Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

In response to a comment that I made on “MSNBC’s Revisionist History About JD Vance and America’s Failed Wars,” The New American, by Selwyn Duke, July 22, 2024, (https://thenewamerican.com/us/msnbcs-revisionist-history-about-jd-vance-and-americas-failed-wars/#comment-6515624670), I had an interesting discussion with “Confused” on revisionist history. (I have changed his pseudonym to protect his ignorance or stupidity — whichever the case may be.)

Duke’s misleading statements on revision history prompted my comment. My comment was:

A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. 

(This comment is a quotation from “Another Discussion with the Imbecile” by Thomas Allen.) The essence of revision history is that it significantly contradicts standard orthodox establishment history.

Duke may be the cause of some of Confused’s confusion about revisionist history. He writes that Alexander Nazaryan, a left-winger, condemned JD Vance over who launched America’s failed wars. Nazaryan attacked Vance and claimed that Vance was accusing Democrats in general and Biden in particular for the death of Americans in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, although Vance hardly mentioned these wars and did not blame Democrats for them. Nazaryan identified the Republican Party as the party of war because of Bush the Younger’s war with Iraq. Yet, Nazaryan ignored the wars in which Democrats led the countries: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Duke called Nazaryan commentary revisionist history. Nazaryan’s historical account may be revisionist history, but that does not mean that all revisionist historians are left-wingers.

Confused maintains that only left-wingers write revisionist histories; right-wingers do not write revisionist histories. However, since progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives write most standard orthodox establishment history, they have little need to write revisionist history. Consequently, right-wingers write most revisionist history.

Among the right-wing writers of revisionist history are Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Jack Mohr, Eustace Mullins, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton, Nesta Webster, Clyde Wilson, and even Pat Buchanan. (This list is only a minute sample of right-wingers who have written revisionist histories.) Because these writers have written revisionist history, Confused considers them to be left-wingers, even communists. Following are some examples of revision history.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the French Revolution began as a spontaneous grassroots revolt of repressed peasants and proletarians against an oppressive aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy. Revisionist historians argue that the French Revolution was planned years earlier and was guided by elites and secret societies. (See “The French Revolution: Part I: The Foundation” by Thomas Allen.)

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that slavery was the cause, even the sole cause, of Lincoln’s War. The North fought to free the slaves, and the South fought to preserve and even to expand slavery.

Revisionist historians argue that slavery was a minor, even an insignificant issue, until about halfway through the war. Tariffs were the primary cause of secession for the Lower South, and the denial of the constitutional right of a State to secede was the primary cause of secession for the Upper South. (Until 1861, most people, including and especially New Englanders, claimed that States had a right to secede. However, once New Englanders and their allies in New York and the Upper Midwest gained control of the US government, States no longer had a constitutional right to secede.) Thus, the South fought against Northern exploitation, and the North fought to continue to exploit the South. Further, the South fought to preserve self-government and not to protect slavery. Most Southerners fought to repeal an invading hoard; if the Yankees had not invaded the South, no war would have occurred.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Revisionist historians say that it was a surprise attack for the people at Pearl Harbor. However, it was not a surprise to Roosevelt and his inner circle. They knew about it before it happened. Not only did they let it happen, but Roosevelt facilitated the attack. (See “World War II” by Thomas Allen.)

Robert Welch, who was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, asserted that President Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer and an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Standard orthodox establishment historians disagree with Welch.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Moreover, no conspiracy was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Revisionist historians argue that Oswald did not act alone; others were involved in the assassination, which made it a conspiracy. Furthermore, Oswald may not have been the actual assassin. (For more on the Kennedy assassination, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.)

One left-wing revisionist history that has become partially, if not wholly, accepted as standard orthodox establishment history is that slaves in the Catholic Latin colonies were treated better than in the Protestant colonies of North America. This history is the opposite of the truth. Slaves were treated better in Protestant North America.

Another slavery-related left-wing revisionist history has become standard orthodox establishment history. That revisionist history was that slavery was the reason for Lincoln’s War. Many Republican leaders, who were the progressives of that day, promoted this revisionist history. Now, this explanation for the war is the standard orthodox establishment history.

Confused is like Imbecile; any history with which he disagrees is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which he rejects, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees significantly with the standard orthodox establishment explanation. (For more on revisionist history, see https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html.)

Discussion in Comments

Me: A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2024/05/another-discussion-with-imbecile.html

Confused: That’s not correct. “Revisionist history” has a negative connotation and is usually applied to leftist manipulation of history.

There are facts relating to events that have happened. Actual history involves revealing and expressing those facts.

Me: If you are correct and I am wrong, then the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 are accurate, and the revisionists are wrong. Likewise, only revisionist historians claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Also, the conspiratorial history that the JBS [John Birch Society] spews out is revisionist history, and, therefore, it has a negative connotation and is usually applied to manipulate history if you are correct. Most revisionist historians do a better job of discovering and explaining facts relating to historical events than do the standard orthodox establishment historians, whom you seem to prefer to believe.

