​Behold, brethren, for I bring you good news: The highly historically inaccurate steaming pile of crap that is the 1619 Project has pretty much failed, as New York Times Magazine quietly began to change certain aspects of the essays to gaslight us about its original intention.
 
You see, originally, the 1619 Project was intended to rewrite this country’s history, arguing that the country’s true founding was not upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, but rather, upon the first slave ship arriving on Virginia’s coast line on August 20th, 1619.
 
The Project attempted to change the country’s founding to make it not about liberty, but its opposite: Slavery. That it was Africans’ slavery, not Colonists’ liberty, that marked the founding of this country.
 
The Project declared as much, as its online version’s original text read as follows: “The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
 
“In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonialists. America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed.”
 
In essence, despite how utterly wrong and not factual this entire enterprise was, the New York Times and the 1619 Project aimed to shift the nation’s founding away from the liberty it was actually founded upon and towards the slavery that BRITISH AND EUROPEAN GLOBAL POWERS brought to the Colonies.
 
The Project argued many things, none of which were true, among which was the idea that the American Revolution started because the rebels wanted to keep their slaves, supposedly citing The Dunmore Proclamation, which as I have already written in a previous article regarding this pile of garbage of a project, is fundamentally incorrect. No revolutionary was fighting to keep slaves. They weren’t Democrats.
 
At any rate, like I said in that other article, the Project was nothing more than an attempt at bashing America and indoctrinating children into believing this country’s very foundation is ripe with sin and evil, when it is most definitely not.
 
But now, after months of historian after historian fact-checking the garbage essays, and after months of pushback for its many inaccuracies, both the creator of the Project and the NYT Magazine have backed off on the claim that 1619 is the nation’s literal founding, though still arguing that the events detailed in the essays are of as much significance to this country as 1776 was.
 
Now, the Project’s text has taken out any suggestion that 1619 is our “true” founding, editing that part where it said “understanding 1619 as our true founding” entirely out of it, with the text now reading: “It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
 
The part where it also said: “America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began,” was also edited out, with the text now reading: “It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed…” etc. etc.
 
Even Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project, has stopped claiming that 1619 was this country’s “true” founding and instead has opted to simply argue that while it’s not this country’s founding, it was still a very significant year. But more than that, instead of simply saying that 1776 is our true founding, not 1619, she is gaslighting people by saying that SHE NEVER CLAIMED 1619 TO BE OUR “TRUE” FOUNDING, WHICH IS UTTERLY UNTRUE.
 
Not just in the Project’s text itself would you find that to be untrue, but also in Hannah-Jones’ own words. Back when the Project had first been launched, Hannah-Jones specifically said: “I argue that 1619 is our true founding… Also, look at the banner pic in my profile.”
 
Here is her banner pic:

​As you can see, it shows the date “July 4, 1776” being crossed out and “August 20, 1619” in a bigger font size and not crossed out.
 
She has made every argument she could that 1776 was not our true founding and now, she is lying about what she lied about months ago.
 
Now, Hannah-Jones argues that “The wording in question never appeared in the 1619 Project text. It appears nowhere in the printed copy… It didn’t appear in my essay nor any of the actual journalism we produced.”
 
Funny that she would bring up the printed copy, considering that it’s not something that The NYT Magazine can revise and change. Let’s read what it says, shall we?
 
“It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?... It is the country’s very origin.”
 
The printed copy itself proves this idiotic woman wrong. The 1619 Project was meant, as I have previously stated, to bash this country and indoctrinate children and people in general into accepting a historically erroneous belief that this country’s founding was not set upon the Founding Fathers’ fight for freedom but upon the arrival of 20 to 30 African slaves on a ship.
 
It was meant to discredit and delegitimize the very founding of this country and to lead people to the desire to “start anew”, creating a new country in which Leftist, communist ideals would serve as the foundation. It was meant to start a hijacking of this country by the Left.
 
For those purposes, it clearly has failed. The NYT Magazine would not be editing things and Hannah-Jones would not be gaslighting people about what she said, and has previously proclaimed, if they believed the Project was anywhere close to successful.
 
This, of course, doesn’t mean that the Left will cease trying to delegitimize the country or argue that the country was founded on racist beliefs. It just means that there is still enough common sense and sanity in this country for a radical Leftist hit-piece aimed at the very founding of this country to sputter and fail.
 
The Left will still be teaching kids that this country was founded on racism and other crap like that, which is why it’s imperative to pass education reform with patriotic (or, at least, REAL) education.
 
But we can be happy that, at least for this instance, the Left’s attempt to hijack the very meaning and date of our nation’s founding was so beaten back as to leave people at the New York Times licking their wounds and pretending they didn’t do what they very clearly did.
 
Now, they will claim the 1619 Project to be not a historical rewriting of our nation but an “origin story” as though this country itself were a work of fiction.
 
