos, while his wife remained faithful to her original faith.
Actually his wife followed him:
“Halevi’s two brothers and his sister, as well as his five children, were also baptized at the same time. Only some time later, however, did his wife, Joanna, decide to join them”.
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/this-day-in-jewish-history/.premium-1.613045
“At first his wife refused to follow his example, but she accepted baptism a few years later”
@http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pablo-de-santa-maria
Paul of Burgos is reviled to this day by the Jews:
“This Day in Jewish History / Rabbi Turned Archbishop and Jew Hater Dies. Paul of Burgos, born Solomon Halevi, came to serve the court at the highest levels and to embitter the lives of his former people”.
‘As an apostate Jew, Paul was active in encouraging other Jews to convert, and in making their lives bitter so long as they didn’t. As chancellor, he was the moving spirit behind a edict, introduced in 1412, that greatly restricted the ability of Jews to move around and to engage in commerce – unless they were willing to undergo baptism’.
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/this-day-in-jewish-history/.premium-1.613045
Torquemada himself was a descendant of conversos.
Torquemada was probably the figure on whom Francisco Ayala based his story El inquisidor, in the great collection Los Usurpadores. Spanish version:
http://ciudadseva.com/texto/el-inquisidor/
Revisionism is a health y skeptical approach to official narratives, especially when those narratives try to apportion blames for such catastrophic events like WW1,2, holocausts, mass murders, genocides. In fact skepticism should be the default approach in any matters of historical records. Revisionism itself should make no exception.
There was, and still lingers on, a ‘revisionist’ attitude in respect to the responsibility of Germany in starting WW1.
In respect to the Crown Council of 5 July we would like to know more about the ‘available documents’ offered by an unnamed ‘American revisionist’. The documents known to us (I may be wrong, surely) are the memoirs of Kaiser Wilhelm himself, in which he put squarely the blame on the Russians (a meme reactivated nowadays by ‘revisionist’ historians):
“The much-discussed so-called Potsdam Crown Council of July 5th in reality never took place. It is an invention of malevolent persons. Naturally, before my departure, I received, as was my custom, some of the Ministers individually, in order to hear from them reports concerning their departments. Neither was there any council of Ministers and there was no talk about war preparations at a single one of the conferences….
Upon my arrival at Potsdam I found the Chancellor and the Foreign Office in conflict with the Chief of the General Staff, since General von Moltke was of the opinion that war was sure to break out, whereas the other two stuck firmly to their view that things would not get to such a bad pass, that there would be some way of avoiding war, provided I did not order mobilization.
This dispute kept up steadily. Not until General von Moltke announced that the Russians had set fire to their frontier posts, torn up the frontier railway tracks, and posted red mobilization notices did a light break upon the diplomats in the Wilhelmstrasse and bring about their own collapse and that of their powers of resistance. They had not wished to believe in the war.
This shows plainly how little we had expected – much less prepared for – war in July, 1914. When, in the spring of 1914, Czar Nicholas II was questioned by his Court Marshal as to his spring and summer plans, he replied: “Je resterai chez moi cette année parce que nous aurons la guerre” (“I shall stay at home this year because we shall have war”). (This fact, it is said, was reported to Imperial Chancellor von Bethmann; I heard nothing about it then and learned about it for the first time in November, 1918.)
This was the same Czar who gave me, on two separate occasions – at Björkö and Baltisch-Port – entirely without being pressed by me and in a way that surprised me, his word of honour as a sovereign, to which he added weight by a clasp of the hand and an embrace, that he would never draw his sword against the German Emperor – least of all as an ally of England – in case a war should break out in Europe, owing to his gratitude to the German Emperor for his attitude in the Russo-Japanese War, in which England alone had involved Russia, adding that he hated England, since she had done him and Russia a great wrong by inciting Japan against them.
At the very time that the Czar was announcing his summer war program I was busy at Corfu excavating antiquities; then I went to Wiesbaden, and, finally, to Norway. A monarch who wishes war and prepares it in such a way that he can suddenly fall upon his neighbours – a task requiring long secret mobilization preparations and concentration of troops – does not spend months outside his own country and does not allow his Chief of the General Staff to go to Carlsbad on leave of absence. My enemies, in the meantime, planned their preparations for an attack”.
What happened on the 5 July was the response given by the Kaiser to the Austrio-Hungarian Ambasador, “with uncharacteristic decisiveness, promising Germany’s “faithful support” for Austria-Hungary in whatever action it chose to take towards Serbia, even if Russia intervened”. He did consult with the Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg and his War Minister Erich von Falkenhayn, who reiterated the Kaiser’s assurances to the Ambassador.
One can hardly avoid the suspicion that the war party in Germany did jump on the occasion for which it was preparing since 1912. The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 expressed the opinion that “a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better”. Moltke “wanted to launch an immediate attack” but the Council reached the conclusion that Germany would not be fully prepared until 1914..
Well wrtten. I hold the belief, that while events went slower in those times they had much larger momentum, because of the scarce possibilities of information and communication. Once mobilizations were enacted, it was pretty much game over.
Without any prejudice at all, and without quoting countless records, I hold to analysis that the blame is in no small part to be placed with the Serbs. When smaller countries engage in big country politics, often smaller countries get hurt, and while I do not at all blame the Serbs for WWI, they do bear part of the blame, their bellicose attitude starched with the treaties and understandings with Russia and France. That being said, most of the nations had their own secret motives for a war, the English and the Germans certainly did, the Russians also, needing to regain “face” after the disaster of 1905.
WWI was started because of “beliefs” and “gut feelings” and absolutely not on verified facts, and is a clear example of what “Commander in Chief” can do with exceptional powers and why those powers need to be curtailed.
History repeating itself.
Den Lille Abe
You forgot to mention that in 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which in 1375 was united to the Serbian Kingdom. Serbs to be blamed for World War One? Indeed. Before the war started, you had a German-Austro-Hungarian military alliance, a British-French and a French-Russian military alliance. Why? European powers knew a war was coming. You stated that Russians had to regain face after 1905? Indeed. In 1905 they fought the Japanese. It’s the French who needed to regain face, as in 1871 Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine. You forgot to mention that. After the 1871 French defeat, the French turned to Russia for a military alliance, a huge mistake by Russia, with Russian notables like Dostoevsky openly questioning why the French all of a sudden fell in love with Russia, a country they invaded twice, in 1812 and in 1853. Even Putin in his writings has stated that this was a huge mistake. Yes, Gavrilo Princip assassinated that Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo in 1914. What happened immediately after that? Nothing. The ruling class in Germany was terrified, thinking at first that the Archduke was assassinated by a German nationalist, as he advocated the federalization of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which he knew could not last in the form it did. During the trial it was established that Gavrilo Princip was a freemason, who joined a masonic lodge without realizing what he in fact joined. He pulled the trigger of his gun, while others, in the West, gave the orders.
B.F. I am aware of this. What I did write between the lines was that there is enough blame to go around. The main article here takes Revisionism up, and here the Serbs attitude is called into question, whatever your favored partisanship.
Who else bears responsibility, well, certainly the German Socialdemocrats, in whose power it was at the time to stop the impending train wreck. But they those not to heed their former declarations ” Workers shall not shoot on workers and be tools of the capitalists” and broke with Socialdemocrats across Europe fueling the slow dissolution of the 2 nd Internationale.
I am not pointing fingers exactly, just trying to dissipate the Revisionist propaganda a bit, I am equally less tolerant of Utasha and Banderian whitewashing, why should I accept Serbian whitewashing or silently accept Stalin and his henchman’s excesses ?
Please, you want me in earnest to defend the Vikings as peacefull traders, tainted by evil monks fantasies ? I will not.
The complicity and failures of the instigators of WWI, have been exposed by many credible authors, but some did throw punches that were not well thought out at all, or were they ?
In either case Serbia payed dearly for their participation in WWI.
Den Lille Abe
Serbian “whitewashing” of what ? Austria-Hungary could never tolerate the existence of an independent Serbian state, certainly not after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908. As for Vikings, yes, they were notorious for their plundering and raids. However, they were also known for exploration and trade. Before the 9th century Norwegian Vikings came to the Balkans. The old Serbian name for Vikings is “Varyazy”. There were no conflicts between Serbs and Norwegians. In fact the Norwegian King Harold Hardrada served in the Balkans as a knight in the 11th century. Swedish Vikings went to the East, creating the first Russian state. The name of Russia is derived from the Scandinavian word “RUS”, which is still in use. Russia means “The land of the Vikings”, which few people know. It’s estimated that 40% of Russians have Swedish Viking blood. All the Russian blonds are of Scandinavian origin. History cannot be taken out of context. It’s usually very complex.
