Read on Twitter
One thing I tried to get across talking about Woodrow Wilson was that, in spite of everything else you may personally hate about him, and there is a lot, his image of the all powerful executive and the reconciliation history he presents in History of American People was https://twitter.com/NuclearAbsolut/status/1340461268998733826
the closest to an ideology and historiography of American Caesarism forging post Civil War regional and ethnic groups into consolidation into all-American nation. Both FDR and Huey Long ultimately worked within the domestic framework of ending legislative and court government.
Unfortunately, it was the Wilson’s Internationalists with a Messianic vision who won. They would use this vision of world governing progressive institutions to expand control and subvert nations it had decided to more extensively satellite. This was their take away from 1919
In a large way it’s easier historiographically to separate from this idea of America and create “survival” narratives of subgroups from the right than it is to find out a way to square the circle of post 1945/68US with what came before. It’s hard to make a rw continuity narrative
As I’ve said before, the English language itself and the English vocabulary of peoplehood have a unique cultural poverty that makes this even harder to facilitate on a mass level, especially with the hollowing out of meaningful core culture on top of historical multiplicity.
Americans have to work with a concept of race, or failing that, define an ethnogenesis that occurred a certain year, or must yet still occur since the American polity has committed to national annihilation on top of the older policy of regional ethnic annihilation.
The USA did not have a Nicholas I and Official Nationality Policy, it did not get its Long Dictatorship nor even a FDR II. Its government more than likely won’t get anything like these again until the polity is under real stress. & this likely won’t be ideal for ethnic Americans.
So if the US rw is to have a futurism, and not fracture into separate “survival” sub histories it has to be ancient. Not Roman, not even Anglo, but Brithonic. The foundation of America must be the Beaker Folk and stress this continuity and push it with as much fervor as Turks.
There is only one America, the Colonial America, and before it the Insular West Atlantic America, the Brithonic America which continued from the invasions of 2200BC and is larger than the partisan short sidedness of its previous official founders. Osman inferior to Gokturks.
The wars of the 17th and 18th century must be rediscovered in this historiography. The Revolution put aside and the largest defining US political genesis made into the actions of the War and irregular conflict with France and Spain.
This is probably all very unlikely. I think the RW US history takes will likely follow the 1619 path or the Post Imperial Historical School in Britain. That is, the coming apart of the empire and division into survival nations. I don’t realistically see American Kemalism imposed.
But, if you had the power and you wanted to give a precedence to the historical American people, you’d have to define what a Turk is, you’d have to make up for the fact no autocrat ever defined the nation and enforced that historical outlook in propaganda.
Don’t take this thread too seriously.
Wanted to express a problem. I’ve thought about in the problems of American regional ethnic versus All American national history craft. And how insufficient the previous myths of national history have become.
Wanted to express a problem. I’ve thought about in the problems of American regional ethnic versus All American national history craft. And how insufficient the previous myths of national history have become.
