“American History” is not a dirty word.
Well, it shouldn’t have to be, but that’s what our schools and government are turning it into. 1984 is 64 years old, but it feels fresh as ever.
Over the last number of years, an uncanny trend of vilifying Traditional values, Christianity and various white identities has synthesized a culture of intolerance for a positive expression of a White Identity. American folk tales have become a thing of the past in public schools, and with “classics” such as Howard Zinn‘s A People’s History of the United States high school and middle school students are taught to hate America. Clearly, there’s no room left to teach about iconic figures of American culture such as Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and Johnny Appleseed– to name only a few.
Earlier this year, Purdue University President, and former Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels tried to keep the Thinkpol from thrusting Zinn’s viciously anti-white tome into public schools, and he paid the price for it.
He was hoisted upon the rack of tolerance and mercilessly excoriated for his effort to create a teaching environment which wouldn’t engender raging anti-American sentiment and hatred of white people. It would seem that Daniel’s sense of history is not readily accepted by the army of liberals who occupy academia and try to define history in a singular manner.
When we speak about history, we shouldn’t limit ourselves to only that which is fashionable, modish or politically accepted. Interpreting and reading history as if it were a recipe, and subjectively using its pieces to build up the greater assembly of a singular truth or definition of a people or state is not history, that’s historicism.
Italian philosopher and esotericist Julius Evola describes historicim as a constraining and narrow-minded view of past events which limit the way we can think.
“[Historicism] is characterized by the passive acceptance of the status quo, which it sanctions with the myth of an ‘ideal necessity of history’ or with similar formulas, likewise it regards a nation as a temporal unit that does not allow revisions.”
It also sounds surprisingly similar to George Orwell’s Newspeak. A new language designed to displace old ways of speaking and of thinking, and it all is thrust upon the people by elected and appointed leaders, and through legislation which seeks to control speech and thought.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is designed to stop “discrimination in hiring and employment practices based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” Thought it is not currently enacted in law, it has a very strong possibility of being passed during the current or following congressional session. If the great many queer persons who fail to find reasonable employment cite gender or sexual orientation as the reason for their dismissal, as opposed to being poorly adjusted people, the employer could face federal charges of employment discrimination. ENDA will not create a workplace more welcoming or tolerant for queers, it will very likely accomplish the exact opposite. But, of greater concern is the fact that it serves to chill speech and limit what employers can say and think about an employee who identifies as a queer.
The concerted effort to shut out Christian morality and Traditionalist values from our places of work and our places of politics is striking, but the worst part of all is that this effort seeks to advance the liberal-progressive movement beyond criticism while instilling an automatic and unreasoning rebuke for any opposition. As Evola explains, historicism is not the process of learning about history, it is the process of limiting what a person can know, or think.
“Overall, such a history is nothing but the alibi that revolutionary liberalism, democracy, and the thinkers of Freemasonry and the Enlightenment have created for their own benefit; these movements were later followed by the interpretations proper to their own benefit; these movements were later followed by the interpretations proper to Marxist ‘historical materialism’ and its ‘revolutionary progressivism.’ … [To] historically endow everything with a national character that in the past had a subversive and anti-traditional tendency so that, after establishing some taboos, people will scream ‘sacrilege’ an mobilize a passionate ‘patriotic’ reaction as soon as any other interpretation is put forth.”
Historicism is about recreating the past to control the people in the present, and to make certain things beyond criticism.
Every now and then the blade of Historicism strikes down one of its own, and the resulting backfire puts on a real show for anyone with eyes to see it.
Fox News recently reported on a Pennsylvania man who received accusations of being a “neo-Nazi” after questioning some politically slanted material which his children were assigned in school. The article reports that the local teachers’ union representative engaged in a smear campaign against the father after he lodged a complaint against the teacher.
The only problem for the teachers’ union was that the person they were targeting was a Jewish(!) man who was married to a mulatto woman. Talk about a backfire!
Evola helps us to put this weird series of events into perspective,
“And yet all of this does not matter to patriotic historiography, which cared only to sanction a ‘choice of traditions’ espousing the forms of revolutionary, secular, and democratic thought that had inspired it.”
The point of the story here is that Newspeak and historicism have a synergistic relation which will strike down friend, foe and casual observers alike without a second thought. In every case, the end result is that historicism limits what we can know, what we can think, and ultimately what we can speak.
The answer to the problem is that we should take history “with a grain of salt.” We should season our identity with history, instead of using it to singularly define ourselves.
Or as Evola explains, history should serve a conditioning role, and not a determining role.
“Having overcome all historicism, we are rid of both the idea that the past is something that mechanically determines the resent and the concept of a teleological, evolutionary, and transcendental law that , for all practical purposes, leads us back to determinsism. Then, every historical factor will appear to have a conditioning role, but never a determining role.”
Our public school classrooms continue to be a place for conditioning the minds of America’s youth, and the possibility remains to teach a positive white American identity, but only if we learn to condition ourselves with history and not determine ourselves by it.