There is only one cause for WW1 : Berlin-Baghdad rail-line (+ accompanying oil pipeline)
Germany wanted it, Britain/France wanted to hinder it.
It was the time of transition from steam-powered industry to oil-powered industry.
Germany had the strongest industry/economy and with that came aspirations to
become the next World Power, thus challenging established World Powers – France & Britain.
With unrestricted access to oil via the Berlin-Baghdad rail-line Germany would have
succeeded deposing France/Britain. So those two had to stop it.
Those 3 countries looked for any *ANY* excuse to start WW1.
And only those 3 countries are equally guilty for WW1.
Everything else is noise.
Similar thing is actually happening today,
think of the BRI (Silk Road 2.0) as an extended Berlin-Baghdad rail-line in Chinese mandate.
And US+UK (Oceania) trying to hinder it. Only China/Russia are smarter then pre-WW1 Germany
and are developing BRI peacefully and not through war and destruction.
RATM
As I have written, history is very complex and cannot be taken out of context. In the late 19th century the famous English geographer Halford Mackinder warned the British Government of the importance of Eurasia and the immense danger of a Russian-German economic union, which would transform Eurasia into the greatest economic block on earth. Even Bismarck realized this, advocating a Russian-German economic alliance, backed by China. The British used forces around the Kaiser to bring Bismarck down, and the result was two world wars. In both wars Russians and Germans fought each other. Convenient for someone. Millions got killed. For what ?
Well, today we have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union, which Germany wants to join, something it should have done when Bismarck was alive. The Anglo-American bankers are again trying to prevent this. Who brought more than one million migrants to Germany and for what purpose ? Perhaps for some, economic, financial, political, social and ethnic destruction of Germany, as it’s by now quite obvious ?
@There is only one cause for WW1 : Berlin-Baghdad rail-line (+ accompanying oil pipeline)
Germany wanted it, Britain/France wanted to hinder it.
Right, right, right! And Serbia was in the way. And Russia was protecting Serbia. Now, to explain the complexities and complications of the alliances which led to WW1, one has to realize that Russia was sitting herself on the largest reserves of oil, which she had the gal to want to exploit for herself. Britain and France wanted them too. They wanted only to hinder the Germans to get them.
Serbia had very modest ‘secret motives’ (and they were not secret at all). To take back what was taken from them (the natives of the land) by the peoples with ‘missions’, ‘imperial destinies’, who were reluctant to give them back to those pesky Balkaniks for whom they had a sovereign contempt as well as for their ‘Slavic’ protector Russia.
As for the ‘secret motives’ of Russia, they were exposed in the Imperial Rescript of Czar Nicholas II (of blessed memory) of 1898: ‘the preservation of peace has become an objective of national policy’, therefore appealing to all the world governments to create a binding international court for compulsory arbitration to settle international disputes, which was considered necessary to replace the institution of war. That led to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The provision of the international court was vetoed by a few countries, led by Germany (which subsequently violated all the provisions adopted regarding the limitation of armaments, use of poisons, aerial bombardments, treatment of prisoners). Germany viewed it as a hindrance on the way of achieving her goals and interpreted it wrongly as a sign of Russian weakness.
Britain reacted to the July crisis in the spirit of the Conventions, calling for an international conference to resolve the issue, which was ignored by both Germany and Austro-Hungary. Germany despised the warning of Bismarck to never mess with Russia (given not as a piece of general political philosophy, but in the specific conditions of the implication of Germany in the ‘Oriental problem’ that he opposed. BTW he thought that “we must not seek to prevent Russia from going to Constantinople…we must trouble ourselves about the Sultan…the Russians once established at Constantinople, the Sultan will accept their protectorate, if they leave him his harem, he will be quite satisfied”) and the predictions of the Iron Chancellor were vindicated to the letter.
“There is only one cause for WW1 : Berlin-Baghdad rail-line (+ accompanying oil pipeline)”
My understanding is that in addition to wanting to stop this railraod link, the Brits were salivating over getting control of lands controlled by a weakening Ottoman empire. That the Brits, esp. Churchill, wanted to give the Ottoamand the coup de grace and grab or carve up as much as possible.
Katherine
@BF, excellent comment, although as someone said in the comments, things are always complicated and must be looked at from all angles.
First of all, since the late 1700’s southern Europe was in turmoil trying to shake the Otoman’s yoke off their backs, this continued throughout the 1800’s. In 1905 Russia was rattled by the first attempt of Western powers, namely England, to rip it into pieces. Japan was asked to help in doing so. Tsar survived, but not without the price of signing unfavorable settlement with Japan. So, going back to Southern Europe, England concluded that it was to it’s advantage to keep now Turkey holding on to parts Thrace and thus control the sea traffic from the Black sea to Aegean Sea. Hence the Crimean Wars. And the attempts to destroy the Yugoslavia, which the finally succeeded only few years ago, not without Yeltsin’s help, who was “happily drunk while driving the Russia car”.
The biggest mistake Germany ever did was helping destabilize the Balkans.
Germany did it out of pure greed wishing for smaller easier ‘manageable’
statelets she could bully and exploit. But Germany missed to see the bigger picture.
Looking at Germany’s geopolitical situation, it is easy to see that the North is secured
(Scandinavian countries are definately pro-German), to the east is Poland and further east
is Russia but Russia only wants to do trade so no real danger from the east as well
(I am sure Poland would come to its senses and realize it could profit from being a
landbridge for the Russian-German trade). To the West is a hostile France. Don’t be fooled
by Macron-Merkel holding hands, it’s is all for show, France would nothing more than to see its competitor Germany burn to grounds. Same for the AngloZionists (US+UK). So only left is
the south – the Balkans as Germany’s underbelly. And Germany helped the AngloZionist
destabilize it, practically shooting herself in the foot.
Germany needs a stable, strong and secured Balkans so she could focus on the
direction the real danger comes – from the West.
By the ‘West’ I assume you mean The City of London?
R Moglia, that was an interesting summary of how gullible and uninformed people react to propaganda. I agree very much in your assessments, hundreds of other examples exist of “glossing over”. Fortunately there are still accurate scholars and historians around, that try to record and unbiased and accurate view of past events. Unfortunately the general public takes little interest in such matters., them being complicated and often requiring substantial knowledge yourself to validate said scholars and historians findings.
One of recent events that does indeed have both impact and and influence right now, is the spat between Anthony Beevor and Ukraine and Croatia, having before that had a spat with Russia. None of these nations, have ever had an internal “cleaning the closet” of skeletons and thus objects strongly when bad things are unearthed.
All nations probably have in one way or other excelled in in doing some real bad stuff, and few nations have actually had the courage to try and clean these acts up by acknowleding “Yes we did some bad stuff, and we regret sincerely” because of various reasons, the chief one beeing, their societies are not strong enough to handle the truth.
The second WWII has been thoroughly vented in both Germany and Denmark, the former as an instigator of the war fueled by Nationalsocialism and the latter in most cases as a willing puppet. The processes in both countries have drawn out about 40 years, before the public came to the understanding ” We did some bad (Removed language,MOD), we regret sincerely”. In Denmarks case it was more a bout above internal corroborators and about the troops sent to the Eastern Front ( with government blessing), and their actions as Waffen SS troops.
Eventually the dirty linen did come out in both coutries.
As a dual nationality Danish/Swedish citizen I am happy about the Danes willingness to accept the past, more less so when it comes to Sweden, where two major gloss-overs exist.
In 1648 at the peace of Roskilde Denmark lost its possessions on the Swedish peninsula, Skaene, Halland and Blekinge were ceded to the Swedish after the Danes suffered a devastating defeat, the treaty repeated largely with the Treaty of Copenhagen of 1660.
Skaene primarily, populated mostly by “naturalized Danes” were then exposed to a systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide, those that are all to common today. The Swedish King had little use for their new Swedish cittizens, them being proud , free, owning their farms, rebellious. A military campaign was launched, its aim not th quell the rebellious, but to exterminate anything Skaenish. The campaign was a success, in a decade, Skaene was mostly depopulated of its original inhabitants, Swedish settlers were brought in, in large amounts. The roads lined by thousands of crucified or impaled Skaenings. The campaign also included destroying or substituting anything built by the Danes, this part of the campaign did first end at the beginning of the 1900.
Most Swedes are ignorant of this.
The other major gloss over is Swedens actions in WWII. The official picture is the “Neutral” angle, and “our defense forces can not cope with German aggression”. But this does not remove the fact of iron sales to Germany or the NO to the Allied, to cross Sweden up in the North to assist Finland. Thousands of Swedes privately went to Finland to help out.
