Who We Are
If you are more comfortable with a closed group, let me know. I'll close it when the majority rule. I know it's a complicated subject to openly embrase. In the... MoreWho We Are
If you are more comfortable with a closed group, let me know. I'll close it when the majority rule. I know it's a complicated subject to openly embrase. In the meantime, while the group grows, Just remember you can select your comments, pictures and post to be private to this group only.
Mission (Borrowed by Inconvenient History)
This site seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement; a movement that was established primarily to foster peace through an objective understanding of the causes of modern warfare. Slightly over 30 years ago, James J. Martin (1916-2004), one of the deans of revisionist history of the Twentieth Century coined the term "Inconvenient History" in the title of his collection of essays, The Saga of Hog Island and Other Essays in Inconvenient History. Martin explained "inconvenient history" as:
a literary enterprise and an exercise in intellectual curiosity intended primarily for the record, and which is not in the service of or dedicated to the welfare of any specific group or force, as well as being a modest indication of what can be done using none but materials which are part of the public record.
Today we have crossed over from a time of "political correctness" to one of outright Orwellian "thought-crime" where certain historical studies are strongly discouraged and in many once-free democracies even outlawed. But a recent interest in discovering the facts about the twentieth century’s two world wars and their aftermath as well as the consequences of those events inspires us with new courage and optimism. Harry Barnes said that correction of the historical record could only occur in light of a calmer political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude. He was surprised to find that even 25 years after the Second World War, such an atmosphere had not yet developed.
Still, Barnes, Martin and their peers managed to create a set of solid historical research based on the facts. Once lost down the Orwellian ‘memory hole,’ the names of John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Charles Callan Tansill, William Henry Chamberlin, Captain Russell Grenfell, Walter Millis, Francis Neilson, F.J.P. Veale, and Luigi Villari can be found influencing contemporary thought and being sought out by a new generation who cannot be properly classified as "right" or "left" by contemporary standards.
Revisionism was established as a progressive, some would say "liberal" methodology that originally set out to revise the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles following the First World War. The revisionist methodology, although rather successful in the 1920s and 1930s, met tremendous resistance following the Second World War. By the 1970s and 1980s the term "revisionism" was often thought synonymous with far-right politics and fascist sympathies.
Barnes argued that revisionist theories were smothered by a campaign of unceasing inflammatory exaggerations of Nazi savagery. Barnes identified the developing Holocaust story as the true barrier to the acceptance of revisionist arguments and thereby the true barrier to peace, security and prosperity among nations. Today the specter of the Holocaust is marched out to justify every modern military intervention. The media and the government depict our ‘enemies’ as modern day Hitlers intent on genocide and planning to use their secretive arsenals of weapons of mass destruction.
Cutting through the exaggerations, lies and propaganda of the Holocaust story has to be the starting point for any contemporary revisionist and any contemporary revisionist journal. The territory is plagued of course, with the minefield of charges of "Holocaust denial," "racism," "anti-Semitism," and "neo-Nazism." Despite the persecution and insults, revisionists understand that the myths of the Holocaust have smothered out a proper and accurate understanding of the Second World War.
Our desire is to return to the roots of revisionism without any political agenda or desire to whitewash totalitarian regimes. We are free-thinkers who seek to support the concept of intellectual freedom as a means to peace and understanding among nations, groups and individuals of every description. We are not interested in conspiracy theories; we are interested in revealing real history and supporting the freedom of historians to explore even the most sacred of historical dogmas without fear of reprisal.
We do not attempt to rehabilitate any totalitarian regime. We hope in fact to one day emerge in a society that is more free than the one we live in today. We seek to reveal the facts in an effort to avoid foreign wars and interventionist crusades that leave tens of thousands dead in what amount to an endless series of "perpetual wars."
We continue the efforts begun by Barnes, Martin and others to reveal how the Second World War got started, the taboo around the Holocaust story, the conduct of the war by both sides, and the consequences for the West and the world of the propaganda campaign that was constructed around this period.
We seek to blast our way through the historical blackout and to reveal the truth about modern history, regardless of how inconvenient it may be to this or that regime or political party or ideology.
“Court Historians” are the intellectual bodyguards of the State. They shape and defend the “official line” or interpretation on the State’s wars, its presidential regimes, or other key historical even... View More“Court Historians” are the intellectual bodyguards of the State. They shape and defend the “official line” or interpretation on the State’s wars, its presidential regimes, or other key historical events and public policies. As a result they enjoy high esteem and recognition in the mainstream media and academia. As defenders of the status quo they frequently attack and label their critics as “conspiracy theorists,” “revisionists,” “isolationists,” “appeasers,” “anti-intellectuals,” or other boogie men, rather than engage in civil discourse or discussion."
