Establishment historians place great value on the use of primary source evidence. This is described as ‘Narrative Fixation’ by the heterodox economist Edward Fullbrook [1] who cites Einstein’s famous aphorism:
‘Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use: It is the theory which decides what can be observed.’

Professor Fullbrook stated that in his academic field, by adopting a single point of view and refusing to admit alternative insights, economists deprive themselves of the means of a fuller understanding of the matters they seek to explain. But it is not just in economics that such limitations become apparent. The narrative fixation on the dialectical side of scientific development has had, and continues to have, a deleterious consequence in the human sciences. This involves all of the Humanities and Social Sciences including, as we see here, History. In any attempt to understand a complex truth, what is required is a multiplicity of points of view – a width of methodologies and epistemologies – a ‘Narrative Pluralism’ – but academic historians have a narrative fixation: No documents; no narrative. [2] In an article, The Frailty of Historical Truth: Learning Why Historians Inevitably Fail, published by the American Historical Association, Professor David Lowenthal stated, ‘Secondary sources are ipso facto unreliable.’ [3]

The fundamental problem in war history, as we and other revisionists have clearly demonstrated, lies in the fact that it is underpinned by primary sources which are unreliable – not least because so many have been systematically destroyed, falsified, altered, misrepresented, hidden or ‘lost’. In the absence of reliable primary source evidence, it is entirely legitimate – indeed it is mandatory on the part of truth-seekers – to look to other means of establishing what has occurred, what continues to happen and why. Secondary sources/circumstantial evidence are a taboo in historical research, yet they play such an important role in the criminal law courts and can literally mean a matter of life or death? In homicide cases or other serious felonies, police detectives act much like historians in searching the past for evidence. If it is considered that sufficient evidence has been uncovered, the accused is sent for trial before a jury of his peers.

The gold standard in law courts is direct evidence, but in the majority of cases there is none and only indirect circumstantial evidence is available. By way of example, direct evidence is presented if a witness states that she saw the defendant pull out a gun and actually shoot the victim. On the other hand, if she did not witness the shooting but saw the defendant enter a house with a gun, heard a gunshot and screaming and thereafter saw the defendant leave carrying the gun, it is circumstantial evidence. If two or more independent witnesses testify to this, it is very powerful circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence – and that includes fingerprints and forensic evidence presented by expert witnesses – allows for more than one explanation. When different strands of such evidence are drawn together and each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others, we have every reason to the serious notice. For hundreds of years attorneys have talked about the ‘cable’ of circumstantial evidence. A cable is made up of many strands which individually are not particularly strong, but the more strands which are applied to the cable the stronger it becomes. In many, if not indeed the majority of legal cases, it is this cable of circumstantial evidence which solidly links an accused to the crime. Juries in the United States and elsewhere are entitled to reach a verdict on such evidence, and Judges are able to condemn an individual to death on the strength of that verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that ‘circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence,’ [4] yet academic war historians deride its use.

Straightforward lies, concealment of important evidence, a peer review system that encourages only accounts sympathetic to the Establishment, and insistence on using only primary source documents (which in reality are generally the remnants which have survived the Establishment’s cull) are all important elements in the production of fake history.

In the early 1970s, Canadian war historian Nicholas D’Ombrain began researching British War Office records. He noted: ‘The Registry Files were in a deplorable condition, having suffered the periodic ravages of the policy of “weeding”. One such clearance was in progress during my foray into these files, and I found that my material was being systematically reduced by as much as five-sixths.’ [5] Astonishingly, a large amount of ‘sensitive’ material was actually removed as the researcher went about his business. Where did it go? He accused the establishment of systematic withdrawal of evidence. Who authorised its removal? In addition, D’Ombrain noted that minutes of the Committee of Imperial Defence and ‘circulation and invitation lists’ together with much ‘routine’ correspondence had been destroyed. [6] That D’Ombrain found five-sixths of the total files melting away in front of him demonstrated clearly that unnamed others still retained a vested interest in keeping hidden, genuine evidence of historical record.

On conducting our own research we noted that the official notice in the Public Record Office List of Cabinet Papers warns, ‘the papers listed … are certainly not the whole of those collectively considered by Cabinet Ministers.’ The gap, however, is breath-taking. No effort is made to explain why crucial records are missing or what happened to them. Nothing is included from 14 July until 20 August, 1914. Nothing. This period covered the crucial two week ‘July Crisis’ in the run up to the First World War, the British declaration of war on Germany on 4 August, and the files remain empty until almost three weeks into the war itself. [7] It beggars belief that such crucial Cabinet papers relating to one of the most significant events in British history have disappeared.

While official Cabinet papers for the time frame do not exist – presumably destroyed (the files at the National Archives at Kew in London were completely empty) we know what was going on in some detail because Prime Minister Asquith (aka ‘Squiffy’ because it was alleged that he drank a bottle of cleared each evening) was writing letters to his paramour, Venetia Stanley, and sharing secret Cabinet details with her. Had Asquith not communicated privately and very indiscreetly to his young paramour, much of what was discussed at those crucial meetings would be lost to history. His letters of August 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, contain the inner secrets of what was said by whom in those crucial Cabinet meetings whose minutes were presumably destroyed. The Letters to Venetia Stanley, essentially Asquith’s love letters [8] was collated in 1982 and therefore not subject to the post-war censor. This unquestionably saved the information from being redacted or burned.

