Winners write the History

An Introduction for The Public of Our First Mission

Contributed by Dominic Oliver of the Magnolia League

---

I. Leading Horses to the Water

Recently,

John Slaughter

made a good point that there is no reason to continue arguing with Mr. Joel Berry¹.

“Some men only deserve mockery and ridicule.

“You can defeat Joel intellectually time and time again but it won’t matter. He is not a rational actor. He’s an ideologue committed to an incoherent belief system.

“He should be relegated to the children’s table where he belongs.”

There is some funny connection between his infinity-jeet-credal-nationalism, Babel, and the Babylon Bee, but I digress. Joel wouldn’t get it, wouldn’t laugh if he did, and I don’t have to say anything more than that for you to conceive of the meme.

II. The Reee-education

We are left to address the question of “What should be done with Joel?” It is important to have a broad answer, because there are other people like him, with the same patterns of thought.

This is why we can’t ignore them.

Crusader Pepe explains that Berry’s behavior and way of thinking is due to being catechized into such a framing². As a continuing education, the cathedral reinforces this.

“What I learned from the Joel Berry and

Dave Greene

debate is that Joel’s worldview is a copy and paste of a 2005 American high school history class.”

In a sense, what we stand against is The Boomer Truth™.

“But isn’t defeating the Boomer Truth Regime™ pointless? After all, they are going to die right? Why crush their ideas? Isn’t that a waste of effort?”

The BTR™ sorta a misnomer, because it’s not a Boomer confession. It’s the common education of the Cathedral. It is the party line of the Current Regime. It is the collection of propositions socially acceptable to the current elite. And they are heralded by newer organizations and younger people. The Babylon Bee and the Daily Wire have millennial and zoomer staff as new vessels to possess — of course they aren’t showing gray. While the Biden Administration has finally passed — the Cathedral still possesses a strange zombie grip.

Mr. Greene said recently that in about a half a years time or so, as we sober up from winning, the tensions in the right wing coalition will go from increasing slowly to suddenly taut, engulfing dialogue into the conflict of identity once again. Until then, we can work openly before this picks back up in earnest.

This is why we can’t ignore Joel and what he represents. We must chart towards what we want to accomplish as a movement and a people, which invariably finds an anchor in a solid, coherent answer to identity.

So now, we prepare to fight our enemy: the 2005 American high school history class.

III. But I listened to Pete Q this Morning

“But haven’t we done that?” you say. “Isn’t that what the Dissident Right is? We are a terminally online scene for discussing politics, history, various theories, and all things. We already have

RealThomas777

and others as our revisionism guys.

Peter R. Quiñones

and

Darryl Cooper

make their stuff accessible, easily digestible.”

DISCLAIMER:

I do not wish to diminish these men and their efforts. On the contrary, I affirm their efforts as important & necessary primers to what we do. I am grateful for the free education these men provide.

But the really isn’t really a revisionist history textbook, even for specific events. There are revisionist historians. They have written books. But there aren’t revisionist cliff notes. And where is the revisionist APUSH textbook?

Conversations with Mr. Berry over American Identity flounder because his perspective and way of thinking is enveloped in progressive premises. We wish to address this problem and provide a competing and truthful curricula to combat these progressive beliefs.

The current, common, perspective on America is this:

The founding fathers, though flawed men of their time, founded the first truly free nation in history, whose ongoing struggle is to complete the liberation of all persons, foreign and domestic, from all tyrannies and oppressions.

This answers three of the causes of America: its form (free nation), its creation (the founders), and its purpose (to liberate). Across the progressive spectrum, from Joel to the 1619 project, the material cause of America, what Americans are, varies from freedom fighting enlightenment protestants to settler colonialist slavers, but the final cause of America will remain the same — muh (worldwide) liberty. Every high schooler learns and remembers these three units: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII — all wars for liberty. If you’re an extra smart cookie, they teach you Vietnam so you can piss off your dad by saying that America isn’t always the good guy because it fought against Communism one time.

Revisionists slice away at pieces of this. They use primary sources to reveal the complexities of history and the untruthfulness of public instruction. And they have written some books to treat some pieces thoroughly.

Yet still that progressive mantra from the secular sphere from above rings false to our ears. If you try to answer “What is the historic meaning of America?”, or, “What is an American?” your answers will be far different than that of the BTR and clash with the current common education.

That’s the scope of the problem. For all the critique in the world, until Antelope or Passage or someone takes on McGraw Hill, we aren’t close to finishing. Until high schoolers across America are making their “USRC Harriet Lane” and “rassenkreig” flashcards and getting ready to answer their Thomas Hutchinson DBQ, this problem remains unsolved. Until we have our own Cathedral, we will keep having these conversations. Even if you make a break through on any given thing, there is no coherent message for them to replace the “original sin of racism” with.

