The Barnes Review is a magazine of revisionist history, meaning that our aim is to bring history in accord with the facts.
The reader is surely justified in pointing out that history is supposed to be an account of the facts in the first place. Why then does history have to be "revised" at all?
The answer to that question is itself a historical law: History is always written by the winner and never by the loser. That is to say, the facts that become history are selected, distorted, suppressed or invented by the historians chosen by the winner to do the job.
Of course, in the "Western democracies," we are not supposed to say, or even think, heresy like this. As true believers in the public mythos, we all know that in "democracies" people are free and government is above-board and subject to the will of the voters. Unfortunately, the myth gets more and more difficult to swallow. At some point, those who are subject to American democracy, for example, must admit that the word is a placebo meant to placate and bemuse the taxpayers while the economic and political establishment does what it damn well wants. If any documentation for this is needed, please reflect back to when a lame duck Congress joined hands across the aisle and voted to undermine American sovereignty and accept GATT and the World Trade Organization, which at least 75 percent of the voters opposed. Democracy, you say? What, then, is tyranny?
When the Communists were in control of Russia and the USSR the history of Russia, the USSR and the world was far different from what it was under the czars and what it is known to be today by distinguished Russian historians, such as Igor Shafarevich or Wladimir Soulukhin. Unfortunately, historical distortion is not confined to foreign nations.
The global plantation envisioned as our future by the international plutocrats and their acolytes in the corporate community and among the herd of international planners they employ mandates but two classes - the very rich and their servants (including their hired intellectuals and historians), and the very poor without distinction as to race, gender, nationality or religion.
Thus, if history must be revised in the interest of truth to put down the mouthpieces who would control our minds, and if populism is correctly defined as statecraft conducted for the purpose of putting down the special interests in the broad interests of the public as a whole, then it is evident that the relationship between revisionist history and an intellectual discipline and populism as a philosophy of government is indubitable.
Looking at it from the other end, establishment history and populism are incompatible as are revisionism and establishment politics.
The popular lore of "democracy" also requires that no conspiracies of the planners exist. Those opposed to the social order and other criminals may engage in conspiracies but surely not the sainted democrats. This may be called the good monkey theory - hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. The fact is, at any one time there are virtually as many conspiracies operating as there are ambitions. The demise of Soviet communism has not eliminated the conspiracy factor from history.
Unless we are monkeys, we must open our eyes and we will see that revisionist history requires inquiry into the same areas that lure populists and are righteously avoided by establishment politicians, pundits and historians. These areas include the esoteric world of international banking, the history and nature of money, enigmatic and seldom-mentioned organizations or movements, such as the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, Grand Orient Freemasonry, Scientology, international political Zionism and other conspiracies seeking illegitimate power. Revisionist history must also necessarily seek the forbidden knowledge of racial and ethnic differences. And perhaps it may also even brave the feminists and peek into that "little difference" between men and women.
Of course, to taste these forbidden fruits one must be ready to confront the establishment, which habitually and historically always tries to smite down revisionist history and populism.
To be a revisionist, then, one must achieve a level of intellectual sophistication above that of most Americans who credulously believe in semantic nonsense, such as "democracy," or "equality," or "freedom of the press," or even "freedom," terms which are defined by the enemy, those conspirators who use them as weapons of intellectual repression and human control.
We trust you agree that it is time for us to remove our hands from our eyes, ears and lips. It will prepare us to defy our keepers, escape and survive in the lively months and years to come.
(This editorial first appeared in January, 1995)