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

The problem is semantics. You’re defining “revisionist history” in a very anomalous way. The people you’re describing are conspiracy theorists, who may be right or wrong. Here is the definition of “revisionism”: “1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionism

By calling correct historical interpretations “revisionism” YOU are unwittingly demonizing them by associating them with a negative label. You can do that if you wish, but it’s misguided and unwise.

Please stop hurting the cause.

Me: Your definition is for “revisionism” and not for “revisionist history.” Nevertheless, if you are correct, then people who question the official history of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 and present an alternative explanation are Marxist socialists.

Confused: Again, that’s illogical. It’s only “revisionist history” if it’s an incorrect portrayal of history put forth to deceive and warp people’s conception of reality. So if the 9/11 doubters are correct, or at least if they’re questioning the official story in good faith, it’s not revisionist history.

Me: I have concluded that you are like Imbecile; any history with which you disagree is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which you reject, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment explanation of that event. JBS’s conspiratorial explanation of various historical events is revisionist history, just as a communist class-warfare explanation of the same event is revisionist history.

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

John Birch Society and Segregation

John Birch Society and Segregation

Thomas Allen

In the April 23, 2020, online New American, Alex Newman writes an article, “NeverTrumper Lies About Birch Society & Schlafly in ‘Daily Beast.’” In this article, he refutes what Ronald Radosh wrote about Phyllis Schlafly in “Phyllis Schlafly, ‘Mrs. America,’ Was a Secret Member of the John Birch Society,” the Daily Beast,  April 20, 2020.  Newman writes that Radosh is “a former Communist Party USA operative turned NeverTrump neoconservative Buckleyite.”

The discussion that follows is about what Newman writes about the John Birch Society (JBS) and its founder Robert Welch and their support of integration instead of what he writes about Schlafly. Most of what Newman writes in his article focuses on the JBS and Welch’s opposition to racial segregation and support of racial integration.

On racial issues, Welch and the JBS were at the forefront of political correctness. While attacking communism and communists, they supported the communist organized and led desegregation-integration movement.

Newman ardently objects to Radosh’s characterization of the JBS as a “far-right group infamous for its support of segregation.” On the contrary, the JBS was and still is dedicated to integration and, apparently, everything that has grown out of integration, such as, Black privileges and the movement to genocide the White race — although, most likely, Newman would argue otherwise.

Noting that the JBS has never supported segregation, Newman lists several notable Black activists who were members of the JBS: George Schuyler, Manning Johnson, and Julia Brown. Continuing, he adds that members of the JBS “helped lead the fight against racism, racial collectivism, government-enforced segregation, discrimination, and so on.” Except for racial collectivism, progressives, liberals, and communists also fought against these things.

Although it may have opposed governmental-enforced integration, the JBS has never been as vigorous in opposing government-enforced integration as it was in opposing government-enforced segregation. Moreover, it seems to have accepted segregation by custom (the Northern approach) while opposing government-enforced segregation (the Southern approach). Thus, the JBS is a right-wing Puritan Yankee organization out to reconstruct Southerners into its own image. (Most Southerners never wanted to force segregation in the North. However, most Northerners wanted to force integration in the South, but not in the North.)

Although Welch was a Southerner, he was a scalawag par excellence. Obviously, he believed that the Radical Republicans failed to remake the Southerner into the image of the Puritan Yankee.  Consequently, he sought to finish their work. While he failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded.

Newman remarks that National Review and its founder, William Buckley,  supported segregation into the 1960s. He condemns Buckley for claiming that Whites were more advance than Blacks and that Southerners should suppress voting by Blacks to preserve civilization. Apparently, Newman believes that the civilization of post-civil-rights America, with its increased sexual promiscuity, divorces, acceptance of homosexual marriages, abortions, crimes by Blacks, lost liberties, socialism, police state, drug abuse, power of the Establishment, etc., is superior the civilization to pre-civil-rights America.

Even as late as the mid-1960s, Buckley was fighting a rearguard action to save the White race and Western Civilization, while the JBS and Welch were rejoicing covertly their demise —at least that has been the result of their war against racial separation. (The communists knew this destructive result of integration, which is why they fought for it.) Later, Buckley repented his evil ways and adopted the politically correct racial view that Whites, especially Southerners, are the vilest creatures in the Universe — Welch would have been proud of him.

Next, Newman writes that Welch wrote an article, “A Letter to the South,” in which he argues against segregation in the South. In that article, Welch argues “that segregation was on its way out, that this demise was a good thing, and that the communist exploitation of the “civil rights” cause had set back this progress by a generation.” Welch was wrong. Within a decade after this article, the communist lead civil rights movement had won; integration had replaced segregation in the South. Only mop-up operations against the few remaining renegades and expansion into the North remained. Because of this victory for which Welch longed, the White race is on its way to extinction —and the American Black may not be far behind.

