Toward History

I have always thought that Henry Ford's concise definition of history sets forth more wisdom in fewer words than anything else I know. He observed, “History is bunk,” and in three short words the great populist industrialist spelled out one of the most profound problems of our time.

We have to recognize that when Ford said that history is bunk he was referring to history as related by the Establishment; he was not speaking of history as it should be. And because you are here tonight I am sure that you must agree with his profundity: the history we are given by the Establishment is. indeed, bunk; that's literally the best we can say of it.

Now this is a sad but a very real fact. Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. History need not be bunk. History can be true and a positive force for society. And so we come to the mission of the Institute for Historical Review – to bring history into accord with the facts.

We meet this weekend at the Fifth International Revisionist Conference. The Institute for Historical Review is entering its sixth year. We have completed but five years. That's a very brief time, five years. A very short time and a very massive job. Moreover. a job undertaken in the teeth of a veritable firestorm of hatred and opposition. with our survival more than once in serious doubt. And for what it may be worth I would like to assure everyone – those who may be pleased as well as those who may not – that there is no longer any question about our survival.

So we have ample reason to be proud of what we have done. But before we become too pleased with ourselves let me remind you that what we have done is very small in relation to what yet needs to be done.

We have been accused by some critics of wanting to rewrite the history books. Apparently, this is a great sin, to want to rewrite history books. In fact, we have even been sued for daring to challenge “established historical fact”! I must admit that our critics and the gentleman who has sued us are right. We do seek to rewrite the history books. We do aim to bring history into accord with the facts. We do object to propaganda as history; to history created for the benefit of the greedy pressure groups which control our country and our destiny, which is another way of saying that we object to being force-fed history as a weapon or a tool – history written for the purpose of subjecting and enslaving us.

It is self-evident that men can be free only insofar as they know the truth. The opposite is also true: when all that men know are purposeful lies, or if they are forced to pretend that lies they know very well to be lies are true, then they are slaves to that extent. And if you are unaware that slavery is the exact condition for us which our betters are aiming for, then you are not prepared for 1984.

In our conferences as well as in our journal we have dealt with many subjects. It is not difficult to find subjects which have been used as propaganda ploys by the Establishment. The subject which has caused the most interest and which has gotten us into the hottest water is, of course, the so-called “Holocaust.”

Our opponents, who have literally billions of dollars riding on the continued embellishment and exploitation of the “Holocaust” lie, have frantically tried to stop us. The Establishment needs to prevent questioning of this myth. To their dismay they have failed to stop us and today one would have to be an illiterate hermit not to be aware that many intellectuals now are questioning what only a few years ago was ironclad dogma.

Today there are numerous books taking issue with the claims of the exterminationists, the latest being the brand-new title just brought out by the Institute: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, by Walter Sanning. This book presents the final solution to all of the exterminationists' claims made for the last 40 years. Specifically and in detail it answers the question: If the Nazis didn't gas six million Jews, what happened to them?

Remember that the number of people who have read Dr. Arthur Butz's great work, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, or Paul Rassinier's ground-breaking writings, or Robert Faurisson's lectures, or Judge Staeglich's masterpiece, or Walter Sanning's new book, or Ditlieb Felderer's essays, are tiny in comparison to the numbers we are trying to influence. But note this: every day, every hour, the books and literature we have circulating out there in the countryside are reaching someone new; the efforts made to stifle the news that the so-called “Holocaust” is a malicious lie will, in the long run, only guarantee the triumph of this fact.

The point is, we seem to have covered all of the ground we need to in order to prove our point. Facts, once discovered and put in the form of readily-available books and literature, are permanent. And we will not rest until our books are in every public and school library in the country and are familiar to everyone interested in the subject. In regard to the so-called ''Holocaust,'' our need now is to double and redouble the dissemination of the available literature, not to produce new writings on the subject.

It is time for revisionists to delve even deeper into the hidden causes of the travail and misery humankind has experienced in this socially retarded age, which – the Establishment, in good Orwellian style, never tires of telling us – is an era far advanced from the bad old days. It is now time for the Institute to help lay the groundwork for an integrated theory of history to explain what is really happening to us in this confusing and deceptive age.

If Henry Ford said that history is bunk, another perceptive observer I admire had an entirely different definition and he, too, was right. Francis Parker Yockey said that politics is activity in relation to power, and if we are now speaking of what history should be, rather than what the Establishment has perverted it into, we must admit that history is the chronicle of that activity.

To be a real historian one must focus on the significant facts. A history of fashion design may be scrupulously accurate and may have value for certain people or groups but it is not what I would call significant history. So it is with the history of copper mining, penal institutions, the eucalyptus tree or black Africa, ad infinitum.