No, deceiving liars, 1619 isn’t an “origin story.” Bruce Wayne witnessing the murder of his parents in a dark alley in Gotham is an origin story. Superman coming from a doomed planet and landing on Earth as a baby is an origin story. They are origin stories because, as the name suggests, they tell the origins of those characters. The arrival of slaves on a ship on the colonies does not mark the origin of this nation. If anything, the settlers arriving and settling in America in 1607 is more of an origin story.
 
Slavery is not a part of the origin of this nation, because this very nation’s founding is predicated on the liberty of people, who are created equal by God. And as I have said in the past, slavery was a dying practice (helped by the fact that this country banned slave ships from coming in in its early years) that would naturally have gone away had it not been for the invention of the cotton gin, which brought slavery back in droves.
 
At any rate, the 1619 Project is basically dead. It has failed, even if the people behind it cover their ears and shut their eyes, yelling that “it’s not true! It’s not true!”
 
The 1619 Project has failed. Hallelujah.
 
1 Thessalonians 5:21
“But test everything; hold fast what is good.”

While plenty of other things have been on the news as of late (including a certain virus from China that I will do my best not to mention because it’s being talked about in every other media to an obscene extent), something that has flown under the radar is a slight correction made by the 1619 Project, the New York Times’ attempt at rewriting history for the benefit of an ideological war against this country.
 
Earlier in the month, a historian named Leslie M. Harris wrote an essay for Politico. According to National Review: “Harris claimed that Times fact-checkers reached out to her prior to the publication of the 1619 Project’s seminal essays to solicit her expertise on the relevant history involved. Harris wrote back to the fact-checkers, insisting that she ‘vigorously disputed’ the factual basis of one of the project’s central claims.”
 
What claim was she heavily contesting? The following passage from the Project: “Conveniently left out of our Founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”
 
This, Harris contends, is not factually accurate (unsurprisingly). The entire reason behind the Project’s absurd claim is because of the Dunmore Proclamation, a proclamation made by the British governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, that was meant to preserve his rule as a representative of the monarchy by “drawing the slaves of rebellious colonists into his militia in exchange for their freedom,” according to Phillip Magness of the American Institute for Economic Research.
 
Magness continued: “The Dunmore Proclamation revealed one of the many ways in which slavery cut across the other dividing lines of the revolutionary period, but it did not portend a coming general emancipation from the Crown. Indeed, most slave-owning colonists perceived the measure as an attempt to incite a slave revolt against opponents of the British rule, rather than a sign of slavery’s weakening position. The proclamation conveniently exempted the slaves of loyalist plantation owners, and Dunmore himself left a sordid record as supporter and beneficiary of slavery in the British colonial system. Meanwhile, as the long fight to abolish the institution made all too clear, supporters of slavery maintained a firm majority in the British Parliament at the time – and would continue in power for several decades to come.”
 
So it is not even remotely true that preserving slavery was a reason for the Revolutionary War. The Dunmore Proclamation, as Magness noted, was nothing but an attempt at crushing the rebellion by getting rid of revolutionary colonists’ slaves, promising them freedom if they fought for the Crown, while exempting loyalist colonists from that proclamation. Slaves were nothing but a tool, as they largely were considered back then, at furthering a goal.
 
But even then, the 1619 Project remains arrogant about its claim. While they offered a correction, it’s minimal. Instead of eliminating that factually-ignorant claim from its essays, the Project said that preserving slavery was the purpose of SOME colonists rather than all of them. But that claim IS STILL WRONG!
 
That, combined with the fact that the Project ignored or dismissed historians and fact-checkers who disagreed with their erroneous claims and dismissed the 1776 Project, a counter-project run by conservative African-Americans to maintain the fact that our founding was in 1776 and not when the first slaves arrived in 1619, shows that the point of the 1619 Project was never about simply revising and uncovering hidden histories of this country, but rather, destroying the very founding principles and concepts of this country, declaring everything from its governmental system to its economic system as stained and discredited as a result of its history of slavery (completely ignoring the fact that slavery was found in many other places around the world and still can be found in places like the Middle East and China).
 
The reason I make this assertion is because at the end of the aforementioned National Review article, we find: “[Magness’] piece… is worth reading in its entirety for its portrait of a project that succumbed to ideological ambition and, in so doing, lost a bit in the way of historical accuracy.”
 
The 1619 Project didn’t “succumb” to ideological ambition. Ideological ambition WAS ITS ENTIRE PURPOSE! It was never meant to be a recounting of our nation’s history, it was meant to be a REWRITING of our nation’s history, seeking to delegitimize our nation’s institutions. One of the sociologists brought in by the Project basically admits as much, having essentially argued that the country’s plantation economy stained and discredited modern American capitalism.
 
