Worst Case of Historical Revisionism?

[Mothra1988]

The fucking Holohoax, that canard has been used as a cudgel to advance the genocide of White Europeans for nearly 100 years.

Yeah, furries and other autists pretending the holocaust didn't happen is pretty atrocious historical rivisionism used to attack white people who aren't as retarded. Agreed.

 

[Brain Power]

Salvador Allende being a good boy who dindu nuffin and Pinochet unjustly ending his good government.
And the whole thing about the "mapuche conflict". It was solved by Pinochet back then (he was even named their "Futa Lonco" aka their maximum authority) and the ones causing all the current shitshow don't even want to acknowledge that. Do you want to know why Araucanía and Bío-Bío regions tend to vote for the right? Because of him.

 

[Kramer on the phone]

Almost anything related to Abraham Lincoln. I will preface this by saying that no, I'm not a butthurt lost causer, and yes, the South was largely fighting to keep slavery legal. This isn't about the Civil War, but about how Lincoln is portrayed today vs who he actually was.

Lincoln is used as a tool to teach modern 21st century values, and his role is quasi-religious. Slavery is treated like America's original sin, and Lincoln died to free us from that sin. There's a narrative that Lincoln spent his life opposing slavery on humanitarian grounds and that he was in favor of racial equality. That narrative is largely fictional.

The real Lincoln was a corporate railroad lawyer before entering politics. He openly said his primary motive in the Civil War was keeping the Union together, (this quote is commonly repeated by lost causers to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery), and in the same quote said that he didn't particularly care about slavery beyond how it would affect American unity. He also considered whites to be superior and blacks to be inferiors, believed that equality wasn't possible, and integration was undesireable, and because of this wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa. In line with this, his oposition to slavery (less staunch than often claimed) was less motiviated by humaitarianism and more motivated by a desire to protect the economic interests of ‘Free White Labour’. If you want to get a bit politispergy, he had one of the largest paramilitary organizations in America’s history(The Wide Awakes), who jailed journalists for reporting negative things.

THAT Lincoln, the man who made Trump look like a respecter of his critics, the man would be considered horrifically racist by today's standards, is so far away from the "Great Emancipator" Lincoln presented in the modern narrative, its absurd. The whitewashing of Lincoln is imo one of the best examples of revisionism in American history.

Like I said, I'm not a lost causer and the Confederacy had plenty of grounds for crticism, to put it mildly. That doesn't justify Lincoln being deified and protrayed in popular consciousness as a figure that he never was in reality.

meh, Lincoln was what Biden was today, a figurehead to keep the normies from realizing how nutty the party in power was, what Lincoln believed and what the GOP did over the next half century might as well be completely different. its literally like using Blue dog biden as proof that the dems aren't into CRT or trans rights or protecting the heckin niggerinos.

that brings up a good point though, how often are we using the crazy shit politicans say once in a long career as proof of ideas they hold their entire life, we all know how we feel about biden now but in the 2100s how will they judge him? especially considering how different his views were in the 1980s vs now and what policies he's shoving down people's thorats.

The post WWII narrative that Hitler was totally militarily incompetent when in some instances he had the correct instincts and his generals complained.

another good one is how Hitler's book is so boring and dumb and we shouldn't read it. I heard plenty of kikes say that, same with his speeches which is why they never translated them on history channel.

 

[ICametoLurk]

all the buildings currently at Teotihuacan are modern reconstructions and are just less than 100 years old and this fact is obscured or excluded from almost every article about the site

there seems to be some kind of connection between that project and the Mexican Revolution

https://www.iccrom.org/sites/defaul...2021-04/convern9_04_02_earroyoszetina_eng.pdf

Apparently in Mexico this revision was done under the direction of the Escuela Nacional Preparatoria which was a newly privatized college which began practicing destructive historical revisionism on basically every front imaginable. It wasn't just the ruins that were rebuild in some cases, it was national monuments that were "improved".