In the last phases of the war the Swedes excelled at returning German war refugees immediately upon arrival, right back to the Russians, who understandably had no love for the Germans.
In fairness, the Swedes, had to walk a thin line in WWII, but I think it important to be brought out in the open, instead of glossing it over with “neutrality”. We as human beings do very much the same stupid things over and over unless we have a solid record of “It does not work”.
Such facts become difficult to expose in this day and age, and without pointing fingers (well I do !) in a soicity where Flat Earthers, Creationists, Anti Vaxers and other parts of the loonie fringes have the scene, a fact filled discussion becomes almost moot.
I always wondered why Swedes and Danes disliked each other, and now I have a more clear picture. I knew of the Swedish – Danish military conflicts of the past, but I didn’t know they were so brutal. Strange, bearing in mind both are Scandinavians.
When it comes to Sweden, it’s foreign policy in the 20th century was a disgrace. Officially it was “neutral”, but in reality it was very much pro-German, supplying Germany with most if not all of it’s iron ore in the two world wars. Without Swedish iron ore, German industry could not have functioned. This policy of false “neutrality” was no doubt a result of pressure by private bankers, who backed German invasions of Russia in both world wars.
Swedish foreign policy today is no different. Officially it is again “neutral”, but it’s very much part of NATO. There are even initiatives for Sweden to officially join NATO, which would only be a formality.
Glad to post something that is not widely known. Unfortunately only very few credible works have been done on the subject of the Skaene cession to the Swedes and as far as I remember they were in fact Swedish. They are published online, and I found them years ago reading about Skaene having relocated here.
The war were very, very bitter and atrcities on both sides were not uncommon.
The Danish involvement in the Bloodbath in Stockholm 7-9 November 1520 were not alt all forgotten. So it just kept, on and on and on and on. Until mid 1860 tie were Sweden seriously contemplated helping the Danes against the Prussians, but chose not to.
It is part of our history, no need for glossing. The Nordic convention was a pinnacle of Nordic cooperation and we are still up there, also fuelled by the Ôresund Bridge.
That the Swedes made some questionable decisions during WWII is fact, but the underlying reasons for doing so is far more complex, than what can be summed up here. Dig into it , it is widely interesting. However it is the public debate on these delicate subjects that lack and a recognition of they indeed did happen.
Fun fact: Sweden was millimeters of developing their own nuclear abilities, developed completely independently. But the project was shot down by sensible people.
Sweden is not going to join Nato, as far as I judge, I do not think Swedes will give up their “neutrality” , but again, never say never.
Den Lille Abe
Joining NATO should not be on Sweden’s list of priorities, but rather the immigration question. Years back, when I read how many immigrants Sweden has admitted, I was shocked. Now analysts are predicting that native Swedes will become a minority in their own country in about two generations. Incredible. Looks like someone outside Sweden has placed the Swedish political elite under their control, just like it has the German.
B.F. Immigration is a key issue here. I am admittedly an active Socialdemocratic party member. Our party does embrace immigration and it has been successful do far. A huge part of the immigrants or refugees have in a short time become active assets to Sweden. The hard naked truth is that our demographics would change anyway or wither, because ethnic Swedes or if you want “white people ” simply have too few children. Why ?
Hard to say, but one answer is they are simply not interested in giving up 3-4 yearly vacations, luxurious housing, or they get divorced on trivia. I f Sweden does not get a credible influx of breeding people it will eventually stagnate and die.
I do not judge a book by the cover, to cite an old song, and judging people by their looks is horrendously superficial, judging people by their actions is a far better way to tell if they will be an asset or a liability. I personally do not have a problem with one of my girls dragging home an Ali or Muhammed, I trust their judgement (they are my daughters afterall).
So everything is going according to plan :)
Dear Abe, you said “I am admittedly an active Socialdemocratic party member. Our party does embrace immigration and it has been successful do far.” , then “demographics would change anyway or wither, because ethnic Swedes or if you want “white people ” simply have too few children. Why ?” But this is hypocrisy, why does the Swedish government just simply say this openly, announcing a bill to allow immigrants (young and healthy) for the purpose of reversing the demographic decline ? Well, if you don’t know, I tell you why : because they are afraid to tell the truth, which is the failure of a proper family policy, encouraging people to have children. The decline in the morality of the people has also a big slice in this negative trend, being fed by the too liberal policy, Sweden being one of the first countries after ww2 which allowed the so-called “sexual revolution”. And there are the Christian values, which, thanks to the falling members of believers, are where they are now. By the way, this is also part of the same negative evolution which can be observed all over western countries. As long as the west and Europe in general has embraced Christianity, there were no such problems. But hey, this is also part of the “plan”, which is to make Europe weak, a mixed population, without national identity, without faith and hope in the future. A small elite will lead them much more easily.
Den Lille Abe
Yes, everything is according to plan of the immigrants, but not the native Swedish population. Your motive for writing this needs to be questioned, as well as your ethnic background. Yes, Sweden of native Swedes will eventually die if the birth rate is not increased. You do not increase the birth rate of a native population by bringing in immigrants who have nothing to do with Swedish culture and the Swedish ethnic group. If your strange logic is applied, then Sweden in a number of generations will cease to exist, as a new country with a new ethnic group will have been created. I think you know this.
I found this logic pretty bizarre too.
In fact, its quite hostile to native interests and culture.
Effectively, he seems to be saying Sweden is nothing but a piece of terroritory, with no distinctive language, culture or history, much less ethnicity.
It is effectively endorsing invasion by aliens by non warlike means.
Why would Swedes want this?
Don’t they want a future for their own children?
And why would DLA promote mass displacement as any kind of solution to deliberately generated conflicts in the MENA?
I find this thinking disturbingly Malthusian and rather arrogant,frankly.
And suspiciously congruent with the Zionist project to de – Arabize the MENA.
Again, in order to see why the animosity between the Danes (add here Norwegians) and the Swedes. Fight for the dominance over the Viking World (Eastern vs the Western). It’s only personal. King of Danes who ruled the Norway and Iceland until not so long ago thought it was his God-given right to rule over all the Vikings. Simple.
Den Lille Abe,
Thank you for your comments. One of the extraordinary ‘side-benefits’ of The Saker’s site is that it prompts readers to provide information and ideas that are interesting, novel and explicatory about events, subjects, people and countries. Information that would otherwise remain unkown to the rest of us, because we have no direct or material occasion (or time) to investigate.
Jimmie
Thank you very much and keep up :)
“The resentment against the Jews was the fault of the kings. ”
And what if you were to find out, that many if not most of those kings were crypto-Jews themselves… ?
The lies, and thus the discarding of the lies, have layers upon layers upon layers.
And if I said to you that it is my belief that the famous Scottish King, Robert De Bruce was such a crypto-Jew, as he traced his right to the crown through the marriage of King David’s daughter to his ancestor. And I believe his adversary, the Cummin had a similar right.
But the final clue was the death of the ‘Black Douglas’ in Spain on his journey to return Robert De Bruce’s heart to the Holy Land.
This is an important article because it points out the confusion about what is historical truth as it relates to contemporary truth. All too often, I see one group accuse another group of some egregious act while the other group accuses their opponent. Two totally different sides of the story.
Russian history itself is replete with this. Two sides with very strong stories pointing fingers. It’s a dangerous trend. A house divided cannot stand. Frequently, people cannot agree on what happened, and frequently blame ‘The Other’, overlooking their own responsibility.
A lot of the time, history is simply fabricated to justify an injustice, all based on greed and prejudice. It is a bottomless pit. Or fabricated to justify some form of social control. Myths are not limited to just Greek and Roman gods.
A recent article I saw by Sheldon Richman talks about how American nationalism replaced traditional religions as the American national religion, to the extent that people were prohibited from NOT saluting the flag. As if the US flag is some sort of idol to be worshiped. That is just one example of many.
Napoleon gave one of the best interpretations of history, when he stated that it is nothing more than a collection of facts explained by fiction. When it comes to politics, it is indeed a very practical profession, where principles matter little, only interests. We see this today. Iran, for example, has for years been accused of developing nuclear weapons, when international inspectors on the ground stated that this is not the case. Even so, Washington and others want regime change in Iran, a new Shah who would be friendly towards the West, opening up all the oil and gas fields. The fact that Iran wants to move towards the East and economically align itself with Russia and China does not help Washington change its attitude. When in 2014 NATO and the EU instigated that coup d’etat against Yanukovich in Kiev, using mercenaries, thugs, criminals, neo-Nazis, foreign agents and breaking a heap of international laws, Russia was accused of aggression while the famous Amnesty International (created by Peter Benenson from the Rothschild’s banking family) labeled the Russians in the Donbass as “insurgents” while the usurpers in Kiev were the “legitimate” Government. It’s questionable if revisionism, double standards and outright lying can ever be changed in international relations.
