Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Do paranoids toe the party line?

There are areas of Chapel Perilous that are more dangerous than others. Parapolitical research begins with questioning what we are told. If there are areas that are especially dangerous to question, are these areas we are going to stay away from? It might seem the wisest policy, but it’s pretty hard to map a terrain if you deliberately avoid specific areas of the land being mapped.

That thought experiment had almost instant results at RI: somebody accused me of being an anti-Semite and skirting the edges of holocaust denial. Jeff, the owner of the site, locked the thread for fear it was stirring things up too much, and that was that. This of course proved my point well enough, but at the same time it ended the “experiment” before I could explain what I was really getting at—that all this is obfuscation to distract us from what’s really going on: not a bunch of white “motherfucking arsehole” elite but Masonic sorcery and reality-creation.

So what’s the difference between parapolitical analysis and historical revisionism? Actually, “historical revisionism” has two meanings, one being simply scrutinizing the official facts and discovering discrepancies or outright lies among them, thereby coming up with a new, more accurate narrative (in other words, parapolitical research). The other (also called “negationism”) entails deliberately suppressing or distorting agreed upon “facts” in order to create a false narrative that serves specific political ends. So these are two opposite meanings that are also very close to each other, which is sort of Orwellian use of language, not equating war with peace but equating intelligent inquiry into historical events with “denial” of them.

But who are the real negationists here? The creators of history and the spinners of Consensus Reality, who say that we must not question what we are told, and that to do so amounts to dissidence, subversion, terrorism, or—horror of horrors—anti-Semitism!

Since history as we know it is already a revised version of events dependent on the suppression of facts (“history is fiction”), then how are we to trust the judgment of Consensus as to which category a given reading falls into? How do we know whether a researcher is guilty of negationism, or simply of uncovering facts that have been deliberately suppressed, and to be dealt with accordingly by being branded a Nazi, terrorist, or anti-Semite? Clearly, we can’t, except by doing the research ourselves.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”


lance said...

I've found that the majority of things that go against the Consensus actually turns out to be truth and the Consensus false. In an ideal world this would be reversed, but then there would be no opportunity for growth which leads nicely into to your other blog entry "Everything is regulated by the intelligence of the system to which it belongs: Psyops Both Local and Cosmic". Revisionism has been taking place since time immemorial and the true history and origin of humanity has been hidden.

aeolus kephas said...

yep. history is propaganda. seekers of the truth (gnostics & paranoids) we have no choice but to become revisionists ourselves as we strip away the false narrative that has been woven over the surface of the reality.

To be a revisionist, by the new, Orwellian definition now means *specifically* to distort history & deny the supreme atrocity, in order to demonize the persecuted people and glorify the hordes of darkness and the avatar of evil, etc, etc, bla bla bla.

All this is a very cunning and sophisticated effort to stigmatize any and all research that threatens to uncover the propaganda that passes for history, by associating it instantly in our minds with ideas such as racism & Nazism, associations so distasteful to most people that they will quickly turn away for fear of being contaminated, to think about it no more.

Clever huh? And so effective that 90% of otherwise rigorous researchers STAY AWAY from the whole subject entirely, and even parrot the party-line, in order to avoid such stigmatization. Some of them perhaps do so strategically, with full awareness of doing so, but I'd wager that a lot really are unable to think clearly about the subject, and fail to realize that they are actually aligning themselves with the very thing they claim to be challenging: the systematic suppression of free thought. Joke's on all of us.

Don't believe anything you can't see, smell and touch for yourself. And doubt even that.

auroragirl said...

But it can all be "grist for the mill". Believe nothing, but think about and speculate about everything. I love anything anomolous and heretical, the more far-out-there the better (or I would never have picked up "The Lucid View"!) ;)

Abe said...

... history as we know it is already a revised version of events dependent on the suppression of facts (“history is fiction”), ... (AK)


Reading Recommendation:

History as Giving Meaning to the Meaningless (Geschichte als Sinngebung des Sinnlosen, 1919) by Theodor Lessing

"This cultural critic, writing in the tradition of Nietzsche, argued that history, having no objective validity, amounts to a mythic construct imposed on an unknowable reality, in order to give its some semblance of meaning."