In Mexico, the reconstruction of historical heritage coincides with what Nicholas StanleyPrice points out about the weight of the notion of national symbolic value for the recovery, reinterpretation, and reinvention of buildings, part of a political propaganda program that champions contemporary positions through the remembrance of convenient passages in history. The reconstructions that began in the decades of 1920-1930 were based rather on the idea of the defense of miscegenation as the foundational basis of Mexican society. The larger works of the post-revolutionary cultural project of José Vasconcelos resorted to the neo-Colonial style or alternatively contemplated the adaptation and reconstruction in style as a symbol of the hybrid nation, such as in the building of the Ministry of Public Education and the Colegio de San Pedro y San Pablo, to give paradigmatic examples

Basically all those ruins you see in Latin America that are fixed up was to make people race-mix so instead of separate races you had a BLOB whose only ties were to the Nation-State, which is a Spook (exists as much as a ghost). You know, so they don't have the problems that the Soviet Union had which was everyone was a nationalist in like Estonia, Ukraine, Lativa, and etc.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

The whole "we're a nation of immigrants" that gets uses when talking about the UK and US, the circumstances for each country obviously differs but it has the same kind of goal to push the idea that as a citizen and native of either country you can't argue against immigration.

There was at some point a deliberate push to rebrand American identity around Ellis Island style immigrant stories instead of pioneers and colonists like it used to be.

Related to it is something not exactly revisionist but similar, the National mythos of the USA prioritizes colonial New England way more than the colonial South. The Pilgrims, for example, get way more play than Jamestown (a lot of people seem to think we’re all descended from the Pilgrims or that they were the first, if you’re not from out of that region THEYRE NOT YOUR HERITAGE), the first five Presidents we’re Virginian, the American Revolution was predecessed by an insurrection in North Carolina, and the war was decided by campaigns in the Carolinas and Virginia. It is like the collective memory at a national level totally shoved aside the entire colonial Southern experience and wrote over it a completely urban Northeastern perspective.

 

[teriyakiburns]

"The EU prevented another war in Europe".

It did shit. The EU didn't even exist until Maastricht, when its institutions were formalised. It was a technocratic solution to prevent repeat of the great war by forcing artificial trade dependence between the nations of europe, but its kernel (the coal and steel union) wasn't implemented until the late 50s, when the problem had already been obviated by the destruction of intra-European trade barriers in the aftermath of world war 2. Everything it claims as its own achievement was done by others. ECHR? Not the EU. The European Space Agency? Absorbed by the EU when it became politically convenient. Increased intracontinental trade? The EEA and the EFTA, one or the other of which most of the early member states already joined before joining the then EEC. All the EU really does is act as a translation service for the various international standards committees, whilst also preventing its members having any say in the operation of those committees, outside of the EU common position.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Almost anything related to Abraham Lincoln. I will preface this by saying that no, I'm not a butthurt lost causer, and yes, the South was largely fighting to keep slavery legal. This isn't about the Civil War, but about how Lincoln is portrayed today vs who he actually was.

Lincoln is used as a tool to teach modern 21st century values, and his role is quasi-religious. Slavery is treated like America's original sin, and Lincoln died to free us from that sin. There's a narrative that Lincoln spent his life opposing slavery on humanitarian grounds and that he was in favor of racial equality. That narrative is largely fictional.

The real Lincoln was a corporate railroad lawyer before entering politics. He openly said his primary motive in the Civil War was keeping the Union together, (this quote is commonly repeated by lost causers to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery), and in the same quote said that he didn't particularly care about slavery beyond how it would affect American unity. He also considered whites to be superior and blacks to be inferiors, believed that equality wasn't possible, and integration was undesireable, and because of this wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa. In line with this, his oposition to slavery (less staunch than often claimed) was less motiviated by humaitarianism and more motivated by a desire to protect the economic interests of ‘Free White Labour’. If you want to get a bit politispergy, he had one of the largest paramilitary organizations in America’s history(The Wide Awakes), who jailed journalists for reporting negative things.