I principally agree with this comment. The last sentence is probably the most important in my view. I don’t think that any top politician does not have a set of comment for “public consumption” and another for use with other top politicians. When you look at how international relations functions in reality and not how it is reported, you have to concede they are very different.
I think Hillary Clinton was called on this during the 2016 campaign. It is reality of high level politics I guess, it would be neigh impossible for one top diplomat to BS another, they are to well informed.
The unwashed masses however, the “plebs” , the ignorant and uneducated, the living and breathing walking dead that populate most of this rocks surface, mostly get to hear what will get the same politicians reelected.
You may perceive my comment as Elitist all you want, but it is fact, that most “plebs” horizon comprise next weeks X-Factor or Big Brother rather than having a meaninglul conversation with their offspring. If you get the impression that I do not have a high regard about most of my fellow humans, you are absolutely correct.
There is an old saying, which goes like this:”Every nation has leaders it deserves”. It depends from nation to nation. However, when it comes to the West, I have to wonder when was the last time it had leaders of such poor quality and immorality.
@B.F.
Me too.
It is simply astonishing the extent of the corrupt trash that comprises the political, academic and media classes in the West.
That this amazing degeneration coincides with mass surveillance has to be factor.
I suspect most have blackmailable vices, there is no other explanation for their crackpot and socal destructive schemes.
Pedophilia is at the heart of it, and it’s subset, pedarasty.
Why Historical Revisionism is Wrong
https://i.imgur.com/CeoKj8I.jpg
History is written by the victors. Because of that, it should be constantly researched, reimagined and revised. If we don’t know our past, how can we confront our future?
The Spanish Inquisition was a political tool lasting hundreds of years. It employed many censors and was responsible for book burning, falsifications, forgeries, fabrications and forced translations to the Castilian language. This is increasingly being exposed in Spain by a small group of researchers and is producing astounding results. In response, they are either ignored or pilloried by academia and the Spanish establishment.
“When he [Larry Silverstein] claimed on television that he did not go to his office on 9/11, because he had an appointment with a dermatologist, _and_ his wife insisted that he keep it.” A good defense lawyer would have advised Larry not to go over the top on that one; for instance it is over the top to claim, I did not steal that apple because I was in Florida at the time _and_ I don’t like apples. That advice came from the celebrated lawyer who got homosexual British politician Jeremy Thorpe off on a charge of attempted murder. By the way, did the police examine the appointment book of Larry’s dermatologist, and cross question the wife? Thought not. Amazing the number of Cui Bono in this case — oil people George, Dick and Condi as well as a host of minor investors Larry, Curly and Moe — none of which leads were followed up.
It was a poet Robert Graves in his seminal work on mythology, The White Goddess 1960, who said the greatest thing that Anglo historians learnt from their Classical education was, how to lie in public with Gravitas. Incidentally, Graves was a minor revisionist of the American Revolutionary War in his book, Sergeant Lamb.
It is true that the Founders were not angels (James Madison: “If men were angel’s, government would not be necessary.”) but the evil in men is relative to their capacity to impose their revisions of truth on others, and from second half of the eighteenth century through to the conclusion of WW I, the entity, the formation that had the greatest capacity for doing so was the British Empire.
As Col. Fletcher Prouty outlines here:
https://youtu.be/v_Wiv5EHyhk?t=505
“There is, and has been, throughout history, an elite that run countries and the world……and (with the transoceanic voyages of discovery) they began to inventory the earth.”
Basically, to take it ALL.
Now, with their material and financial weakening post-WW I, they had no chance of continuity WITHOUT further tightening of control over their not 100% “former” colony…..the USA. They could not quarter red coats here as they did in New York City and Boston during the late 1770’s and early 1780’s but their financial and ideological levers were robust. Never forget at least 1/3 of Americans were loyalists, tories.
Later that percentage increased, over time, leading to the “Special Relationship” that makes Americans so unbelievably stupid.
Here is an up to the minute illustration of their cognitive dissonance, the historical stupidity of the Republican Congress, which is only exceeded in scrambled brains by the now Destroyed Democratic Party of FDR and JFK :
“Many Republican leaders now are fighting the attack on President Trump, which originated in British intelligence, and simultaneously pushing the British policy of sharp confrontations with Russia and China themselves! As the head of the well-known Munich Security Conference just observed, the Congress is preventing President Trump from urgent improvements in U.S.-Russia relations.”
Revisionism??? The ALL TIME best example is the Russia-gate absurdity and the Special Relationship with the Enemy of Humanity….now seen in its new form: The AZ Empire.
From the same analysis, yesterday:
“Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) on Jan. 25 issued instructions to America to “see Russia as a threat,” and stated that “striking a grand bargain” of cooperation with Russia — for example, against international terrorism — “would implicitly accept that the current world order is no longer functional.” The RIAA couldn’t make it more clear. The British geopolitical world order depends on U.S.-Russia confrontation; the ultimatum to President-elect Donald Trump was delivered by the heads of the intelligence agencies already in a meeting of Jan. 6, 2017 at Trump Tower: Confront and attack Russia (and China) or we will scandalize you with this British dossier, and throw you out.”
So why are Republican Congressmen almost as stupid as their Demorat counterparts”
Den Lille Abe is right: It’s because their constituents have been so ignorant and uninterested in truth that they have been set up to destroy themselves and the rest of humanity for a tiny elite and most of them STILL don’t get it. Even though they have been improving dramatically of late, compared to earlier recent decades ……they still have a long, long, long way to go.
They might start with the simple historical FACT that Catherine the Great was an integral part of the League of Armed neutrality during the US War of Independence and that Czar Alexander II sent the Russian Navy to New York and San Francisco harbors during the British instigated US Civil War to warn Britain and France that any efforts by them to break the northern blockade of the southern secessionists (supplied by Britain) would mean war with Russia.
The Revisionism OF ALL THAT (as Robbie Burns would say) down to the present moment in history is the Biggest Lie ….which the Awakening Few must get really clear on, really fast….and throw the Special Relationship in Boston Harbor…..because that’s the right thing to do for Humanity’s Sake.
Not just John Hancock’s smuggling profits, or their own stupid AZ (British in origin!…That’s what the “A” standards for…. ) Empire mind-controlled prejudices.
Otherwise it won’t just be the football Patriots that end 2018 in defeat. LOL.
Entire daily update I took the above excerpts from:
https://larouchepac.com/20180205/fight-end-russiagate-not-sports-spectacle-you-have-intervene-defeat-it
“The Jewish alliance with local exploitative elites is a constant among alleged causes of anti-Jewish resentment, in Europe and elsewhere.” To this day.
Ethnic resentment — which for years has been silenced by the terrible lesson of Hitler’s genocides against Jews, Slavs, Communists and “the unfit” — is beginning to surface again: partly because of the inordinate power of the Anglo-Zio-Capitalist alliance in favour of Israel as against Muslims and Christians in the ME, and even against the interests of the USA and the British Dominions; draining “blood and treasure” from these Anglo countries to wage wars — like the wars against Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran — which, most people now see, have served only to protect Zion and enrich a small plutocratic Anglo “elite” (of Christians as well as Jews). If this undue influence is allowed to continue I fear an ethnic backlash by long-suffering Christian masses may once again bypass their own oppressive Christian “elite” and focus their wrath unfairly on the mass of ordinary Jews as a group (though “elite” Jews would probably escape through bribery, cunning and by owning dual — or even multiple — passports).
What is this? Pick on the Germans week? Why is it that nobody picks on the Anglo/Zionists from the last century and beyond. Consider the Boer War simply for the gold found in the Orange Free State, and the Concentration Camps that were employed there to contain the local population
Think on Herzl who died only when he went against Rothschild’s grab for Palestine by agreeing to accept Joe Chamberlain’s Uganda offer as a temporary solution. And as far back as 1904, those Zionists were pushing for a major war for Christians.
Lloyd George was given every opportunity to end WW1 in November 1916, but the Anglo/Zionists hadn’t yet captured Palestine and so millions of good young men died and it wasn’t until General Allenby rode into Jerusalem on a horse that the war could end. Had the war ended in 1916, the Americans would never have been involved so they can thank Lloyd George for that Christmas present. Had the war ended in 1916 then there would have been no rise of Communism and no Adolf Hitler. Thank you Lloyd George!
