That’s so “1984”: Thinkpol in the Classrooms

"We should recall that the anathema of being 'antihistorical' and 'outside of history' is a cast against those who still remember the way things were before and who call subversion by its name, instead of conforming to the processes that are precipitating the world's decline." -Julius Evola

“We should recall that the anathema of being ‘antihistorical’ and ‘outside of history’ is a cast against those who still remember the way things were before and who call subversion by its name, instead of conforming to the processes that are precipitating the world’s decline.” -Julius Evola

“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.


James Bulls

Your assertion that GLBTQ people are poorly-adjusted is another way of calling them mentally ill and invalidating their right to equal treatment at work, home, and in the community. Your claims are the exact reason why this sort of legislation is required. Non-hetero sexual orientations have been observed for hundreds of years in tens of dozens of different species, and GLBTQ preferences are judged by the American Psychiatric Association as a natural variation of human behavior – not a mental illness, not a cause for discrimination.


Homosexuality is caused by an excess of heavy metals such as mercury and lead in the environment. Unfortunately it is not likely to be reversible in most individuals because it is caused by mercury/lead action upon fetuses while they are still developing in the uterus.

I agree that homosexuals should not be given less rights simply for being homosexual because they did not choose their condition and there’s nothing that can be done about it.

My problem with the bill is the part about “gender identity”. There is no way for an individual to change their sex, thus there can be no such thing as a “transsexual” (the ‘T’ in GLBT, and what the ‘gender identity’ portion of the bill is supposed to address).

Each human individual is male if their DNA contains a Y chromosome, female if not. That is the accepted scientific definition. The only way in which an individual could possibly become a “transsexual” is if you inserted or removed the Y chromosome from all 10 trillion of an individual’s cells, an impossible task.

The law denies reality. It attempts to compel people to lie to themselves and others about the definition of male and female.

GLBTQ preferences are judged by the American Psychiatric Association as a natural variation of human behavior – not a mental illness

Which just goes to show you that if we as scientists had been truthful about the reality that homosexuality is indeed a mental illness caused by heavy metals, there would have been a world of difference in the way this issue is treated in this country. There would have been an outpouring of compassion towards homosexuals and a vast effort (which is sorely needed) to get the heavy metals out of the environment, but in no way would homosexual behavior have been “normalized” the way it is today.


A lot of homosexuals are very odd people with some sort of attitude problem. Not so much an entitlement problem, more like a resentment issue of other not “comfortable” or “tolerant” of their ways. Just look at the gay pride parade, it always comes with gays in awkward outfits, dildos strapped to their body even. They’re not the most level headed normal people you have conjured up in your head.

I don’t even think discriminating against the gay community is an overwhelming issue at all, not nearly enough to pass a law. Natural not normal to me the gay community is.

This all from experience of actually knowing a lot of homosexuals, male and female.

James Bulls

@ Dustin: If you can show me a peer-reviewed study published in a recognized academic journal on the effects of heavy metal poisoning in adolescent and adult humans relative to the frequency of non-heteronormative sexual preferences and behavior, I’d love to see it. Oh, and birds don’t count because they’re obviously not human. And vaccine studies don’t count either because vaccines don’t cause non-heterosexuality (or autism, for that matter.)


“Non-hetero sexual orientations have been observed for hundreds of years in tens of dozens of different species, …”

“Oh, and birds don’t count because they’re obviously not human.”

Consistency is something you need to work on with this argument. You can’t use “animal nature” as a defense for homosexuality in humans in one statement, and then say a person can’t draw inferences in the other direction to argue against homosexuality. That’s what we call a contradiction.

James Bulls

I’m referring to the 2010 report that mercury poisoning in ibises produces homosexual behavior. It’s also irrelevant because mercury causes a laundry list of other things such as blindness, loss of hair and nails, loss of motor function, and mania. Don’t jump in the middle if you’re not up to speed.


Great article Tom! I think too many people view history as a formula like in math. It’s really an art in a way. Evola always is very excellent. Where in his books does he talk about this stuff ?


Thanks, Andrew. I pulled from sections about Historicism in his book Men Among the Ruins. The chapters were “History – Historicism” and “Choice of Traditions.” As with most of his material, I could write all day on a single chapter alone, but I find it to be a better use of my time to take one or two key concepts form his writing and then try to synthesize that into something for the web audience.


Thanks, that books has been on my list for a while now. “Ride The Tiger” and “Revolt Against the Modern World” are excellent as well.


One of the main problems with the South in the 1950s is that the ideology (in so far as there was one) of the resistance was generally Anglo-American liberalism fused with crude biological reductionism. Evola is certainly an antidote to that.

Leave a Reply