«

»

Apr
13

Revisionism

Host: Well, how great it is today to be joined by Dr. Javier Jimenez, of the Historical Revision Institute. Javier, of course, is well known in post-structuralism and revisionist circles. He holds several adjunct faculty positions at Ivy League and liberal arts schools. He’s authored many books including World War II: It’s as Simple as Good vs Evil, The Civil War: It’s as Simple as Righteous vs Racist, and Latin America is Only Poorly Performing Because of Stuff that Happened 500 Years Ago Not Because of the Societal Milieu. Javier, naturally we have a number of questions about your various works, but first can you tell us more about what sort of brand of historical revisionism you work with?

Javier: Certainly. The school of historical interpretation I work with is about shedding light on the injustices created by the writing of history at a given point in time by the people who were dominant at the time. What we find as historians is that contemporaries invariably skew history in such a way as to promote their own interests and reasoning for events and decisions, usually while selectively leaving out some information. Revisionist history goes back and re-interprets history and uses triangulation from multiple sources to bring dormant viewpoints to the table.

Host: That makes sense. So, this is never contemporary, you are always working with events that are dated. Can you give us an example, perhaps from one of your books, that serves to tell us about how a historical event evolves in the context of new evidence and interpretation? Because, this sounds like it could be a two-edge sword, in the sense that it could be used to achieve desired conclusions rather than real ones?

Javier: Oh, it definitely can be a two edged sword. For example many propagandists today, try to interpret communism as having been a failure. They claim that communism killed tens of millions of people and that the system’s inability to engage in rational economic calculation caused no end of grief. They say this over and over even though we all know that central planning by academically well-educated experts always works. In the case of Socialism, they claim that the UK’s National Health System has been a failure, but, everyone who is writing about that is a contemporary. In years time we will be able to change this viewpoint. As far as an example, I give you this one. World War II has a typical story, but we have gone back and done research, that indicates that this war was essentially a multi-color global community fighting a rampant white capitalistic fanaticism as embodied in the Nazis. If you look at old movies they try to show the American soldiers at Normandy as being Caucasians but in fact they were almost all Latinos, Blacks, Asians, women, the disabled, the elderly, Americas children, Muslims and Native Americans. The Caucasians were on the other side of the beach! But you see, the white aristocracy in the US controlled the news at the time and changed all of this so as to promote their own interests.

Host: Stunning!  So, everything we thought we new about history really has a lot more to it?

Javier: Si. It has only been since this recent wave of progressivism in the US that people like me are allowed to reinterpret and make new facts about history. We can finally have a history for all Americans.

Host: Did you say “make new facts?”

Javier: Si. The making of new facts is very important, for example elsewhere in science, the climate change data. Americans need a history that includes everybody and is with the times, so it is important to show that all events in US history have these underlying truths. For example, now that we are accepting socialism in America, we need to make the Nazi’s appear as corporate fascists rather than as national socialists as their name suggests. We have also been able to determine that the light bulb and the semi-conductor were really invented by the same group of African-American slaves that later invented internal combustion engines and the micro-chip. The entire Army of the Potomac consisted of homosexuals. The Write brothers actually stole their idea from their younger sister and passed off the airplane as their own invention. Not a single non-Jew died in the Holocaust. The list goes on.

Host: So, you “make new facts” to support desired conclusions for today….But….

Javier. Oh Si. But in this process of mainstream Revisionism, it is also important for us to remove old facts that were clearly biased. There is no reason that biased or meaningless opinions be incorporated in the correct view of history. So, we actively work to remove these incorrect understandings. This is why other than talking about our new facts, we don’t mention anything else about the topic. For example, we make sure there is no discussion about Southern opinion in the Civil War. Instead we just repeat that they are racist and it was an American crusade of liberation. We’ve been able to remove from public knowledge and discourse any facts that might undermine our predetermined conclusions.

Host: Ok…Well, could it be argued that your “revisionism” is just the re-writing of history according to the new paradigm of the people in power today. So, what would you say to somebody who said that everything your research produces is really just a complex way to serve the powers that be in the here and now? If they said, Javier, your research does not seem to have any factual basis to it, because your sources are circular references, or your facts are obviously made up. Your research serves to give the illusion of historical justification or precedence to some politically desired outcome today. Your work is really designed to make current agendas and schemes more palatable to the population at large, by manipulating people’s ability to contextualize current proposals and societal developments. Javier, what would you say to somebody who said you are an apologist for the powers in the state and essentially an ideological defender of an oppressive central state regime?

Javier: Well, I would say they are racist.

Host: My thoughts exactly.

Javier: Or maybe even a terrorist.

Host: Definitely. Soon all “racists” will be “terrorists.” But, Javier, unfortunately we have to wrap things up. It was great having you on the show.

Javier: It was my pleasure.