Go back and read history. The ‘Anglo/Zionists actually started with Oliver Cromwell’s war against Charles 1st. That is when the Jews first got their stranglehold on England, and never forget the ‘Dutch East India Company swapped names to become the British East India Company when William became King of England. And the Dutch could munch on their tulips.
What ushered in WW!? The assassination of Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, and just who was it that did most of the political assassinations in the world at that time? What was it the Jacobites stated after taking control of France in 1790? How about declaring war on all monarchies.
Many years ago I read of the experiences of an Australian POW in Germany and one of those experiences was that he had met with Russian female POW’s working in vegetable gardens and there was the opportunity for intercourse as the Germans would give bigger food rations to any of the pregnant Russian workers.
As for the Jewish problem, didn’t Hitler send Eichmann and Heidreich to Palestine in 1934 to investigate the possibilities of ‘assisting’ of German Jews to migrate to Palestine. Of course America decided not to accept German Jewish refugees which is why the Duneera refugees ended up in the ;Arsehole of the World’, Australia.
The American Negro, Malcolm X knew who his enemies were, and labelled them ‘WASPS’ that acronym meaning Wealthy Anglo Saxon Protestants, but the American media altered ‘Wealthy’ to ‘White’. Has there ever been a non-white Anglo Saxon?
It is always good to get to the original meaning of words. Good that you brought home that W in WASP means ‘wealthy’. But ‘whiteness’ was specifically mentioned as the only qualification for naturalization in all the Naturalization Laws until after the Civil War. Not a word about English, or Anglo-Saxons.Dutch, Germans, Scots were deemed ‘natives’ of the new country as well. all were ‘Americans’. Blacks (slaves or free) were excluded from start.
To wit:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790):
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States…etc”
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795):
“SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States…
An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject, Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pp 153 155:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That any alien being a free white person may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States or any of them on the following conditions and not otherwise”.
It was only in 1870 that the naturalization was extended to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”
Similar situation obtained in our dear Down under White Australia (“This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race” – John Curtin). Fortunately it is a thing of the past. We do live closer to the Philippines after all!
Also, I have some objection of the use of ‘Jacobites’ for ‘Jacobins’.
Jacobite:
“an adherent of the deposed James II, or of his descendants, or of the Stuarts after the Revolution of 1688, in their claim to the British throne. The Jacobites included the Scottish Highlanders, who rose unsuccessfully in 1689; and those who rose in Scotland and Northern England under the leadership of James Edward Stuart, the Old Pretender, in 1715, and followed his son, Charles Edward Stuart in an invasion of England that reached Derby in 1745-46. After the defeat at Culloden, Jacobitism disappeared as a political force”.
Jacobin:
“a member of the extremist republican club of the French Revolution founded at Versailles in 1789. Helped by Danton’s speeches, they proclaimed the French republic, had the king executed, and overthrew the moderate Girondins 1792-93. Through the Committee of Public Safety, they began the Reign of Terror, led by Robespierre. After his execution in 1794, the club was abandoned and the name “Jacobin” passed into general use for any left-wing extremist”.
For some unfathomable reasons, many ‘conspiracy theorists’ continue to maintain the absurd theory that Free-Masonry (of which the French ‘Jacobins’ were members) was created by the Catholic ‘Jacobites’ emigrated to France in cahoots with the ‘Jesuits’, whence all the fantasies about the Scottish Rite sprung).
I am dreaming for a ‘Royal Salute, Hundred casks selection’. Dream that probably will never come true (unless someone is crazy enough to present it to me for my…th birthday. Till then I make do with a Glenmorangie Original.
The name ‘Jacobin’ today is a beautiful pigeon. I had a couple as a lad but could never get them to breed.
I think it was the ‘Jacobite spy John Bradstreet, who informed General Murray of the fictitious English army waiting for the Scots at Derby which caused Murray to retreat back to Scotland and thus George had to unpack his bags. Bradstreet was not a ‘Scottish’ name at the time.
Of the Chivas ‘Royal Salute’, I only have the cheap version, but may I offer you some advice that my Pipe Major Ronnie Carver ex-HLI told me. For your first three drinks of whisky, enjoy your favourite but after that the taste buds are stoned and any cheap whisky will have the same effect as you cannot taste it.
I am not a fan of the alcoholic John Curtain, and even less of his fill-in Frankie Ford, and I understand the original meaning of the ‘White Australia Policy’ was to keep the cheaper ‘Asian workers’ out of Australia to allow the Australians to earn a decent wage. (The Basic Wage) re Harvester in 1915, but then Keating killed that when he replaced the Basic Wage for the American version of ‘Minimum wage’ and the ‘part-time- casual’ worker could be part with few of the benefits that the Labour Party had worked so hard for. May I state that once Hawke and Keating had finished with the Australian worker the one thing they definitely needed was a good honest Union, but that was also mythical
The reason why I asked you the astronomical question was that a couple of years ago John Kaminski introduced me to ‘Thunderbolts of the gods’ and then Comyns Beaumont’s and plus Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s work, “Worlds in Collision” which was published in the 1950s. The concept that the Earth was struck by a comet in about 1322BC.
I went over the three (I always do). And you know what? It happened several times. I think that the Plantagenets must be restored!
I would like to add just one other comment to all the other ravings on this article, that I forgot to include:
I perceive Revisionism very as a tool and necessity of unhealthy nationalism ad a sign of budding fascism.
I my world , built on experience, very much see the latter as as a successor to the former. Invariably the slide to fascism will happen once nationalism is embraced. This has been true so far, with very few exceptions. Portugal and Spain has found its way back to democratic rule again with little bloodshed.
Now, Revisionism is necessary because it needs a victim and a perpetrator. Revisionism is always founded on the need to put ones own side as the victim of either: a conspiracy, an ethnic group, the bourgeois, the poor and unprivileged or simply anybody that is in any way markedly different than the original populace.
I you follow my definitions , humor me and try to use it when you read articles in your local domestic news media…
I bet this will be an eye opener for most. There are in European nations sizeable minorities that harbour nationalistic, if not fascistic convictions and the media largely panders to them.
That should read : my ravings on this article. I think the article nails it. Just to be clear.
Sorry for the confusion.
Fascinating article, Mr Jimmie, like peeling the layers off an onion, thanks.
I view it as unfortunate, but perhaps for time and space necessary, that Jimmy does not address the most politically important form of historical revisionism today, namely the issue of the so-called Holocaust.
Nevertheless, I am envious of Mr. Moglia’s knowledge of AND access to primary historical documents, and citations of JUST a few of his sources would be enormously appreciated.
The so called Holocaust !? Your comment seems to indicate to me, that you in some way reject that extermination camps did not excist. Please clarify what you actually mean… I mean if you harbor some sort of crypto fascist sentiments, be clear about it and come out in the sun, no need to sit under the bridge (Grieg playing now March of the Trolls coincidently) …
“If we’re not killing Jews, it’s not a halocaust.” Somewhere around 11-15 million people were killed in camps during WWII. It seems as if everyone other than the 5-7 million Jews that died as prisoners are of no importance. Oh well.
In the last 20 or so years America has been involved in numerous actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and even North Korea (yes, economic blockades are war), and while several millions of civilians have died (Was it really worthwhile, Madeline, Mr. Tillerson?), no one calls it a holocaust. Such is life.
Dear Klaatu,
And now you have your answer.
The religious bigotry of the Roman Catholic Church that followed the teachings of a man of peace and love (let him without sin cast the first stone) denied anyone the opportunity to properly understand that religion by calling them heretics and burning them at the stake. And all this did was bring about what was called ‘The Dark Ages’. The logical thinker was decried and the emotional thoughts were required to prevail.
The anarchy that was born of this sentiment created a new church, led by Luther, but commandeered by Calvin. As well, Francis Bacon also reignited the logic in thought. But all that was long ago.
For some strange reason our world is again meandering in a ‘Dark Age’ where freedom of thought and the right of truth is denied.
When I was a child there was a saying; ‘Sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me.’ That saying may be physically correct, but emotionally the attack on free thought and logic can be devastating.
Revisionism should be applied to the mantra ‘The Dark Ages’ when ‘the logical thinker was decried and the emotional thoughts were required to prevail’.
