I’m beginning to think I need to start a new “Max’s Musings”-like series dedicated just to refuting the Left’s attempts to talk history, which they’re so bad at. That’s because leftists view history entirely through an ideological lens. Any time you try to make something fit a fixed set of beliefs and worldviews, rewriting history is inevitable. This needs to be pushed back against, especially if leftists claim to be speaking with academic authority, since they’re The Most Educated People To Ever Live.
It’s up to us to expose their ignorance.
Alonso Gurmendi, quickly becoming a contender for The King Of Bad Takes, delivers another:
Alonso Gurmendi@Alonso_GD
“Walsh” literally comes from wælisc, a term used by the Irish to refer to Welsh immigrants that arrived with the Norman invasion in the 12th Century CE. To be a “Walsh” literally meant to be a “foreigner”. It doesn’t get more absurd than this
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
The actual “birthright” belongs to my children, and the children of all real Americans. They have a birthright to live in a country that resembles the one our ancestors established. And now that birthright, the only true birthright, has been destroyed in favor of the imagined
5:24 PM · Jun 30, 2026 · 17.7K Views
7 Replies · 73 Reposts · 738 Likes
If you want to go back nine centuries to prove a point, it’s more than fair to point out that migration and demographic change almost never happened peacefully for the vast majority of human history. It’s not happening peacefully now, either, not really.
Anyway, why would it matter what happened nine centuries ago? Aren’t liberals about a better way? If so, shouldn’t immigration restriction be considered a better way, given that migration has been the norm throughout history and it’s seldom happened peacefully? Wouldn’t that mean restricting immigration would be more aligned with our better angels, more progressive, as it were?
The problem with so many of the Left’s historical takes is that they go so far back in time as to be meaningless, even when factually accurate. I’ve discussed this at length once before. This is because they’re not trying to actually win the argument. They’re trying to make it impossible for the argument to be had in the first place.
Think about it: if you can prove, through history, that mass immigration and demographic replacement is perfectly normal, if you want to cite the Norman invasion of 1066, to argue against immigration restrictionism, then you’re effectively trying to convince people to come to terms with the fact they’re being invaded and to not put up a fight. What happened before must happen again, no?
The problem, of course, is they don’t apply this principle consistently (surprise!). Liberals leave out how violent migration and demographic replacement was throughout history, even today. Liberals certainly would argue against returning to slavery, despite its universality throughout human societies across the world, over time.
When it comes to history, the only consideration for the Left is this: how can I make it suit the ideology?
Actor and Latino nationalist John Leguizamo rages over the impact colonial imperialism had on his people:
Breitbart News@BreitbartNews
"The Odyssey" star John Leguizamo: "The cultural annihilation that happened to Latin people is the worst in the history of the world. The theft of all our wealth and gold. And our gold funded the second half of the Renaissance... 500,000 tons of gold that was taken from us."
2:28 PM · Jul 7, 2026 · 2.11M Views
3.42K Replies · 205 Reposts · 1.97K Likes
Despite it’s origins within academia, anti-colonialism and Third Worldism are both based off some of the worst history, worst science imaginable. They truly are low-intellect ideologies and make its adherents retarded, including Leguizamo. How retarded is he being here?
500,000 tons comes out to no less than one billion pounds. Read that again: one billion pounds. Even over a century or two’s time, that’s an unfathomable amount of gold that would’ve been impossible to ship across the Atlantic. Most galleons, which were made entirely of wood, were only 500 to 1,000 tons. Considering how much men and material they needed to be able to ship across the Atlantic Ocean, that doesn’t leave much room for something as heavy as gold. Scholarship suggests the amount of gold Spain took from its colonies, at least during the period of time Leguizamo references, comes out to a more reasonable 180 tons, which is still a massive amount.
You have to wonder: is Leguizamo stupid? Or does he think everyone else is stupid? I think it’s a blend of both, but I also think it’s more the latter. The thing stupid people all have in common is that they all think they’re smarter than everyone else. All you can do is refute these people publicly. They cannot be intellectually engaged because they’re ideologues and history exists to fit their ideology. Also, you can’t debate stupid people. I don’t recommend you try.
Perhaps what’s truly insufferable about anti-colonialists and Third Worlders is how most of them live in the West and lead very privileged lives, yet still feel the need to be oppressed by the weight of their own history:
wanye@xwanyex
Liberals ridicule heritage Americans for pride in their ancestors, but adopting your ancestors’ grievances (and inventing fake new ones on their behalf) is hundreds of times more pathetic
Breitbart News @BreitbartNews
"The Odyssey" star John Leguizamo: "The cultural annihilation that happened to Latin people is the worst in the history of the world. The theft of all our wealth and gold. And our gold funded the second half of the Renaissance... 500,000 tons of gold that was taken from us."