When researching later Cabinet Memoranda housed in the National Archives, [9] pages were found to be missing. Page 685, which was in a series which included crucial confidential documents about Herbert Hoover’s Belgian Relief, has been torn out. Despite this, we had more than sufficient evidence to prove that Britain and America were secretly provisioning Germany through Hoover’s organisation in order to prolong the war. Countless documents are missing, but in fairness to the librarians and custodians of the Public Record Office, they could only catalogue what was passed to them from the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the War Office and the Colonial Office. It is not the fault of librarians.

An Australian expert on Gallipoli, Harvey Broadbent, had a similar experience when researching the archives: ‘… Difficulties lie in the fact that not all Gallipoli documents seem to be present in the National Archives. There are gaps in document collections of certain events and at crucial times of the campaign.’ [10] Broadbent, though reluctant to say so in public, harbours suspicions that the 1915 Gallipoli campaign (where over a quarter of a million allied soldiers and sailors, including many from Australia and New Zealand, were killed or badly wounded) was deliberately set up to fail by the British and French governments. We gathered many individual strands of circumstantial evidence on this, wound them in to a very strong rope, and have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that it was indeed deliberately set up to fail.

The doomed project went ahead to enable greater geo-political strategies which would benefit the Secret Elite, including post-war control of oil in the Middle East and control of Palestine. Gallipoli was a disaster for the allies in 1915 and the truth had to be concealed at all costs from the peoples of colonial Australia and New Zealand or they would have reacted severely against both the ‘Mother country’ and the war. Yet the lies persist, and the Anzacs continue to cerebrate a disaster dressed as a glorious sacrifice; an honour to Australian and New Zealand youth. Lies, lies, lies.

It is evident that falsification of the history of the twentieth century has involved a wide range of nefarious subterfuge. Today, the accepted mainstream version continues to be taken as the source for new books and documentaries in film and television. The ideal of objectivity was abandoned long ago. Highly biased and selective choices were made from the infinite number of true facts. Some were given a central place, others marginalised. Facts were selected to align with the narrative which the oligarchs demanded. Many inaccurate, muddled or tainted primary sources were chosen to mislead. A range of documents might be brought into the public domain with one crucial piece of the jigsaw removed. This skewed the picture, deliberately. And there were lies, outrageous lies, levied against anyone who stood as a potential barrier to elite rule and one world government by exposing the truth. Yet all of that is merely the tip of the rotten iceberg and represents what we can actually recognise when we scrutinise the given record. Below the surface lie vast quantities of documents removed from public scrutiny and hidden away in places such as Stanford and Hanslope. It seems possible, if not indeed likely, that other as yet unknown depositories exist. It is impossible to say how many records remain concealed to this day, or have already found their way into furnaces in a factual holocaust. As an iceberg in warmer water gradually melts and recedes from the bottom up, so the records decrease in volume, unseen, unknown and unreported as more and more are selected for destruction. In the age of mass communication we have less access to the truth about history than the generations before us. This is no mistake.

As in so many other areas, when researching history a good opening question is: Cui bono? Who benefits from this systematically destroyed, falsified, altered, hidden or ‘lost’ evidence? The Elites, past and present? The court historians whose success is predicated upon conformity?

In the words of Professor Hillel Ticktin, academic economics, is ‘useless – utterly useless’. So too in any objective sense is academic history. Its value resides only in supporting the present-day elites who pay the piper and own the pipes.

If Orwell’s aphorism holds true it is imperative that we revise the entire historical record of the twentieth century. It may already be too late, but we have to dispel pessimism to stand any chance of taking control of our own future. Much has already been done by revisionists such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Antony Sutton and Guido Preparata, and not least by Carroll Quigley who provided the signposts we need on this complex journey. But the ruling elite today are more adept at burying the truth than ever – as witnessed by the vast percentage of the ‘educated’ peoples of the world who remain totally unaware of their existence, or the fact that democracy is a sham. Modern history in its entirety requires grassroots revision.

There is too another concern. The selection of approved versions of history dictates what is taught in our universities and schools. Scottish schoolchildren are taught certain aspects of the First World War but all contentious issues are absent from the syllabus. Attending a conference in Brussels several years ago we learned that Belgian schoolchildren are taught absolutely nothing about the ‘Committee for the Relief of Belgium’ which was directly at the centre and the most significant institution in the country’s First World War history. Internationally, university professors and departmental heads determine the body of knowledge from which degrees are judged. Armed with their prized degrees, those who progress to a career in history are obliged to teach from the same sacred scripture in schools, colleges or universities. No one questions this. No one dares. School and college students are then examined on their historical learning and understanding from texts blessed with institutional approval. Thus, generation after generation, we witness the perpetuation and consolidation of fake history.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that all modern historians or war historians are intentionally producing fake history, but they raise no dissenting voice against those who do. The distressing reality is that brave revisionist historians are a very rare breed indeed. Academic historians of all colours need to muster their courage to speak truth to power and stop toeing the Establishment line. The fact that it is not historians but ordinary men and women who are at the vanguard of the historical truth movement today brings shame to their profession. The verdict of history itself will surely judge them harshly.

1. E. Fullbrook, Narrative Fixation in Economics, World Economics Association, London, 2016.
2. Dr. John O’Dowd, personal communication.
3. David Lowenthal, The Frailty of Historical Truth: Learning Why Historians Inevitably Fail, American Historical Association.
4. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct.127, 99 OL. Ed.150 [1954]
5. Nicholas D’Ombrain, War Machinery and High Policy, preface, p.xiii.
6. Ibid.
7. List of Cabinet Papers, 1880–1914. PRO booklet.
8. Michael Brock, H.H.Asquith letters to Venetia Stanley.
9. Cabinet Papers, 1905-1918 Volume IV ref: FO 899/4.
10. Harvey Broadbent, Gallipoli: One Great Deception?