Fascinating essay:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/01/is_it_finally_dawning_on_the_collectivist_left_that_they_are_on_the_wrong_side_of_history.html

It should be obvious that those who always lie and use force to achieve their goals are in the wrong. Most people don't l pay enough attention or think.

"These are collectivists who have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to make any headway, and it's becoming clear to everyone else who and what they are."

The leaders probably realize that they are.

However, they also realize that their sheep will eat up whatever they feed to them. Especially if you keep their attention focused on a new topic every few weeks or so.

So they know they can keep lying and create the narrative they want and the idiots that support them will continue to eat it up. At least for the foreseeable future.

The fascist propaganda ministry (aka msm) helps them greatly.

History is written by the winners.

And current demographic trends favorite our ever growing host of underachievers.

Advantage to the leftists / Democrats

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

There is a reason much of the energy of the left is spent on rewriting history.

---

in crayon, with bad spelling and profanity.

Not always. For decades, the Civil War was told in a way to the South. And there are historians who will look at events from different perspectives. These can be quite valuable.

historian said:

---

The fascist propaganda ministry (aka msm) helps them greatly.

---

since it is impossible for you to use "fascist" in every sentence. Ironically, you are a teacher and you should know the definition. Just because someone thinks differently than you and your maga turds, does not make them a fascist. Trump is the effing fascist teacher man! plain and effing simple. Maga is horrific.

historian said:

---

Not always. For decades, the Civil War was told in a way to the South. And there are historians who will look at events from different perspectives. These can be quite valuable.

---

You have got to be kidding.

The Civil War has always been taught in schools from the northern perspective. Lincoln has been elevated to sainthood while Davis has been vilified. Most historians know of the horrors of Andersonville by heart, but the appalling conditions of northern prison camps are ignored.

I do know the definition and use it correctly. One clue as to its incorrect usage is when it's connected to TDS. People with TDS tend to have many difficulties functioning in normal society or thinking clearly. This is illustrated every time they speak in public or post online.

It's taught that way now but that did not become prominent until well into the 20th century. The "Lost Cause" myth predominated at first. The antebellum South was romanticized in our culture too, as something noble and admirable. The novel and film, Gone With the Wind are prominent examples.

historian said:

---

It's taught that way now but that did not become prominent until well into the 20th century. The "Lost Cause" myth predominated at first. The antebellum South was romanticized in our culture too, as something noble and admirable. The novel and film, Gone With the Wind are prominent examples.

---

You are confusing one movie; Gone With the Wind, for every piece of anti South propaganda that began with the horrors of Reconstruction , through the Civil Rights Movement slanted media representations , right until today.

Winners write the histories, always have.

Ask any German who managed to survive the Russian imposed ethnic cleansing following the end of WW2.

As I said, much of the history of the Civil War in the immediate aftermath was pro-southern or at least more sympathetic. The past 50 years give or take have provided a more balanced perspective, mostly hostile to the southern position. Funny how that change coincided with the Civil Rights movement.

historian said:

---

Fascinating essay:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/01/is_it_finally_dawning_on_the_collectivist_left_that_they_are_on_the_wrong_side_of_history.html

It should be obvious that those who always lie and use force to achieve their goals are in the wrong. Most people don't l pay enough attention or think.

---

who is "the left" teacher man? I don't know anyone by the name of left. Lefty, yes, but left, no. what do it mean, yo?

historian said:

---

As I said, much of the history of the Civil War in the immediate aftermath was pro-southern or at least more sympathetic. The past 50 years give or take have provided a more balanced perspective, mostly hostile to the southern position. Funny how that change coincided with the Civil Rights movement.

---

Good grief……the vast majority of the publishing companies have always been in the North. Really think they would have made money attempting to sell books sympathetic to the South to a northern constituency who had just endured 500,00 casualties ?

I did not analyze the economics of it. I'm stating the reality of historical scholarship over the past 160+ years.

The Left - Right political descriptors go back to the French Revolution and was literal about where representatives sat in the chamber. Obviously, the meaning has changed over time.