THAT Lincoln, the man who made Trump look like a respecter of his critics, the man would be considered horrifically racist by today's standards, is so far away from the "Great Emancipator" Lincoln presented in the modern narrative, its absurd. The whitewashing of Lincoln is imo one of the best examples of revisionism in American history.

Like I said, I'm not a lost causer and the Confederacy had plenty of grounds for crticism, to put it mildly. That doesn't justify Lincoln being deified and protrayed in popular consciousness as a figure that he never was in reality.

A sort of revisionist stance that's gotten really common is associating Confederate ideology with fascism (and also distancing it, which bland normie conservatives do too, from American republicanism and liberalism in general) just because it's racist, as if that were a necessary characteristic of fascism (it's not) or equivalent to it.

In reality, the closest equivalent to the Southern worldview was something like Roman republicanism (the existence of slavery makes liberty more meaningful, and slavery is necessary to sustain a leisure class capable of politicking; the Southern planter, who tended to dabble in law or medicine or military service, was more like the Roman aristocrat than anything else). The Union, on the other hand, had similarities to fascism with its strong Yankee nationalism, protectionism, corporatist (state subsidizes the industry, works with the banks) economy. There's a reason nationalists and fascists the world over admired Lincoln. It wasn't fascist, but if a person is going to slap retarded labels on things then it's the Union that fits it better, the Confederacy was its own bizarre and unique thing.

I've heard people talk about Southern ideology like they didn't understand liberalism, no they didn't misunderstand it you condescending twat, they had a completely different version of it.



SOME OTHERS
Again, not actual revisionism, but more like revisionism-by-omission: Jonestown gets a lot of play either as a Christian cult or as a generic cult, and in popular memory it's very rarely remembered as having been a Communist movement that fused with the San Francisco machine. I feel like it's sometimes used to make points about muh religion when it was in reality very little to do with Christianity or the Bible by the time it took off.

Popular memory also whitewashed the hippies completely, they had a very aggressive, violent, criminal tinge to them. Their peaceful nature was a pose, not reality.

The way Leftists have become associated with the party of science is baffling and probably driven mostly by dumbass creationists, because pretty much every fucking technology (especially agricultural) except green they've been opposed to, and they did nothing but bitch about the Space Race.

There seems to be this big shift to give Blacks credit for absolutely everything in music (like with everything else in this world), and also to cast it like some antagonistic thing that White musicians "stole" their music. Usually it's just jokes, implying there'd be some resentment about people like Elvis Presley, but I find it very disrespectful because those people got their music from hanging out with Blacks at a time when that was not approved of. It also dramatically understates the importance of the White instruments, music theory, and genres that enabled it and the huge Jewish role (you could probably argue jazz is as much Yiddish as it is Black).

Schrodinger's Racist, a phenomenon in which all the racism in the US exists in the South except for when it's politically important to remember that discrimination was widespread in the North too. (The North is not racist and the South is, except the country is entirely racist everywhere: the contradiction.) I rant about this frequently.

This obnoxious trend where people portray the Fifties black-and-white TV style family as socially dysfunctional and repressed MORE than the modern American family, it's like this form of projection where the modern man says "well if I can't see your degeneracy you must just be hiding it and even more degenerate than me."

 

[The Great Chandler]

Whenever the medieval European times gets painted as a predominantly uneducated shithole were childhood did not exist and people were covered in turd smears with no hygiene whatsoever. Monty Python was making a joke, not a statement!

 

[DJ Grelle]

Everything written by an anglo must be taken with the annual production of an entire salt mine. Their actions themselves aren't that much worse than other nations', but at least those others admit to it with a certain pragmatism. The anglo upper class cloak their duplicity and downright immoral behavior in "liberty" and "human rights".

The equating of social progress with technical progress. Simply a baseless claim.

What the public thinks of as feudal government/structure is just the enlightenment spergout about it. Most of it is retarded and wrong. The idea that we are returning to a feudal system is retarded.