11:57 AM · Jul 8, 2026 · 44.9K Views
63 Replies · 158 Reposts · 2.29K Likes
Yet none of these people would ever survive one day if they ever had to fight a superior power. The thing about being oppressed as an ideology is that you can never overcome being oppressed. Otherwise, you become the very thing you fear and loathe most.
It’s a pitiful ideology, on top of being fueled by unbridled stupidity. This right here is its essence:
Roman Helmet Guy@romanhelmetguy
If you were born in America, you’re an American. You have a right to live here. Unless of course you’re American. In which case you’re living on stolen land.
10:47 PM · Jun 30, 2026 · 592K Views
171 Replies · 2.66K Reposts · 31.6K Likes
It’s frightening to see the extent the ideology has been normalized. The only way it happens is through power. Maybe the oppressed aren’t so oppressed, after all?
Liberal commentator Joshua Reed Eakle recently tried getting one over on cultural conservatives and immigration restrictionists by singling out the Amish:
Sensurround@ShamashAran
Every few weeks somebody rediscovers the Amish like they're a hidden DLC character in American politics. "AHA! CHECKMATE, CONSERVATIVES! WHAT ABOUT THE AMISH?" And everyone has to gather around for another exciting episode of People Deliberately Pretending Not to Understand.
Joshua Reed Eakle 🗽 @JoshEakle
Setting aside half the misinformation in this post, the Amish are also clearly a community that refuses to assimilate to American society. And yet no one on the right seems to care. Curious.
2:06 PM · Jun 30, 2026 · 57.2K Views
167 Replies · 507 Reposts · 3.92K Likes
Here’s the rest of “Sensurround’s” top-tier rebuttal [bold mine]:
The Amish don’t assimilate into modern society. Correct. They also don’t demand that you give up yours. Assimilation is not the issue by itself. It’s shorthand for something much larger.
The Amish don’t spend their weekends gluing themselves to highways demanding the rest of us abandon electricity. They don’t firebomb data centers because somebody installed fiber internet. They don’t organize marches insisting Ford recall every F-150 because horses are morally superior. They don’t sabotage power plants. They don’t campaign to outlaw smartphones. They don’t scream that your pickup truck is violence. They don’t insist Congress mandate horse-and-buggy quotas.
They do something that is about as American as you can get: “Y’all have fun with your civilization. We’ll be over here churning butter.”
They built their own communities, accepted the tradeoffs, and ask to be left alone. It’s almost as though “living differently yourself” and “forcing everyone else to live differently” are two completely different concepts.
I know. It’s a shocking development. Scientists are looking into it.
From what I can see, Joshua Reed Eakle never further addressed this topic, suggesting he was so thoroughly rebutted, the only thing he could say is to concede defeat. Honestly, I’m not sure how he could’ve allowed himself to be destroyed like this, unless he’s an idiot.
There’s a saying in Japan: The nail which sticks out gets the hammer. But you can say the same about any society. If a minority group insists on drawing attention, if they insist on the public caring about their particular grievance or issue, why should anyone be surprised that people do in fact have something to say about it? Furthermore, why should anyone be surprised some people might disagree or simply not relate?
The Amish are the one minority group in America that truly puts its money where their mouth is. America is a country big enough that entire groups can carve out a sphere for themselves, one which others can’t nor won’t encroach on, and live their lives the way they see it. Other minority groups don’t - they want to live their lives the way they see fit, while still insisting on having access to the same resources and spaces as everyone else.
Eventually, conflicts and disputes arise, at which point minority groups, taking full advantage of America’s predisposition to protecting the civil rights of minorities, demand the world change in accordance with their preferences. They start off by claiming they’re not asking for much, then little by little, they demand a little bit more, and any resistance is met with lawsuits and admonitions about failing to live up to our ideals and values as Americans or some nonsense like that.
The Amish don’t do that. Therefore, nobody cares about them, nobody hates them. It’s really, really difficult to have a problem with people like the Amish - unless you’re Joshua Reed Eakle - who stay out of everyone’s way, who don’t demand the world change for them, and when they do show up in your neighborhood, put on their best face and are on their best behavior. Speaking of which, it’s the same reason why the Japanese are admired the world over. Compare them to, say, the Chinese. Prejudice is real, but it’s not always rooted in blind hatred.
Ironically, the minority groups liberals like Eakle seem to want in America and to fully engage in the wholesale disruption and transformation of society are the absolute worst, most incompatible peoples of the world. That says something about their intentions, doesn’t it?