The modern Left in the US is pretty clear most of the time based on their actions: voting patterns, insane & evil policies, public temper tantrums (ie Minnesota), TDS, and so on. In other words, they are fascists.

historian said:

---

I did not analyze the economics of it. I'm stating the reality of historical scholarship over the past 160+ years.

---

Your 'reality' is totally subjective to your upbringing outside of the Deep South.

Most of my life has been in Texas, technically still part of the "South" and a former member of the Confederacy.

Historians are often subjective, since humans are, but the historiography isn't.

historian said:

---

Most of my life has been in Texas, technically still part of the "South" and a former member of the Confederacy.

Historians are often subjective, since humans are, but the historiography isn't.

---

Always thought of Texas as being part of the South until we moved to Alabama in 1966.

Where I was informed by the locals that Texas was 'ok' however not really a southern state.

All written history is subjective.

historian said:

---

I do know the definition and use it correctly. One clue as to its incorrect usage is when it's connected to TDS. People with TDS tend to have many difficulties functioning in normal society or thinking clearly. This is illustrated every time they speak in public or post online.

---

teacher man. just stop. Nobody cares about this TDS thing. Tired and really dumb kinda like you, govt employee! How's that govt cheddar? if you are a teacher anywhere other than a private school, you are a govt employee. Ironc, don't you think Dr. Maga?

Porteroso said:

---

History will not be kind to either party. Current politics will be portrayed as an almost satirical reenactment of cave men era tribalism.

---

I am curious about what is driving the extreme tribalism. I think there are a few drivers:

1. Disinformation / lack or real journalism - not sure we have ever seen the level of intentional, coordinated disinformation and complete collapse of traditional journalism. So much of what gets people angry is simply not true.

2. Social media - amplifies more divisive, stupid voices.

3. Decline of religion - as fewer are actively religious, politics are really filled the holes in their hearts. It is not an accident that many act like religious fundamentalists and see the world through an "in group / out group" lens.

"The American Thinker" is the conservative counterpoint to the liberal "Huffington Post".

Midnight Rider said:

---

"The American Thinker" is the conservative counterpoint to the liberal "Huffington Post".

---

I really do not read so-called "conservative" media, but is the level of disinformation and disinterest in basic journalism to the same level of oligarch media?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

History will not be kind to either party. Current politics will be portrayed as an almost satirical reenactment of cave men era tribalism.

---

I am curious about what is driving the extreme tribalism. I think there are a few drivers:

1. Disinformation / lack or real journalism - not sure we have ever seen the level of intentional, coordinated disinformation and complete collapse of traditional journalism. So much of what gets people angry is simply not true.

2. Social media - amplifies more divisive, stupid voices.

3. Decline of religion - as fewer are actively religious, politics are really filled the holes in their hearts. It is not an accident that many act like religious fundamentalists and see the world through an "in group / out group" lens.

---

You paint journalism a little differently than I do. I agree real journalism is disappearing, but it's because it is more and more monetized. They can't just get you to subscribe to the daily paper, they need you to click a headline then stay on their website long enough to charge their advertisers money. Or they need their ratings to be good enough to sell prime ad slots for prime money. They dont have the built in base they used to, they have to lure you in.

And what better way than keep you enraged? Just look at the headlines. They are not for the calm, I intelligent, reasonable person. They are meant to stimulate as much rage and/or interest in as few words as possible. Maybe even stoke a little victimization fire.

It is not coordinated, though on some level you do wonder, given how few Americans control the flow of information. But no, I think it is purely the love of money, and the times changing.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

History will not be kind to either party. Current politics will be portrayed as an almost satirical reenactment of cave men era tribalism.

---

I am curious about what is driving the extreme tribalism. I think there are a few drivers:

1. Disinformation / lack or real journalism - not sure we have ever seen the level of intentional, coordinated disinformation and complete collapse of traditional journalism. So much of what gets people angry is simply not true.

2. Social media - amplifies more divisive, stupid voices.

3. Decline of religion - as fewer are actively religious, politics are really filled the holes in their hearts. It is not an accident that many act like religious fundamentalists and see the world through an "in group / out group" lens.

