As Aryanists, in order to accurately and honestly portray our history and our Aryan folk, there are many key things that need to be done. Many of these objectives are all ready rolling forward with increasing success, but at the same time coming into more friction from opponents. The key issue here is Historical Revisionism. The popularly accepted version of history does its best to vilify all things Aryan, but especially all things National Socialist; it’s as if the Devil himself wrote a political theory.
This notion continues to be accepted as the actual course of history despite an incredible wealth of information suggesting otherwise. This information is of high scholarly quality, both in its presentation and documentation, and everyone who has read it can clearly see that, including the information’s many deniers. Naturally, those deniers simply do what they do best: promote their policy of ignorance since slandering is becoming increasingly difficult and refuting the aforementioned information with equal scholarly quality is simply too hard, if not outright impossible, so for them the most efficient thing is sweeping it under the rug. I would like to bring the reader’s attention to this particular article that so thoroughly addresses key issues about supposed policies of National Socialist Germany that it should be a required reading for history scholars. However, if it in fact was required reading in academic circles, then it wouldn’t be “revisionism” anymore, but “truth.” As long as it can be grouped elsewhere than truth the establishment is satisfied enough.
Revisionism is not limited to 20th century history or even to the entire field of history, it can be found in a wide variety of subjects. As Aryanists, we should promote a “Universalist Revisionism” that encompasses and addresses issues and topics across the real worldwide spectrum. This will only be possible under a solid and united movement with Aryans of various skills and from many fields of study working together.
The idea of revisionism is nothing new, only the here suggested new way of implementing it is. For example, one of the great minds of the Renaissance, Copernicus, proposed an entirely new way of looking at the universe with the Sun at its center and not the Earth as according to Vatican dogma. He came to this conclusion after years of observation and study, which are empiricist methods, however, we know that no one could have controlled the information that he was looking at, the night sky. We also know that he was ready to accept something new altogether since he recorded his work and published it (albeit on his death bed), thus there was a bold step that he took, one of intellectual innovation (thinking outside the box), that resulted in a vital piece of revisionism, which he then shared with the World. Copernicus’s own theory would go on to be honed and revised by scientists like Brahe, Galileo and Kepler (who actually published the first defense of Copernican Heliocentrism). None of these men had any vicious or selfish motivation (if anything their lives were endangered by their “heretical” ideas), they were men of logic in search of Greater Truth.
A much more recent example or revisionism can be found in some Westerns from the 1960s. Before Westerns were largely “black hat, white hat” with villains and heroes as obvious as can be. These were the films that made John Wayne famous. By the mid 60s Sergio Leone created some influential films with a young Clint Eastwood that challenged the conventional Western; they presented a much more ambiguous moral landscape, in such a wild, and often savage, place as the West, “good” and “bad” are not the only two archetypes are work, Leone introduced the “ugly” archetype, one driven by impulse that does both good and bad depending on what serves its needs. This idea was most famously put forth in the aptly titled film The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from 1966. Due to Leone’s being Italian, his films were labeled as “spaghetti westerns” due to their more complex, and often convoluted, drama as well as a humorous take on Leone’s heritage.
A film that presented a really radical (at the time) view on the Old West was Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch from 1969. Utilizing revolutionary film-making techniques in camera work, sound, and editing the film caused a great stir in the film world. It was a uncompromisingly grim depiction of the life of outlaws in 1911, when the Wild West was largely coming to an end. Notable is the fact that John Wayne detested the film saying that it “destroyed the myth of the Old West.” A statement that is so very true on so many levels. The film is about a time when the Old West was coming to an end as well as it changing the entire depiction of the genre, thus Wayne could have just as well have said that it “destroyed the myth of the Old Western.” The rough and ugly reality of not just outlaw life, but of life in general in the Wild West, would become a topic for many years to come with revisionism being the primary drive.
Not surprisingly, Clint Eastwood, who had risen to fame by the late 1960s, made his own revisionist Western in 1973 called High Plains Drifter in which a small town’s ugly past catches up to it with violent consequences. After the film was released, Eastwood wrote a letter to John Wayne saying that he’d be interested in making a Western with the legendary star, but Wayne responded by angrily criticizing the revisionist portrayal offered by High Plains Drifter.
Thus, it is plain to see that revisionism is met with opposition in every field that it enters. In an established system where people are comfortable (especially comfortable financially), they’re more than likely to protest a change even if said change seeks to bring the truth.