Not only that the ‘logical tinker’ was not decried in the so-called ‘Dark Ages’, but logic was taught in schools operated by the ‘bigot Roman Church’. It was even studied at the beginning of the course of education known as ‘trivium’ and ‘quadrivium’ (the seven liberal arts). The trivium was concerned with “the power of language” and it referred to the study of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. It was meant precisely to give students a deeper understanding of the meaning of language and a greater ability to discern complex concepts as used in poetry and scripture. The arts of the trivium were considered a necessary base for mastering the arts of the quadrivium.The quadrivium referred to the study of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, concerned “the secrets of nature.”
It was Protestantism which has done away with logic in the interpretation of Scriptures, substituting it with the emotional interpretations of the semi-educated, wrongly called ‘freedom of thought’.
My God Anonymous, art thou a priest?
I just wish I could have a cuppa tea with you at the kitchen table; oh we could have some fun!
The Arabs proved that the world was round and were also able to calculate the distance between the Earth and the Sun before the birth of Christ, but it was the Church that said the earth was flat, and the church that said the earth was the centre of the universe, and it was the same church that rebutted Galileo.
But for every fault I could find with the Roman Catholic Church, there would be a fault with the Protestant Kirk, and I am well aware that the Protestant church in Britain was created after Henry 8th as a power base to rule, after all Charles 2nd said that the Presbyterian religion was a ‘false’ religion and I believe that was the real reason why he lost his crown.
Again though there would have to be men within both religions who worked tirelessly for the good of their flock, to care, and guard them, and they are still there to this day, and I think I would have to include all of the religions, not just our two.
God Bless and enjoy looking for the good in man as it is mostly there and far better to look for good than look for evil.
@The Arabs proved that the world was round and were also able to calculate the distance between the Earth and the Sun before the birth of Christ
I’d like to have a cuppa (although I would favor more some single malt stuff) and have some fun. You’d forgive me if I might poke some fun at your assertion that the Arabs did this or that before Christ. Actually it was:
“Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a GREEK (c. 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC) mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography, including the terminology used today.
He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by comparing altitudes of the mid-day sun at two places a known North-South distance apart. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth’s axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day. He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era”.
So, everybody knew that the Earth was round before the birth of Christ. Fathers and Doctors of the Church like Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isidore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe and one would be hard pressed to explain why the papal address and apostolic blessing given to the city of Rome and to the entire world by the Roman pontiff on certain solemn occasions is called ‘Urbi et Orbi’, the Latin word Orb meaning ‘a spherical object or shape’. And why the regalia of the monarch were “a crown, an orb, and a sceptre” (the orb being a golden globe surmounted by a cross, representing the power of the monarch over the whole Earth!).
Oh, BTW, Charles 2nd lost not only his crown thanks to the Presbyterians.
Dear Anonymous,
I do have some of that single malt stuff that I’ve been saving for my wake, but I rarely drink it as I’m stupid enough sober. And as for poking fun at me, especially when I’m not quite correct, well how else can I learn the truth. One of the better things about Australia when one is poor and cannot afford to travel is that we can met people from all over the world and learn from them the places we cannot visit. It can really open one’s mind.
Hang on, it was Charles 1st who lost his crown and his life to Cromwell, and Cromwell was a Quaker. Charles 2nd had 14 illegitimate children but couldn’t father one legitimate child so his younger brother James became king, 2nd of England and 7th of Scotland, and it was James who stated that the Presbyterian was a false religion, because, ‘I believe’ he recognised that the teachings of Calvin recognised usury which was against all the teachings of Christ.
It was interesting to note that the ‘Highland Clearances took place after the 45, to make way for sheep, but then suddenly the English realised that the highlanders were needed as war fodder especially for the Napoleonic wars. thus when I was courting a young Filipina it wasn’t difficult to associate their history with mine.
Now Anonymous, can you explain to me just how these early learned men could see and name the various planets within our solar system including the moons of Saturn?
Good God, you beat me at my own game! It looks like I had the single malt beforehand which led me to distraction, paying little attention to the precise meaning of the words. It leads you to make false assumptions. In that case assuming that you were talking about Charles the First (he lost his crown and what was beneath). Charles II was in conflict with the Parliament like his father, but even if his sudden death was suspicious, he died with the crown on his head (apparently he was received in the Catholic Church on his deathbed). James II lost his crown. So, we were both wrong.
Your last question is a bit confusing. Astronomical observations are as old as mankind and were recorded and transmitted at all times. The moons of Saturn were a relatively recent discovery made in 1655 by Christiaan Huygens using a 57-millimeter (2.2 in) objective lens on a refracting telescope of his own design.
“nd Cromwell was a Quaker.”
No, I am 99% sure that Cromwell was NOT a Quaker.
Katherine
Very good article, an article which has and will have many echoes, for those who are interested and are still able of thinking. When you hear today this word “revisionism” , mainly in the MSM media, it has only negative connotations, Mattis comes to mind, when he said . ” Russia and China are revisionists”, so they are the main “rivals” – in other words, enemies. Of course, this is also a question of interpretation in the historical context or our time (irony).
Jimmie Moglia, this is the first I have read of your views and I was enthralled with you phraseology and erudition, including so clearly the inherent conflicts in ethics/morals that consume our global history and to use your wording, the Revisionist nature of ‘The Winners’. So much subterfuge, so many lies liberally sprinkled throughout time. What to do, what to do; prayer likely our best hope.
There’s more on this site and he makes great videos too! He also knows more about world history than I know about the late 1970’s punk “top 40”! A true Renaissance Man, that Jimmy Moglia.
Ok , here comes another input: Revisionism is popular because it will make people “feel” right about their rather infamous past. It makes the acceptance of their current failure as a state more acceptable to live with. Recognizing ones inglorious past, maybe full of evil deeds, is not an easy task to morally come out on top off. We in western Europe has a lt to seek redemption for, let me take the opportunity to point at our Imperial past, which in many countries is glossed over as “bringing civilization to the savages”. Few countries have sought redemption for their deeds and few go in detail schoolbooks about this. Britain, France, Belgium Iam looking at you! and to a lesser extent Germany, Portugal and Spain.
Some of these countries continued their behaviour long past the Period of Enlightment, long after the the human was was recognized as a special living creature (Read the great humanists)… Except it did not encompass brown or black people. They were not really considered human. And some places still dont.
Dear Den,
For your comment, “Revisionism is popular because it will make people “feel” right about their rather infamous past”, my favourite teacher Mr Jones would have failed you. It is a generality, and thus cannot be factual.
But what ‘infamous past’ are you referring to? I don’t have an ‘infamous past’ unless of course you are talking about my father and his brothers poaching salmon on the Duke of Sutherland’s property. Oh! it’s not my father but a collective infamous past you are talking about; its that infamous past for which my friend Dr Fredrick Tobin was gaoled and bankrupted for believing pertinent events.
Of course the genocide referred to in the Book of Ester is now irrelevant, as too is the tale in the Book of Genesis about the Battle of Jericho, where the priests collected all the gold and silver and precious stones in the name of their God.
Then there was the Christian Armenian genocide perpetrated by the ‘Young Turks’ that so worried the Orthodox Jews in England when Balfour and Lord Rothschild were preparing their version of the Balfour Declaration that a similar fate might fall upon the Jews in Turkey and Constantinople.
Constantinople; that was where the British obtained the German code 13042 that was used in the ‘Zimmerman Telegram’ psy-ops to allow President Wilson to send the American lads to war and death so that the British Zionists could steal Palestine. Guess who gave that code to the British?
And of course those Jewish Zionists never hurt anybody, except perhaps for those in the King David Hotel, or Der Yassin or even sinking the MS Petras with all those Jewish refugees on board. I’ll lay not one of those refugees was asked if they were prepared to be sacrificial lambs for the greater good of Israel.
And of course there was the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and those Jewish scientists creating a weapon so destructive that Hitler refused to consider it.
But Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have all moved on and risen like the phoenix, and people generally have come to realise that war is simply an extension of politics and intrigue. The Armenians have repopulated and old foes have recognised the futility of wars.
And finally do you remember Max Nordau, the Hungarian Physician and author?
In the Zionist Congress of 1911, Max Nordau said, “How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress … Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war… But the same righteous governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war.” So, who really wanted the genocide referred to as WW1?
And who does this remark sit with best; you or me?
“It makes the acceptance of their current failure as a state more acceptable to live with. Recognizing ones inglorious past”.
“t is a generality, and thus cannot be factual.”
“it is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”
– Douglas Adams
You wandered about in “whataboutism” so I humored you and returned the favor.
Douglas may have written ‘The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy’ but I doubt that he had ever read either Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky or Comyns Beaumont.
Thank you very much for your humour, it has educated me.