---

You paint journalism a little differently than I do. I agree real journalism is disappearing, but it's because it is more and more monetized. They can't just get you to subscribe to the daily paper, they need you to click a headline then stay on their website long enough to charge their advertisers money. Or they need their ratings to be good enough to sell prime ad slots for prime money. They dont have the built in base they used to, they have to lure you in.

And what better way than keep you enraged? Just look at the headlines. They are not for the calm, I intelligent, reasonable person. They are meant to stimulate as much rage and/or interest in as few words as possible. Maybe even stoke a little victimization fire.

It is not coordinated, though on some level you do wonder, given how few Americans control the flow of information. But no, I think it is purely the love of money, and the times changing.

---

The current environment feels more like the "yellow journalism" period of the late 19th / early 20th centuries. I suppose there was a time where we actually had some sort of serious journalism in the country, but between Didn't Earn It and brazen political agendas that is long gone; although, profit has always been a motive. I suppose at one time the thought was actual journalism drove profit but today disinformation is where the money lies. While I cannot provide clear proof of coordination, the way the same talking points get laundered through all the oligarch media identically, it is really tough to believe they are not either intentionally coordinating or just copy one another - and it is not a a coincidence that those talking points almost always are identical to Democrat party talking points.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Most of my life has been in Texas, technically still part of the "South" and a former member of the Confederacy.

Historians are often subjective, since humans are, but the historiography isn't.

---

Always thought of Texas as being part of the South until we moved to Alabama in 1966.

Where I was informed by the locals that Texas was 'ok' however not really a southern state.

All written history is subjective.

---

Of course written history is subjective. So is almost everything else. Texas is not part of the Deep South but neither is West Virginia or Missouri and they were slave states. One might argue that Virginia is not part of the "Deep South" and it had the capital of the confederacy. I guess it all depends on how one defines the south.

My post was not about such nuances. It was about the early historiography of the Civil War.

The demise of print journalism is as much due to the Leftist propaganda they routinely publish as it is to the growing number of more credible alternatives available online. The two are interrelated. Strangely, most people get their news from social media which is often less reliable than the MSM. Or so I've read.

historian said:

---

The d Ed miss of print journalism is as much due to the Leftist propaganda they routinely publish as it is to the growing number of more credible alternatives available online. The two are interrelated. Strangely, most people get their news from social media which is often less reliable than the MSM. Or so I've read.

---

I am surprised by papers like The Dallas Morning News rather than refocusing on quality journalism doubled down on Didn't Earn It and left-wing propaganda. That's not the primary reason it is basically defunct but it does not help. Every journalist I see in the news section is a Didn't Earn It from some junior college, and it shows in the quality of the writing. Many don't even know basic journalism.

The same is true of every major & minor mainstream news outlet, regardless of medium. This includes the so-called elites. The three out any standard of integrity long ago, if they ever really had any. The Pulitzer is now about who has the boldest fascist lies instead of anything about real journalism. They all act like they graduated from the Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism because their only real skills involve rank propaganda. Heck, many have trouble with basic grammar!

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Not always. For decades, the Civil War was told in a way to the South. And there are historians who will look at events from different perspectives. These can be quite valuable.

---

You have got to be kidding.

The Civil War has always been taught in schools from the northern perspective. Lincoln has been elevated to sainthood while Davis has been vilified. Most historians know of the horrors of Andersonville by heart, but the appalling conditions of northern prison camps are ignored.

---

Depends on where you are from/ what school you are looking at.

I would say for over 100 years in southern schools the civil war would have been taught very differently than how it was right in northern schools.

For the next 50 years I would say it slowly started to change.

I know here in TX I had one history teacher that taught it from a very "southern view" even using the term "war of northern aggression " and one who taught it as history and was very objective in their presentation of the facts.

So I wouldn't say it has been taught by the textbook companies/publishing companies as favorable for the south but rather that way in the south by southern teachers. But I'm sure in the north it has always been taught in favor of the north.