Obviously, the writers of such histories as I have just mentioned can make no claim to have produced a record of activity in relation to power. But perhaps it is not so obvious to see that even a history of military engagements or of diplomatic correspondence or public and even private statements of political leaders may not be the sort of activity in relation to power which, when chronicled, permits us to perceive the causal reality behind the smokescreen of events.

Merely remembering dates and names and numbers does not a responsible historian make. Such so-called historians are analogous to the famous moron who could, as a freight train passed by, remember the serial numbers on each boxcar and, after the train had passed, recite the numbers faultlessly.

The purpose of history, as I see it, is to uncover the forces which move the pawns on the chess board of the world. This and only this is real history and anything else, in the final analysis, is of no intrinsic value. In fact, it is actually negative in that it gives only specious reasons and motives for great events and thus can only confuse one who truly wants to know what happened and why.

For example, it is infinitely more important to know what forces backed Wendell Willkie against Robert Taft for the Republican nomination to run against Roosevelt in 1940 and to understand why they did so than it is to know how many votes there were for either on the first ballot or how many ballots there were.

You have often heard that Willkie or other candidates have been favored by the “Eastern Establishment.” This is a cliche often used to describe a liberal, internationalist group based somewhere in the East which apparently derives its liberalism and internationalism from the brisk, salt air of the Atlantic Ocean. Not so. What is the “Eastern Establishment”? I will tell you precisely what it is. It is the big international banks of Wall Street and the power aggregation we refer to today as the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission.

The banks were determined to defeat Taft in 1940 because they feared that if Taft was elected he would keep us out of the European war then in progress. At all costs, the mattoid bankers were determined to widen this war into a world war, and to push the people of America, however unwillingly, into it. With Willkie running against Roosevelt they couldn't lose. Both candidates favored our intervention into that insane bloodbath and the victory of the Soviet Union over Germany.

In 1952 Taft had again to be defeated to avoid the possibility that as president he would permit the America people to turn their backs on the bankers' plans to take America into a world economic system. The bankers backed and nominated Eisenhower who, of course, went on to the White House and the mattoids continued their policy-making for the American people.

This brings up the most pregnant political and historical question I know, and one which cries out for public discussion. It is one of those super-sensitive questions which almost nobody wants to talk about and yet which dominates the policy of the western world. Why do the banks and the super-rich – presumably the most capitalist of the capitalists – back the communists and the liberals and the internationalists? There is a political alliance here between the big international banks and the political international left. This political alliance needs to be probed, analyzed and understood, not ignored.

The capitalist-communist political alliance is not the only one we must deal with if we attempt to write real history. I often recall a letter I once received from a gentleman who berated me thusly: “On the one hand,” he said, “you say that the Zionists are in control of the administration. On the other, you say it is the Trilateralists. You are confused. I can't believe anything I read in your paper. Cancel my subscription immediately.”

The man's complaint, I am sorry to say, mirrors a frame of mind all too common in our country. As my greatly-admired friend, the late Lawrence Dennis, used to say, Americans are monodiabolists. They believe in one devil at a time. They can't comprehend that there may be more than one devil. They are politically immature.

The fact is that all great historical events in a so-called “democracy” are produced by an alliance. Alliances are the very warp and woof of politics. There is no one pressure group strong enough to dominate all of the others. If you wish to know why we entered World War II or for that matter World War I look for an alliance of devils, not for one devil. If you wish to know why Willkie was nominated in 1940 and Eisenhower in 1952 or why the Senate ratified the Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union in 1963 or gave away the Panama Canal in 1978 or why the Congress consistently votes foreign aid or forced racial busing or why any number of things happen in America even though the voters may overwhelmingly oppose it, you must look for an alliance of pressure groups.

The place of the banks in historical events in the twentieth century and even before is difficult to overemphasize. Representatives of the banking system infest and dominate virtually every position of power with which their private interests are concerned. To fully comprehend this fact one needs an appreciation of the true dynamics of capitalist banking, including interest and inflation. One must try to understand how an economic/politically money system based on fractional reserve banking, compound interest and usury works and what crimes it must commit to survive.

The subject of money per se is separate and distinct from the subjects of politics and economics although each of the three bear an intimate symbiotic relationship with each other. Neither is comprehensible without the other two. One cannot discuss one or two of these subjects intelligently without also discussing the others. There can be no history worthy of the name that does not take all three into account. If politics is activity in relation to power, so is money manipulation and manipulation of the economy.