Practically all colonialism was done with the support of a majority of the local population. It simply was not doable otherwise. The idea that the colonial europeans were some hate-filled bunch who were motivated solely by white supremacism is gigantic cope for the fact that europeans were just better rulers than a lot of the local chiefs and kings. Even today; western states are better organized than much of the rest of the world.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

Salvador Allende being a good boy who dindu nuffin and Pinochet unjustly ending his good government.
And the whole thing about the "mapuche conflict". It was solved by Pinochet back then (he was even named their "Futa Lonco" aka their maximum authority) and the ones causing all the current shitshow don't even want to acknowledge that. Do you want to know why Araucanía and Bío-Bío regions tend to vote for the right? Because of him.
View attachment 3502293View attachment 3502294View attachment 3502321

I'm gonna add something interesting, now you're talking about that country:
Mapuches actually are genocidal pieces of shit, they're not from Chile, they're from Argentina.
Shit like that never gonna appear in nowadays historical books, but actually makes sense about why Pehuenches and Picunches (both actual native people from the central-south of Chile) doesn't even fucking exist in these days.

 

[Eydallur]

The truth of the historical record that contributed greatly to uncle Adolf's animosity towards hebrews and resolve to invade the soviet union is something that is only ever accounted for in bits and pieces and to gain any sort of accurate insight you've got to read at minimum half a dozen works that each include some portion of the whole. I don't know if this is the result of outright deception or if it's just viewed as too much work to go through every major event of the early 20'th century but the end result is a monstrous lie by omission.

The russian revolution and the wars and famines that followed, the first world war and the german home front, the spartacist uprising, the failed bavarian soviet republic, to not include all of these events when retelling the history of the second world war is understandable but to not include any or at least make reference to them as a way for the reader to be able to understand why the moustachio'd madman made the decisions he did is frankly unforgivable.

 

[Brain Power]

I'm gonna add something interesting, now you're talking about that country:
Mapuches actually are genocidal pieces of shit, they're not from Chile, they're from Argentina.
Shit like that never gonna appear in nowadays historical books, but actually makes sense about why Pehuenches and Picunches (both actual native people from the central-south of Chile) doesn't even fucking exist in these days.

Not even Argentina, they supposedly have more in common with tribes from BRAZIL. Not even their language is related to other ones from the area they claim they inhabited. Wallmapu never even existed, hell, I AM from center-south Chile and I never heard of that thing until I was a teenager. Hector Llaitul is not even mapuche, his last name is from another -che tribe. And picunches, the only time I read that name was in Papelucho, not even a history book.

 

[Ser Prize]

There was at some point a deliberate push to rebrand American identity around Ellis Island style immigrant stories instead of pioneers and colonists like it used to be.

Related to it is something not exactly revisionist but similar, the National mythos of the USA prioritizes colonial New England way more than the colonial South. The Pilgrims, for example, get way more play than Jamestown (a lot of people seem to think we’re all descended from the Pilgrims or that they were the first, if you’re not from out of that region THEYRE NOT YOUR HERITAGE), the first five Presidents we’re Virginian, the American Revolution was predecessed by an insurrection in North Carolina, and the war was decided by campaigns in the Carolinas and Virginia. It is like the collective memory at a national level totally shoved aside the entire colonial Southern experience and wrote over it a completely urban Northeastern perspective.

People always talk the hard working immigrant but forget the pioneers that broke land for those ports. I think it's because they want to sever all cultural ties, like they apparently did in Mexico.

 

[Moja Zemlja]

People always talk the hard working immigrant but forget the pioneers that broke land for those ports. I think it's because they want to sever all cultural ties, like they apparently did in Mexico.

Isn't it in part because of muh natives? People don't like the idea that the colonists and later Americans conquered the land and took it from the natives.

 

[verissimus]

Everything written by an anglo must be taken with the annual production of an entire salt mine.

