BODYBEG> alng= afil=/home3/revisio8/public_html/en/rev/revision.php
alng is EMPTY BODYBEG>get_lng: alng=en afil=/home3/revisio8/public_html/en/rev/revision.php
⇒What is 'revisionism' ?
Downloads / Links
Search This Site
Where should the Jews be settled?
Israel and the 'Holocaust' Fraud.
NS-Germany was opposed to transferring Jews to the "tormented nation of Palestine".
This site is proposing a series of texts on some political subjects of the presence and the past. Despite the variety of topics (which will be continually complemented), they have in common opposing a different view to 'generally accepted' doctrines.
Starting point is the observation, that in our 'pluralistic' democracies, some subjects are systematically presented in a dogmatic i.e. strongly biased manner, discarding contrary opinions from public discourse and in some cases even pursuing them legally.
This site is committed to free speech and considers revisionism as the adequate weapon against political and historical indoctrination.
What is 'revisionism' ?
Revisionism generally refers to dissent with the 'official version' of history, the version considered 'truth', taught in high schools, universities and eternalized in Hollywood. But the term is more and more extended to questioning the official doctrines of our times, those decreed in 'politically correct' speeches and editorials.
The interesting point is the very existence of those official truths, 'universal consensuses', taboos, which more often than not are badly disguised self-serving propaganda.
How come ? Democratic societies, supervised day and night by their free press, hypercritical TV commentators and expert scholars, questioning whatever certainty remains, these societies respect taboos, maintain dogmas, declare truths beyond doubt ?
Revisionism or the crisis of journalism
If it is true that mass media are the watchdogs of democracy, ensuring pluralism, defending free speech and providing platforms for exchange of ideas, revisionism is rooted in the failure of journalism.
The media, entities supposedly busy 24 hours a day uncovering the Truth and serving it to the public, maintain a couple of stereotypes and dogmas with surprising tenaciousness. There are various reasons for this, some more evident than others.
Suspicious 'Consensus' or the hypocrisy of 'free press'
The most evident censorship originates from pressure groups - lobbies - preventing the publication of unfavorable information. Here 'free journalism' can be studied in all its hypocrasy: When the pressure originates from government interference, the media organizations cry out loud and denounce it openly. On the other hand our free press never dares to point to other sources of censorship like trade unions or jewish organizations, to give two specific examples.
To conceal self-censorship, nice terms have been invented, making it a virtue. The most (mis)used is 'consensus', usually followed by qualifiers like 'of democrats/patriots/anti-fascists', according to context - if not directly invoking 'humanity'. Another term invented for that purpose, especially with respect to the wars of Israel or the US, is 'message discipline'.
Censorship in times of universal human rights
Censorship in the mass media is not totally uniform and is more or less strictly applied. The are generalized areas of censorship, like World War II, in which the version of the 'other side' is never given. In other subjects, like environemental issues, welfare programs or terrorism, the consensus of the 'good hearted' are questioned from time to time.
The areas submitted to censorship vary slightly with the countries, keeping in mind that we are considering only those commonly labeled 'western style democracies'. In France, for example, no newspaper (or any other media) would ever dare to condemn openly the daily strikes of the public service. In Germany no newspaper could take a position against immigration and asylum misuse. In the United States, no television chain would bring up the subject of israeli terrorism against the Palestinians and very few newspapers would call the war against Iraq an illegal agression of the Bush administration.
At this point it is interesting to mention that the journalists opposing the war have been qualified by the same Bush as 'revisionists'.
For once Bush, who learned history on the back of a cornflakes packet, is completely right.
Revisionism: War against taboos
Like the US president insinuates: revisionism is not just a criticism like any other. Revisionism is critizising what should not be critizised, is questioning the 'official truth'.
Thus the starting point of this website is considering suspicious each doctrine presented lopsidedly, in particular when it can be verified that other versions are prohibited by law. In these cases it is obvious that we are not dealing with verified facts but rather fed with political propaganda or historical myths.
Taboos of the past
The very prototype of creeds defended ferociously with laws instead of arguments is