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.”