I'd say it depends on whether the Anglo is an "academic" or not usually. For example, I have read a few military history books written by English authors that were great. Instead or pretentious prose, the authors usually settled for a little wit here and there and usually these writers tend to get right to the point. Academic English writers tend to be the opposite and often clearly Left-wing.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

People conflating the pre-Islamic Arab eunuchs with transgenders and making it seem like it continued to be an accepted practice. Also the idea that one day people just woke up and decided to hate jews.

 

[History Speaks]

World War II revisionism is pretty dumb. By which I mean the idea that the outbreak of war was the Western Allies' fault, or that the US (or Britain or France) should have stayed out of the war (I exclude Holocaust denial from this because it does not even deserve to be called revisionism).

WWII revisionists proceed by debunking wartime propaganda that historians have debunked long ago—e.g. the idea that the Nazis wanted war with Britain, France, and the US—and acting as if they have contributed some novel insight. Because they typically have not read any books—with a few exceptions—they act as if historians today believe Hitler wanted to conquer New York, because newspaper cartoons may have said this in 1942.

But they always ignore or obscure the fact that the Nazis did intend aggressive war and mass genocide in the East, not just of Jews but of gentile Poles and Russians, whom they considered sub-human. (By the way even in OT where the Nazis were defeated, they not only murdered 5 to 6 million Jewish civilians but murdered millions of Polish and Russians noncombatants, and enslaved or ethnically cleansed millions more. They razed hundreds of Polish villages and the Polish capital of Warsaw out of spite. For their plans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost).

"Non-intervention" in WorldWar II by the West would have meant acquiescing to the destruction of multiple ethnic groups, the reintroduction of ethnic-based slavery in Europe, and many tens of millions of civilian deaths caused by Nazi racial mania. It also would have meant the entrenchment of Nazi dominance of continental Europe and Hitler getting nukes post-war. No thanks.

Also, though I do agree with revisionists that Hitler wanted to avoid war with the US and war could have been avoided if the US had not given massive material aid to the British, ultimately Hitler did (stupidly) declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, so there was nothing left to do but destroy him at that point.

 

[The-Patriarchy]

1619 project.

 

[History Speaks]

The post WWII narrative that Hitler was totally militarily incompetent when in some instances he had the correct instincts and his generals complained.

And here we have (at best) a Fedora-tipper.

Hitler was a disastrous military commander. His LARPing as a warlord and refusing to allow a retreat from Stalingrad—because manliness—led to the destruction of an entire army.

In mid 1943 He sabotaged the construction of the jet-powered ME-262 as a fighter designed to shoot allied bombers. (It could have made a real difference in that regard, since it was the first jet-powered fighter aircraft, could therefore easily outperform the Allied fighters that escorted Allied bombers which as we all know decimated Germany.) Instead he wanted to make it a bomber, because revenge, even though by the end of the war Luftwaffe was in no position whatever to wage a serious bombing campaign against Britain.

Declaring war on the United States was incredibly stupid. Yes the US was acting in a profoundly hostile fashion to Germany, with its massive shipments of critical material to the British and Soviets. But the only sane thing Hitler could do was sit down and tolerate this abuse, because a war with the manufacturing titan USA (ìn addition to Germany's ongoing, stalled wars with the USSR and Britain) would mean certain doom for Germany. Instead he got in a LARPy mood after Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US impulsively, without even negotiating with Japan first to get them to declare war on the USSR in return.

And do not forget invading Russia without adequate winter clothes, one of the normie few history memes that is basically accurate.

Hitler's generals were under no political pressure to portray him as a strategic idiot in their postwar memoirs—the typical propaganda image of him was that of a demonic genius, if they went with that line nobody would have been mad at them—but they consistently did portray him as a strategic idiot.

 

[Radola Gajda]

Whenever the medieval European times gets painted as a predominantly uneducated shithole were childhood did not exist and people were covered in turd smears with no hygiene whatsoever. Monty Python was making a joke, not a statement!

Yeah and for entire millenium everyone in Europe sat on their asses and did nothing to change it until glorious renesance happened .