As long as we’re alive, the attempt to single out the U.S. and Whites for slavery, a most universal phenomenon, will never end:
John Wood Jr.@JohnRWoodJr
It’s worth knowing the history Matt Walsh is pointing to. But his focus on it misses the context that explains our unique discomfort with American slavery in the first place. Other societies were not founded on a commitment to liberty. African slavery was not hypocritical by
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
When is Barack Obama going to acknowledge Africa’s ties to the slave trade stretching back thousands of years? When is he going to “draw renewed attention” to the fact that slavery remained legal in parts of Africa until the mid 20th century?
11:08 PM · Jun 29, 2026 · 58.4K Views
196 Replies · 20 Reposts · 230 Likes
This sounds a like perfectly innocent argument, but it’s because it sounds so innocent it must be resisted forcefully from the start. Once you accept the premise of the argument, it leads down a black hole from which there’s no escape, and the discussion becomes less about the what - slavery and more about the who - Americans and Whites.
If we all agree that slavery is bad, then context, identities, motivation, none of that matters. It’s all bad or it’s not. The fact that other societies weren’t committed to liberty means nothing. Liberty is just an idea, anyway. It’s not real. For liberty to exist in any tangible sense, someone must be in charge, someone must have a monopoly on violence to protect everyone from everyone else. Again, it doesn’t matter. Someone living under someone else’s jackboot, forced to toil or die, doesn’t care one bit that their masters believed in liberty for all or not.
I went to Brazil last year, the country which had the most slaves out of any other in the Western Hemisphere, and ended slavery much later also. Our trip leader tried downplaying the legacy of slavery in their country, specifically citing the fact women could marry their way out of it. Others note that slaves in Brazil had more legal protections, while slaves in the U.S. had next to none.
The sense you get is that nobody’s really troubled by slavery. They’re just concerned with how it makes their country look, how it makes them feel about themselves. Every society just has a different way of coming to terms with it. For America, the way we’ve chosen to come to terms with it is to not come to terms with it at all. We built our entire national identity around race and slavery, we allow it to remain an open wound which we’re supposed to somehow unite around, but as common sense would predict, divides us instead.
Ironically, despite not being obsessed with it like liberals are, it’s those on the Right like me who more universally view slavery as bad. The only difference is that I also possess the maturity and wisdom to have a constant moral panic over it. Granted, liberals don’t, either, for reasons cited above. They just pretend like they do for political reasons, for social acceptance.
One of the reasons the Left will never truly be a patriotic faction is because, even when they speak positively of America, it always begins with a caveat about how we were once a terribly racist country, how we haven’t always “lived up to our values:”
Justin Giboney@JustinEGiboney
Is America the most racist country in the world today? I didn’t expect this answer from Democratic Socialist leader Bhaskar Sunkara.
3:58 PM · Jul 16, 2026 · 699K Views
73 Replies · 86 Reposts · 1.08K Likes
The thing is, there’s nothing innovative about this approach. It’s kind of been standard my entire adult life. It hasn’t worked. Maybe it’s time to try something new?
X account “Carl,” who fashions himself as the fatherly liberal voice of reason, tries to downplay the Left’s denial of science and up-play the Right’s denial of the 2020 election outcome:
Carl@HistoryBoomer
Democrats ask: Who won in 2020 Republicans waffle. Republicans ask: What is a woman? Democrats waffle. Some say "what is a woman" is more important, BUT Only 1 in 500 identify as trans women. The most powerful man in the world denies democratic realities and insists his
Acyn @Acyn
Ossoff: Who won the 2020 election? Clayton: I’m not going to get into that with you. Ossoff: Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions?
4:23 PM · Jul 15, 2026 · 69.7K Views
79 Replies · 38 Reposts · 448 Likes
Nobody had any doubt as to what a woman was until 10 seconds ago in historical terms. The 2020 election will be forgotten in short order. Gender realities will remain with us forever. Furthermore, as scholars like Rod Dreher point out, a society which cannot agree on something as fundamental as biological reality isn’t having a political crisis, it’s having a philosophical crisis, which cannot be resolved politically. If you can’t agree on what a woman is, forget about agreeing on tax rates.
By the way, I’ve made it clear my thoughts on the 2020 election: Joe Biden won, hands down. Whatever fraud existed wasn’t enough to tip the balance against Trump because there was no balance to tip. 2020 went so badly for Trump that thinking he won demands a greater stretch of the imagination. I’m sick and tired of people on the Right still holding out on 2020, I’m sick and tired of Trump still bringing it up. If he won in 2020, his presidency would’ve ended over a year-and-a-half ago. Does anyone consider that?