The revisionism that makes the zionazis uncomfortable is always worth a little bit of something, but it should be kept in mind that the enemy of one’s enemy is not necessarily a friend, but can be a useful tool on occasion.
Den Lille A:
“Revisionism is popular because it will make people “feel” right about their rather infamous past.”
And what, pray tell, is the purpose of mainstream/standard/”accepted” history, then?
World History when I was young was taught with a half-red map on the wall. There was also the Old West as the “process of bringing the white man’s civilization to the continent.” This was not that long ago; as VVP said, “dogs bark and the caravan moves on.”
[Med kaerlek, from one of very few recovering swedophiles around this fine establishment…]
An important distinction between revise and revisionism. “Illuminative” of the meaning of the terms and their use.
Revise: to alter or amend information, to make changes that update, improve, or correct.
Revisionism: 1. advocacy or approval of revision.
2. any departure from Marxist doctrine, theory, or practice, especially the tendency to favor reform above revolutionary change.
3. a departure from any authoritative or generally accepted doctrine, theory, practice, etc.
-dictionary.com
Revision may offer some benefit in regards to truth.
Revisionism is almost exclusively pejorative ‘truth’.
Revising to make the “history”, the accepted account, the narrative; revising it in concordance with the facts, reason, logic, analysis, and all available evidence… may approach some sort of objective truth.
Depends upon the amount and quality of research and the integrity of the researcher among other variables.
Rarely sees the light of day or the printed page, subsequently attacked, buried, and eulogized as evil incarnate. The fine art of revisionism.
Truth is not relative, not contingent upon arbitrary nor situational propositions. But “relative truth” has become one method of confusing and altering the facts to ‘fit’ the ‘truth’ conforming to an agenda. The facts and evidence will be revised relative to a certain perspective, supported, maintained, and advanced in accordance with that relative perspective. Until the eventuality of that relative perspective merges and fades into the paradigm. No longer relative, instead doctrine.
Increasingly, and often historically, Revisionism is a tool used to separate the facts from humanity’s apprehension. To either remove or alter the facts and hence the truth, and/or sequester it for use by a limited few.
Revisionism of the past, present, and future (by controlling and manipulating information ie history and current events, the future is manipulated) for an agenda. An agenda that meticulously and in near totality consigns human endeavor. An agenda that has perpetually taken the vast share of the productive material wealth, the output of economic activity, the inventive creativity of intellect, energy, technology, spirit, art, music… everything that might advance the collective and individual human condition. The collective work of humanity taken, stolen, appropriated, twisted, adulterated, charged an exhorbitat price for use; then carefully repurposed for exploitation, enslavement, usary, debauchery, conquest; consequently furthering the goals of the agenda.
Marx and Engels encapsulated and revolutionized the idea of the productive human capacity belonging completely to the collective producers. The state of nature defined and craftilly repurposed. That idea has been completely subverted and weaponized.
All revolutionary ideas are subsumed into the perpetual agenda for humankind.
‘Reform’ has ironically been categorically transformed into an institutionalized method of oppression, reductive of rights and liberties, punishment. Converted into authoritarian reinforced reward system of cronyism, a sardonic irony.
Revisionism ensures that the protocols will advance, that collective and individual ownership and use of respective and collective human knowledge and endeavor will ultimately be subsumed. Violently through threat, force, theft and oppression. Parasitically through economic usary, debt slavery, government and institutional authoritarian subversion. Socio-culturally through engineered narcissistic anomie compounded by engineered divisive polemics of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, political party, religion, age, gentrification, social strata… ad infinitum.
Revisionism weaponizes information for control over minds and hearts
Revisionism insures that most will never even realize this state of affairs.
“any departure from Marxist doctrine, theory, or practice, especially the tendency to favor reform above revolutionary change.”
Any departure from the Marxist (globalist dialectical materialist cabalist talmudist masonic illuminist zionist mafia… so many names for such a small group of vampires) agenda, will undergo revisionism.
Majority of anglo and west europeans dont even consider alternative explanations of events. They put all their faith in media outlets and so called academic scholars. Russians question narratives often in their minds, as a result of the Soviet control of news. RT was chosen to have the slogan Question More as a result.
All hail, Clio!
Is she fickle?
Or should she be pictured with a bandana covering her eyes?
Or, maybe she should be symbolized with a ledger, so she can keep track of the credit and deficit columns, and the ever-changing balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clio
Katherine
PS. Great essay!
Israel Shahak also writes extensively on the alignments of Jews in Eastern Europe with the elements in the power hierarchy.
Spanish historiography:
Building a kingdom by expropriating another’s cultural historical wealth.
Researchers in Catalonia, since the late nineties, have been uncovering what appears to be a massive conspiracy by Spanish state institutions, started by the Inquisition in the 16th century, to falsify Catalan history and convert it into Castilian (now known as Spanish) history.
Catalonia, and especially Barcelona, at that time was a centre of mediterranean power and culture. Contrastingly, Castille, where they spoke and speak what is now referred to as Spanish or Castilian, was one of the poorest regions of Europe.
Castille, through its Inquisitorial censors, began a process of culturicide and linguicide against anything Catalan to appropriate or deny the wealth of Catalonia including that coming from the recently discovered New World (America). Literature and writing was then experiencing a revolution through the power of the newly arrived printing press.
Writings in the Catalan language were persecuted by the Castilian state via its Inquisition. Book burnings, forgeries, falsifications, fabrications, etc. We have documentation about the censors such as letters between them and their peers as well as with the state.
And we have a very strange occurrence in Catalonia: immediately after a Catalan literary golden period in the 15th century, Catalan literature virtually dissappears. Are we asked to believe that Catalan writers decided to suddenly put down their pens and stop writing? And…simultaneoulsy Castilian literature, up to that point very quiet, suddenly has its Siglo de Oro, or Golden Century.: Cervantes, Garcilaso, Juan Boscan, Bartolome de las Casas, etc.
Jordi Bilbeny and other researchers have been publishing books on this subject for a couple of decades. much to the repulsion of reactionary Spanish ‘patriots’. These brave Catalan researchers, simply looking for clarity and truth in history, are being largely ignored by Spanish academia, but this is not surprising to anyone who understands the Spanish state and its workings.
The Inquisitions censor’s methods were to change any Catalanness in a historical character and make it Spanish or otherwise. The Inquisitorial instructions to censors included to quash anything which would make Catalans feel united or give them a sense of being a people. (We have the documentary evidence showing this). Centrally, this included the persecution of the Catalan language, but also the falsification and changing of historical names, surnames, toponyms, biographies, birthplaces, itineraries, etc.
This was a sytematic approach to the expropriation of cultural wealth.
The most salient historical characters which have been studied and shown to have been supplanted are Miguel de Cervantes (the renowned author of many books, including the universal novel Don Quijote) and the navigator Christopher Columbus. But there are many more who also appear to have been expropriated. Some are saying virtually the whole of 16th century Castilian literature was translated from Catalan and falsified. The research on the individual historical characters is fascinating. The numerous circumstancial evidence pointing to the supplanted doppelganger is often very compelling. There are often dozens and dozens of biographical details which coincide perfectly between the official character (who usually has a sketchy, unconvincing biography) and the life of the real or supplanted character.
Cervantes looks very much like he was really the writer Miquel Servent (from Xixona, Valencia – then Catalan territory where they spoke and wrote in Catalan, not Castilian).
The whole of Don Quijote is a veiled critique of Castilian nobility (the hidalgos) but scholars for centuries have not explained this critique, preferring to see in him a Spanish hero, albeit a very strange, contradictory one. There are so many pieces of circumstancial evidence that point to the work being originally in Catalan. Ofcourse, the Catalan original is not known to us.
Cervantes (Servent) knew his work would be translated to Castilian and while we have no record of him stating this there is an occasion when he states that all Spanish pieces of literature are translations. And after seeing his novel after it’s been translated he writes that this work wasn’t his creation but a ‘bastard child’. Yet he wrote the novel knowing this would happen and it is full of wordplay to trick the censor and still transmit the message, sometimes in coded fashion. The language is full of Catalanisms, which scholars are now showing could only have come from Catalan. Not in vain, the great Argentine novelist Jorge Luis Borges wrote that Cervantes didn’t write properly in Spanish!
Columbus was the Barcelonian nobleman and humanist Joan Cristofol Colom i Bertran.