The tanks in Harvard Yard would be funny but our own history is what an enduring victory would look like.

IV. You will live long enough to hear the redemption of mid-wits

“But aren’t there based zoomers?”

This question motivates a discussion of why exactly a curriculum and a history are necessary.

The problem with the narrow, slicing method of current revisionism is at that level, the erudite revisionists are only working to tell slivers of the story to their audiences. Some men have the knowledge and ability to tackle the question of who we are as Europeans and Americans, but their answers are preceded with as much personal stories as content — like an internet recipe. Carlyle, Donoso, and similar writers write their histories in the fashions of being threads in the tapestry of their identity. Their visions of the coming 20th century are mythic, evoking the impression of personal confession, and eyewitness dramatization. They have a sense of St. John the Baptist pointing to a thing not yet fully seen.

The confused youth know they have been fed stories packaged with facts and lies. But that is about all they know. Endless signaling and whispers only communicate a grasping at the thing. They know that the truth is out there, that they’ve been told lies. But they have no way to holistically touch the truth of history.

We are armed with more questions than answers. In the coming battle for identity from the Right, our arguments and inconvenient pieces of evidence are useful to volley defensively. They are helpful in this critical position. They are great for tearing down our opponents.

But we cannot counter forever. We must build. There must be a narrative of what America means and what it means to be an American because these questions cannot go unanswered. In the fight for history, winning is not secured by such defensive battles, but rather in offensive actions, in fortified constructions.

V. The Function of History

A history is a narrative of a subject which implies or states a belief about its causes and nature. A curriculum is a plan and scope of study. That is to say, a history is an answer to a question and a curriculum is a definition of the scope of the answer. Of course, every curriculum has premises concerning its subject, and so a given history can be weakened or strengthened, true or false, by the perspective and depth of the curriculum. We are designing an history textbook and corresponding curriculum.

Let’s look at the current education system. This is the “APUSH Course at a Glance” for 2019. Do you see where this class is going? No discussion of Britain’s (let alone Europe’s) social development from Columbus to the American Revolution. America’s up and coming petit bourgeois is learning history through a progress frame.

They are being taught bad narratives and wrong answers to questions about history.

Our history will answer questions, if not directly then implicitly, about America. For example:

1. What is America?

2. Where did America come from?

3. When did America begin?

4. Who made America?

5. What is the purpose of America?

There is room for a degree of disagreement among respectable and educated men of American backgrounds as to the answers of these questions.

This will shape the vision of the project. While writing a new history means picking new winners and new losers, it does not mean one winner takes all. We are defining a new Overton window.

Consider the progressive history of Civil Rights in the US. One could reasonably find the following four perspectives: white nationalists, segregationists, integrationists, and black nationalists. Each had a different theory to race relations in the US. The interaction between them is often taught explicitly, with integrationists forming a formal, moderate, incrementalist faction in alliance with the black nationalists fighting the segregationists. This framework sets the ground rules for understanding who won and why, which viewpoints are permissible and why: the relationships between the views. And this was a practical and necessary education; it was the informal rulebook you needed to know before going on CNN in 2005 to discuss Katrina.

While the integrationists are the uncomplicated “good guys” of this story, and the black nationalists are often formally denounced, did they “lose?” Did Malcom X or the Weather Underground “lose” while Michael King “won?”

So the same for us. The Right is not uniform, but we do not need to go into this process expecting for some elements to “win” and some elements to “lose.” Rather, we can expect to form one or more majority positions, considered minority positions, and those positions which are unacceptable. Humans, dwarves, elves, hobbits, but no more orcs and goblins. This should integrate well into our people’s interest in local history and state identity. A beautiful quilt woven by time.

“I am not going to entertain the question of what an American is, we all know what an American is.”

Mr. Hyde presents a completely fair point, and we converse here among self-cognizant Americans³.

To revisit the earlier example, in the progressive history, the segregationists “lost” and the white nationalists were catapulted into an active volcano. That’s your seat at the table Vivek. You wanted a melting pot didn’t you?

VI. A Plan for Action

With all my ranting on reasons to do something done, what do I propose we do?

Support the

Curriculum Project

by following, sharing, and, if you have the gumption, joining the project.

We are accepting passionate American men. We want your help in research, your pen as a writer. We need capable editors and all other partners on this mission.

We must bring back to ourselves as Americans what America is, so that when the men who rule it look upon it, they see our beauty, and reaffirm their devotion to us when hardship comes.

We owe it as well to the generation which comes after. We will not be done with this project by the time that the issue of American identity is forced upon the right. But that’s ok. We aren’t answering this question for our enemies’ sake.

1. Slaughter, John. Tweet here.

2. Pepe, Crusader. Tweet here.

3. Hyde, Sam. Tweet here.