One more thing - if transgenders are such a small percentage of the population, then why do they consume such a large percentage of public discourse? It’s not the Right bringing transgenderism to the table. It’s the Left. Why is transgenderism such a big deal if they’re such an insignificant proportion of the population? We see this with every left-wing issue: they bring it up, they make a big deal out of it, and the moment they receive the slightest push-back, they wonder aloud what the fuss is all about. It’s how they normalize the abnormal, like transgenderism.
Carl, for all his years, for all his education, knows much. What he lacks in is common sense and wisdom. If this is the best our elders can forge, that’s pretty bleak, if you think about it.
I often lament the fact Americans know so little of their own history, including the truth about some of the biggest events leading to the formation of their country. The Boston Massacre is one such example. It’s viewed by many as a veritable point-of-no-return, where the split between the 13 colonies and Britain was all but assured, and those who died were basically peaceful protesters gunned down by brutal British soldiers with orders to suppress dissent.
If nearly every historical event seems to follow a liberal narrative, that’s because it’s meant to be that way. The truth is, of course, not so liberal. H. W. Brands explains, in his excellent book Our First Civil War: Patriots and Loyalists in the American Revolution, the events leading up to the Boston Massacre:
While moderates like [Benjamin] Franklin and [George] Washington discussed the merits of the boycott, radicals in Massachusetts took their arguments into the street. Boston remained the hotbed of resistance to British authority, and although the monthly temperature rose or fell according to the mood of the ministry in London and the policies of Parliament, the trend was decidedly in a warming direction. Samuel Adams and his allies pushed against the boundaries demarked by the British government, and the British government pushed back. London sent a warship to Boston for the nominal purpose of capturing smugglers; the unspoken purpose was to awe the populace. London sent British troops to ensure the safety of British colonial officials, and to deter violators of the peace and British law.
Neither tactic worked; the Boston mob grew more unruly than ever. In February 1770 a riot threatened the home of a Boston resident conceived to be too partial to the British. “Having been a landwaiter, or inferior custom-house officer, and before that an informer against illicit traders, he was particularly obnoxious to the people,” Thomas Hutchinson recalled of the man and the rioters. “The mob surrounded his house, threw stones and brickbats through the windows, and, as it appeared upon trial, were forcing their way in when he fired upon them, and killed a boy of eleven or twelve years of age.”
The boy was the son of German immigrants. The Boston radicals constantly confronted and provoked British troops, who exhibited tremendous restraint under pressure. When the Boston Massacre happened, it was in response to a riotous mob attacking British soldiers. To call it a massacre is historically false. Even John Adams, one of our founders and eventual president of the soon-to-be U.S., defended the troops in court, because he, correctly, viewed their actions as self-defense.
Does any of this sound familiar? It’s shocking to study history and discover that Americans are, in many ways, the same people we’ve ever been. New England radicals accelerated America’s road to rebellion from Britain and they continue to call the shots today, this time driving events from the Ivory Tower, even from the halls of power in Washington. They’re even still sacrificing the lives of immigrants like they were in the 18th century!
In so many ways, the story Americans have been told about us isn’t any kind of real history. It’s the New England radicals’ revisionism of history. The Puritans, of course, dominated the region, and rhetoric like Shining City Upon A Hill is Puritan-talk. It’s ironic, given the term “Puritan” has a negative connotation, often employed by liberals to denigrate conservatives. Yet not only do liberals today have more in common with Puritans than conservatives, today’s liberals are descended from the Puritans, if only in an intellectual sense.
The difference between history and narratives is that the latter requires clearly identified good guys and bad guys. On some level, it’s necessary for things like national myths, a unifying story we can all rally around. But they cannot be built on outright lies, total inversions of history. I explained earlier how the U.S. has chosen not to come to terms with racism and slavery. There’s really only two things any society can do: own it and tell everyone to just deal with it, or simply not talk about it.
Liberals could be taken a whole lot more seriously if they confessed that yes, they’re the Puritans, yes, they’re whom they accuse conservatives of being. But that makes them the bad guy in our American story. As long as liberals control the narrative, you can expect even more bad history to be propagated and become woven into this bizarrely inaccurate national story.