Scholars have found evidence which also shows Columbus as a protector of the indigenous in America as opposed to the genocidist which Spanish literature has made him out to be (partly so the Spanish Crown could strip him of the titles and benefits it had contractually promised him in contracts prior to the project). After five years as Castille’s Admiral of the Oceans, Viceroy and Governor of the New World, Columbus and his brothers were arrested and brought back to Spain in chains by the Spanish Crown. Colonists had written to Spain complaining that Columbus wouldn’t allow them to enslave the natives, or force them to build their houses or trade trinkets for native pearls (we have evidence that Columbus set up a trading code whereby only listed items of similar value could be traded with the indigenous people).
Unfortunately, this modern research is mostly written in Catalan. There have been several books published and many essays (though there is at least one book written in English in 2008 by US scholar Charles Merrill called Colom of Catalonia: Origins of Christopher Columbus Revealed).
I am confident that within decades official Spanish historiography will suffer a revolution.
There is a growing consensus that Columbus was either a Sephardi Jew, or a a Majorcan Jew, or a converso. Catalonia was a major hub of Jewish settlement before the Inquisition of 1492. Gerona, was the capital of Jewish life in Catalonia and a hub of Jewish Sephardic learning. Moses ben Nahman, the 13th-century Jewish philosopher known as Nachmanides, was born and raised there.
“The more historians research Christopher Columbus, the more they question the true origins of the great explorer credited for discovering America. In fact, there is growing speculation that Columbus was a Jew fleeing the Spanish Inquisition rather than an Italian hired by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to find riches in Asia.
“There is a lot of evidence that Christopher Columbus was a man of faith seeking to help his brethren escape certain death or conversion in Spain and even that he dreamed of rebuilding the third holy temple in Jerusalem”….
Given these facts, Columbus’ discovery of America, a country symbolized by religious tolerance and freedom, goes hand in hand with his Jewish heritage”.
Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/85655/christopher-columbus-jew-led-belief-prophet-isaiah/#qK9YdqVBFf9zJ79J.99
Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/85655/christopher-columbus-jew-led-belief-prophet-isaiah/#qK9YdqVBFf9zJ79J.99
I read the article at the link you provided.
Most historians agree that Columbus’s letters and diaries have been doctored and manipulated, not least due to the blatant contradictions they contain. Very important to realise the hand of the censor’s in many documents which have come down to us especially from the Inquisition period. Also the fact that many key documents are misteriously missing.
It appears the only substantial evidence the Jewish theory rests on is the Jewish inscriptions on some of Columbus’s diaries or letters. This is certainly not a lot to go on.
Whereas the Catalan theory, for example, links up many exact biographical details between the doppelganger and another real man called Joan Cristofol Colom i Bertran
And Miquel Servent was the same with… Shakespeare!!
“Un libro sostiene que Cervantes y Shakespeare eran la misma persona: un catalán”, by Laura Fernandez:
@http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2016/04/13/570e97d6ca4741d7718b461d.html:
‘He aquí que Miguel de Cervantes y William Shakespeare nacieron en Jijona, Alicante. Y no fueron vecinos, no. Vivieron en la misma casa. Porque eran la misma persona. Un, en palabras de Miquel Izquierdo, «catalán», sólo que un catalán alicantino: Joan Miquel Sirvent… (Will en catalán es seré; Am es soy, y unidos sería: Seré y soy, y Shake + Peare sería Sirvent, por alguna extraña razón que el autor no deja clara en su ensayo pero que dice «está ahí y es evidente»).
Official Spanish historiography will suffer a bigger revolution! For sure after the Catalan independence
@JM,
Excellent article. As for the fake documents, I am pretty sure they are abound, but I would like to point one out.
Fake Will of Peter the Great, concocted by Polish General Sokolnicki intended to further Russophobia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_of_Peter_the_Great
@Fake Will of Peter the Great
Absolutely necessary point.
‘One current hot topic for revisionism is the so-called “Russia-gate.” In the US – according to statistics – less than 10% can even locate Ukraine on a map, as fascination for sports alone dramatically outweighs any potential interest in foreign things, let alone foreign history or the policies of foreign government.’
Though you have to consider that perhaps it is easy to manipulate all those vacuous minds.
When I see headlines about Russia influencing the election, or now, as the demon meddling in American politics, I see Hillary open-mouthed with incredulity that the Donald beat her. There had to be another reason. There just had to be.
The running sore that is Russia-gate is just the snot coming from Hillary’s nose as she sulks in the corner.
So, on balance, I agree with your next statement
‘Therefore to suggest that Russia influenced the American electorate to vote for Trump, brings sublimity to the ridiculous.’
Sorry, but the War of 1812 had nothing to do with US desires to take over Canada, protecting the US from Canadian invasion was more of the concern. The War of 1812 was about one thing and only one thing and that was that in 1811 the US did NOT renew the Charter for the First National Bank of the US, period. The Senate vote for renewal was split and decided by VP George Clinton (no relation to Bill) who voted against renewal. Shortly there after the US was invaded by Britain, US Treasury records were burned, War over, Britain leaves and the US renews the Charter for the 2nd US National Bank in 1816. End of story.
Sorry, but revisionist thinking about the War between the States being something other than slavery is gaining no traction in the US. I seriously doubt you can even find 5% of the people here in the US who would either agree or even entertain the thought taxes had more to do with the War than slavery. All makes me wonder what might be missing in the rest of the article I don’t know enough about.
No matter the reason, there never was and never will be any moral justification for the expulsion of Sephardic Jews from their homeland. They will and are coming back, no matter whether he likes it or not. Expulsion was not based on any religious dispute. Rather it was one people who were taking over the country (future so-called Spaniards) and the existing population of Jews and Muslims who were more native to Spain than the former. Europe was experiencing a mini ice age and multitudes of various Germanic barbarians people who had nothing to eat and nothing to shit, were in urgent need for a land with mild climate and fertile soil. Spain was the perfect choice. Hence the expulsions of Jews and Muslims. The past will bite today’s Spain in the butt and a day of reckoning will come.
Interesting though that Spain’s PP government legislated recently to offer citizenship to anyone in the world who could trace their family lines back to Sefardite Jews of hundreds of years ago, but refuses to make the same offer to Muslims outside Spain who likewise descended from the Muslims expelled.
Why should they? The Sephardi were more ‘native’ to Spain than the Muslim invaders. They speak still Ladino (or Djudeo-Espanyol), derived from the Old Spanish, the language of the Spaniards, the Latin speaking natives of Spain. They would be easier to integrate in the Spanish culture (many Spaniards are in fact descendants of conversos) than the completely culturally alien Muslims.
But to say that they are THE natives of Spain, and the Latin population (at least since Roman times) came later is pure chutzpah.
And how could have been Muslims more ‘natives to Spain’ than the Roman population, at a time when they did not exist yet, is beyond comprehension. The Muslim have been expelled from Spain because they were the invaders and the country was repossessed by its former owners.
The muslims had been in Spain for seven hundred years. Second generation muslims were therefore ‘natives’ of Spain and did not deserve to be expelled, just as native jews of Spain did not deserve to be expelled.
Today muslims in western countries enjoy full rights as citizens, just as jews do, so it’s hypocritical for a state like Spain to invite back the descendents of only its expelled jews and not its expelled muslims.
The Sephardis were Roman citizens, then citizens of the Christian Kingdoms at a time when Muslims did not exist at all. Muslims have been invaders so their expulsion was legitimate. Sephardis can invoke former citizenship.
This offer from the Spanish government should not be regarded as serious. As far as I know, only a few hundred applicants have gained citizenship through this law. It’s more for political and business reasons than anything else. The Spaniards have placed considerable hurdles before those seeking to apply. For one thing, applicants are required to take a comprehensive exam on Spanish language and culture. The standard of proof of descent is also not trivial. It’s not enough to be able to speak Ladino or to be Jewish with plausible ancestors from Spain. It”s a little ridiculous, it’s been 500 years. Many of the descendants have long since converted to Christianity or Islam. Most of the Sephardic descendants would not be accepted as Jews under the Israeli Law of Return and Israeli immigration laws are much more lax. The Spanish don’t want several hundred thousand possible applicants to be accepted. It’s not in keeping with their immigration policy.
Yes there are lots of things that are “not serious” about the Spanish government.
Yes I’m sure it was due to “political and business reasons”. That’s how many governments like Spain’s work.
The point I made still stands though: that it’s hypocritical for Spain to invite back (especially if it’s mostly a symbolic gesture, read propaganda) one previously expelled group, the jews, and not another, the muslims.
Because, once again, Sephardis have been citizens of the Spanish Kingdoms whereas Muslims not.
elc, Absolutely, I don’t disagree with your point. My only point was that the offer itself was hypocritical. Sephardic Jews have been manipulated by several governmental entities in modern times. This certainly includes the Ashkenazi-dominated State of Israel.