Now in the past few years there has been a healthy outpouring of revisionist books purporting to account for our present situation. Some authors have vented their monodiabolism on the bankers, describing in great detail the aid and assistance given to the communists by the supercapitalists. Others have written on the Zionists and Jewish influence, even to the point of virtually ignoring the non-Jewish capitalists. Many reduce all of our troubles to a political party based in Moscow. Still others have exposed something called the Illuminati, presumably a secret fraternity of mattoids bent on reducing the world to their dominion. Yet others have written lengthy books exposing the Masons as the culprits and, in what would appear to be a form of counter-action, the Jesuits.

Although confusing, all of these approaches are revisionist in spirit in that they seek to get behind the smokescreen of propaganda and explain the real events but they are all deficient in that they are all monodiabolistic: they fail to take into account other devils. For example, those who expose the capitalists either ignore those who write on Zionism or hurl the feared “anti-Semitic” epithet at them, no doubt believing that this clever ploy will induce the Zionists to join with them against the super-capitalists and communists. And those who write on the money issue seek also to avoid the Zionist issue because of fear. Historians and researchers like these ignore the reality of the political alliance between Zionism, communism and supercapitalism. Their monodiabolistic theories, in other words, are ripped apart by the hard rocks of political reality.

On the other hand, many writers on Zionism pooh-pooh the efforts of all who fail to join them in this bold and dangerous undertaking – even to the point, sometimes, of trying to prove that all supercapitalists are Jews.

All this is unnecessary and retards the cause of historical revisionism. We who believe that bringing history into accord with the facts is one of the most important tasks anyone can undertake must be tolerant with our fellow monodiabolists even our particular devil may not be recognized by all others.

One of Winston Churchill's memorable phrases is that the Kremlin is a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. Mr. Churchill's own career offers some of these qualities. Many of his early writings reflect an understanding of world affairs belied by his later actions when he decided to enter into the spirit of the age with gusto. Here is an excerpt from a lecture he gave at Oxford in 1930:

Beyond our immediate difficulty lies the root problem of modern world economics; namely, the strange discordance between the consuming and producing power. .

If the doctrines of the old economists no longer serve for the purposes of our society, they must be replaced by a new body of doctrine equally well-related in itself, and equally well-fitting into a general plan…

Have all our triumphs of research and organization bequeathed us only a new punishment – the Curse of Plenty? Are we really to believe that no better adjustment can he made between supply and demand? Yet the fact remains that every attempt has so far failed.

Many various attempts have been made, from the extremes of Communism in Russia to the extremes of Capitalism in the United States. But all have failed, and we have advanced little further in this quest than in barbaric times.

Surely it is this mysterious crack and fissure at the basis of all our arrangements and apparatus upon which the keenest minds throughout the world should be concentrated. (Romones Lectures at Oxford University, 1930.)

To again refer to Lawrence Dennis, he too perceived – as any unbiased observer must – that there is no self-regulating balance between production and consumption but, on the contrary, production has, for the past fifty years or so, been outstripping the ability of our society to absorb it, and this trend grows at an accelerating rate. The reasons are basically two: the continuing advancement in production techniques of everything in the material world, and the constricting effect of a money system based on usury, compound interest and inflation – a money system which is designed not for the distribution of goods but for the profit of those who manipulate it. Thus, the balance between production and consumption must be redressed every generation or so by war, which not only consumes vast amounts of production but also removes men from the labor market and leaves a void of destruction as its aftermath which requires more production to repair. This describes the horror of our situation, all the more horrifying because so few have the courage to recognize it, be they liberal, Marxist, conservative, libertarian or some variety of religious specimen. As Lawrence Dennis said so often, “There is not a peace cloud in the war boom sky.”

The big picture is this. We are all ensnared by the tentacles of a system of social control, operating at all levels of society, which demands the blood sacrifice of millions of the cream of our youth every generation in bloody aggression to maintain prosperity. The primary intellectual and, if you will, spiritual fundaments of this system spring from what passes for history, and are percolated down to the lowest member of society via a beautifully coordinated machine which leaves nothing unsullied by its poisonous output. This Establishment false history not only omits and distorts facts which expose its own wickedness, greed and corruption – it invents other facts to prove its righteousness. This thing is all-pervasive and can only be successfully combated by challenging it at all levels it is found. It is not merely a political problem, it has monetary and economic and social dimensions as well.

We may hope that some qualified and intrepid souls, endowed with sufficient funds to do the job, will come along and have the temerity to chronicle all, not just one, of the pressure groups which are driving this country and the western world to imminent suicide. When that historian appears, or those historians, the Institute for Historical Review will be ready.