This isn’t a bad history take, but I still think it’s worth discussing here. There are lots of people out there who think America was a better, happier place pre-Trump, specifically during the Obama days:
Glenn Tunes@glenn_tunes
I TRULY MISS HOW LIFE WAS BEFORE TRUMP AND MAGA 😔
9:43 AM · Jun 26, 2026 · 420K Views
2.02K Replies · 3.84K Reposts · 41.4K Likes
Westside L.A. Guy@WestsideLAGuy
Conservatives will hate hearing this but at this point I think it's indisputable that life for young Americans was better during Obama's second term than in Trump's second term. Note that this is NOT an endorsement of Obama's policies but rather a commentary on the different
5:53 PM · Jul 11, 2026 · 25.9K Views
83 Replies · 23 Reposts · 270 Likes
I’m not going to pretend that nothing changed because things obviously have. However, as I’ve said many times before, politics was highly charged and contentious back then, too. Maybe not to the degree it is now. But it wasn’t easy having political discussions back then, either. More importantly, a lot of the unfortunate trends which have become an indelible part of both our politics and social fabric - extremist feminism, institutionalization of LGBTQ+ ideology, constant racial moral panic - emerged during the Obama administration. If that’s what liberals liked about that time, fine, whatever. But they must then concede that Trump was a reaction to those trends.
That said, is everything a matter of nostalgia? Data is never the end-all, be-all, but it does help us decide how seriously to take people’s word about how things used to be. Look at how Americans’ satisfaction with the direction of the country ebbed and flowed over the years:
Two things I want to highlight, specifically: satisfaction was quite high for much of the 1980s and 1990s. The ‘80s were, of course, the decade the Baby Boomers thrived and Generation X’s childhood and formative years, while the ‘90s were the childhood and, to a lesser extent, formative years of Millennials. The high satisfaction numbers during these two decades suggests there’s something to people remembering these times as wonderful, even as they were accompanied by some truly low lows (WTF happened in 1992???).
After the early 2000s, the satisfaction rate never again hit 50 percent, proving just how down on their country most Americans have been these last 20 years. The numbers may not tell the whole story, but they don’t lie, either: people weren’t happy with the way things were going pre-Trump. Tucker Carlson, controversial as he may be, was absolutely correct when he said that a happy country doesn’t vote for Trump. He’s not the kind of leader who shows up to ruin everyone’s good time. He’s exactly the kind of person who shows up when everyone’s angry and miserable. And we absolutely were during the Obama administration.
Re-imagining pre-Trump America as some happy time is 100 percent nostalgic. But as far as our childhoods go? Those might’ve really been some good times.
We’ll close on one more topic. What in the actual f**k is this?
Klara@klara_sjo
Why is it when they portray a super racist and fascist society it's always beautifully clean, tidy, quiet and peaceful?
2:30 AM · Jul 7, 2026 · 508K Views
426 Replies · 232 Reposts · 6.56K Likes
And yes, it’s a fair question. Why are fascists and racists always portrayed as living in nice places, having nice things? Don’t we all want the same things?
Fascism is a disgust spiral, whose basic commandment is “thou shalt not be worse than me.” It starts out with anti-smoking campaigns and burning child pornography, and ends up disappearing anyone who doesn’t mow his lawn.
Communism is an envy spiral, whose basic commandment is “thou shalt not be better than me.” It starts out targeting captains of industry and genius intellectuals, and ends up disappearing anyone who wears glasses, which create the suspicion that he might have read a book once.
This is why people with communist psychology (the left) equate clean streets with fascism.
Leftists can’t keep their streets clean and their lawns mowed, but instead of the psychologically healthy response of being slightly embarrassed and resolving to do better, they decide that anyone in a nice neighborhood is a fascist who needs to be exposed and purged.
Leftists, of course, have no problem owning property, participating in free market capitalism, as long as they benefit from doing so. It’s everyone else who owns too much property. It’s everyone else who perpetuates inequality in society. I see the homes leftists live in - the stereotype of the messy hippie is real, but I also see leftists live in beautiful, well-maintained homes, well-trimmed yards, all in nice neighborhoods, like the one depicted in the crazy video above.
The point isn’t that leftists are hypocrites. That much is obvious. The point instead is that leftists are fixated on making sure nobody else is better off than anyone else. Once you make politics about criminalizing the desire to have more, the desire to be better off, the desire to maintain standards, to not allow things to degrade or become tainted, that opens the door to destroying your own society, because the simplest way to part someone with their property is to burn it all down.
I explained a few essays ago how envy is the liberal’s favorite sin, how leftist politics is the institutionalization of envy. What makes envy, like any sin, terrible is that it’s insatiable. There’s always going to be something to be jealous about. Envy and resentment go hand-in-hand; you can never respect someone you’re envious towards. Friendships end, families are split, lives are ended, all over envy.
Why make politics about something like that? At least disgust influences positive behavior. Envy doesn’t. That’s what makes it a deadly sin.
That’s enough for today. What are your thoughts? Share them in the comments section.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.