Although Welch condemned communist racial agitators for stirring up racial hatred and for impeding integration, they did achieve victory quickly and completely. For this victory, Welch should have been glad. Was Welch’s hostility toward the communists coming from his lust for glory, i.e., he wanted the credit for ending segregation in the South? Does this explain the hostility of the JBS toward communists?

On racial issues, Welch was an extremely progressive and indefatigable promoter of racial equality, which is among the most detrimental hoaxes that the Establishment, the ruling elite, has ever advanced. (For the unbiased, science has proven that the races are not equal. They differ in physical abilities, intelligence, temperament and many other aspects. As history has shown, races differ in their abilities to develop civilizations, technologies, and many other things.)

Being racial egalitarians, Welch and his fellow Birchers are a step away from being full-fledged socialist and communists. They believe that the several races of men are identical in attributes. Except for a few external physical features, which no one but a liar can deny, the races are identical and, therefore, equal. (Nevertheless, the races of man differ in blood and bone, which are not readily visible.) If the attributes of the races are identical and equal, then the attributes of each individual comprising the races must be identical and equal. From this egalitarian notion, socialists, especially communists, derive the logical conclusion that each individual should, therefore, be equal in wealth. However, Birchers have not come to this logical conclusion of racial equality. Consequently, they are not as logical in their reasoning as are socialists and communists. Is because the egalitarianism of the communists is more consistent and logical than that of the Birchers a reason that Birchers despise communism?

In the 1950s, most Southerners, both liberals and conservatives, and many Northerners opposed race-mixing. Only communists and their kindred and Birchers favored race-mixing, which leads to miscegenation, which is genocide — the destruction of the races. Thus, integration is genocide.

Apparently, Welsh and the Birchers who followed him in advocating integration did not care about the Black man. If they did, they would not have pushed policies that would eventually lead to his death.

Welch “openly promoted and supported an end to segregation” because ending segregation would result in “exposing evildoers and reduce government.” One must wonder what drugs Welch was taking to believe this nonsense. The death of segregation birthed an explosion in the size of the government. (More government is needed to enforce integration than segregation because integration is unnatural.)  Moreover, what vile evildoer has been exposed and, if exposed, has suffered any penalty?

Much of the hostility of the JBS and Welch toward communists and communism seems to come from the civil rights movement. While the JBS failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded. Does much of the JBS hatred of communists come from the communists succeeding where the JBS failed?

Welch is not the only leader of the JBS to support genocide via race-mixing. JBS President Emeritus John McManus also promotes genocide via race-mixing. (Also, see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike most Blacks and other nonwhites, Welch and his fellow Birchers are racial nihilists who follow the new morality.

NOTE:
According to Eustace Mullins (Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, 1988, page 200), the Rockefellers sponsored the JBS. Nelson Rockefeller bought the Welch Candy Company from Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Freemason, for a handsome price. For the principal officers of the JBS, Welch chose from his acquaintances at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Years later, the JBS would attack the CFR as a more dangerous group than the Communist party. Because of the support that the CFR gave the Soviet Union through its control of the US government, multinational corporations, and international financiers, the Soviet Union lived decades longer than it would have lasted without such aid.) As Buckley, who was a CIA operative (and a member of the CFR and Skull and Bones), and his National Review were established to control conservatives and the Right, so Welch and the JBS seemed to have been established for the same purpose. When the JBS credibility began to fade, Buckley gave the JBS free publicity by attacking it in his magazine.

According to Mark Hines (“A Good Reason to Leave the John Birch Society: Masonic Roots of Mormonism,” The Federal Observer, Vol. 06, No. 343, Dec. 10, 2006, http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=8610, accessed Dec. 10, 2006), the JBS “is a front organization set up to attract and control unsuspecting Patriots that wish to band together to make a difference in our Country.” He criticizes the JBS for collecting a great deal of money and expending much time and energy without ever accomplishing anything. Hines discovered that Mormons controlled the JBS. The Mormons had a different, even the opposite, agenda than the common members. Mormons pushed the Freemasonry agenda of globalism, which the common Bircher vehemently opposed.

In Kangaroo Court Versus the John Birch Society (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” http://watch.pair.com/belmont. May 5, 2006.), A.J. MacDonald discusses some founders and council members of the JBS and their connection with the Establishment, Insiders, Ruling Elite, Globalists, or whatever one wants to call them. Moreover, Welch’s view of Christianity is similar to that of an ultra-liberal “Christian” — far more humanistic, communistic, Masonic, and Illuministic than Christian. (Perhaps, this explains why Welch promoted policies that would lead to the genocide of the races that God created.) About Welch, Nicholas J. Bove, Jr. writes, “Welch has provided the most valuable service of all time to the Conspiracy. He founded an organization to neutralize millions of Americans from discovering what the true power behind the Illuminati really was.” (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” op. cit.)

According to Dr. Henry Makow, before founding the JBS, Welch had been a member of the Communist (Trotskyite) front League of Industrial Democracy ("The Zionist Billionaires Who Control Politics," Feb. 23, 2011, http://www.henrymakow.com/koch.html, accessed Feb. 24, 2011).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.