The entire point of this project wasn’t to offer a plausible alternative to the typical founding story we are taught in school. It wasn’t supposed to be about uncovering a secret truth behind our nation’s founding that has been buried for centuries. It was always supposed to be an ideological piece to fuel a war on American institutions and its very legitimacy. So for the writer at National Review to suggest it succumbed to ideological ambition, losing “a bit in the way of historical accuracy” is not putting it the right way.
 
This is the New York Times we’re talking about; some of the same people that right now (and I am about to break my promise about not taking about the Wuhan virus) are deflecting the blame from China for the damage it has caused the entire world as a result of the Chinese coronavirus that originated in China and has spread because of the CCP’s negligence (at best). The same people that lionized Chinese Communist dictator Mao Zedong in remembering his death back in September and absolved radical Islamic terrorists from any blame for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC during the 18-year anniversary.
 
Do you really think anyone at the New York Times would do honest research and fact-checking for a revising of history like the 1619 Project, leaving any semblance of ideological ambition or politics out of it? They do not care about history, as those two examples with Mao and the 9/11 remembrance tweets show. They care about setting a narrative and nothing more.
 
They cared about one of the most evil people in the history of the world seeming like an innocent son of a peasant farmer rising to the challenge of leading a nation and its people (conveniently leaving out his death toll standing in the tens of millions on the low end). They cared about the radical followers of a deadly religion by absolving them of any guilt on 9/11. They are not going to care about making this country look good or honest or legitimate. Whatever they can do to strip it of its legitimacy, they will do it, as evidenced by the fact that they dismissed any and all dissidents, including fact-checkers, numerous historians and a counter-project run by African-Americans who know the history of this country.
 
Their purpose, from the Project’s very conception, was bashing America and everything it stood for as being illegitimate because of its history of slavery, again, dismissing the fact that slavery has been used by practically every other country and is still widely used in Middle Eastern countries and in China (largely through concentration camps). History and facts were damned by these people and still continue to be. The ONLY reason they issued any sort of correction is because a fact-checker, whom they previously contacted and voiced her disagreement with a particular wild claim, wrote an essay for Politico that drew attention to the Project’s erroneous claim.
 
Their correction was barely even a correction, still implying that protecting slavery was the purpose of some of the colonists involved in the revolution, when there is no evidence to be found of that and the evidence USED by the Project does not show it. Again, the Dunmore Proclamation was just a method of snuffing out the rebellion, not a measure by the Crown and British Parliament to attempt to abolish slavery in the colonies, particularly because slavery wouldn’t be abolished in Great Britain until 1833, nearly 60 years after the revolution.
 
The reason for this Project in the first place is because the Left hates this country and thinks it illegitimate, arguing with whatever load of crap they can to deceive as many people as possible.
 
2 Thessalonians 2:3
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”

Recently, a copy of the Declaration of Independence was found in the U.K. This copy of the Declaration contains one particular change that has Harvard researchers and the Left in general hopeful to what the Founding Fathers may have meant for this nation to become.
 
You see, in this copy of the Declaration, the signatories aren’t arranged by states. They are all signed seemingly at random.
 
Now, you may be thinking “why does that even matter?” Well, Harvard professors Danielle Allen and Emily Sneff think that, by the signatures not being arranged by states, it means that James Wilson attempted to persuade his fellow founding fathers to pursue a central, unitary national government, as opposed to one of a federation of states. These professors think that Wilson wanted essentially what the American Left want: a centralized, authoritarian government.
 
And the Left would love nothing more than to debate the case for it, perhaps saying things along the lines of “This is the Declaration of Independence that people want to follow.” Or “This Declaration of Independence indicates that the founding fathers intended for America to be under the complete control of one single government branch or figure.”
 
To them, the fact that this copy exists means the delegitimization of America. If they can convince people that the founding fathers wanted and seriously considered using this copy, then they would further add fuel to the fire that is the attempt of delegitimizing Trump’s presidency. If the country is illegitimate, then his presidency as a whole is automatically illegitimate.
 
We are all aware of the fact that the Left is very much anti-America. They may say they love this country, but they only love the idea they have for this country, which is to turn it into a communist hell hole not unlike the U.S.S.R. And if there’s any chance that they can delegitimize the country’s very existence… well, I don’t quite know what could happen…
 
Hypothetically, if the Left somehow managed to delegitimize the country, by convincing people that the country was illegitimately created, what could that lead to? Would that lead to some sort of civil war? Doubtful. The majority of gun owners in the country aren’t leftists. The Left would have no shot at even attempting to start one. They don’t have the numbers or guns to be successful, so they wouldn’t be able to start a civil war.
 
No, what I think would happen, as is, to some extent, happening already, is that they convince future generations that this country is illegitimate, hoping to eventually have enough people who believe that in order to take back the country, or start anew.
 
If the majority of people think this country was illegitimately created, they might want to take it down and build it back up, into a new kind of America. One akin to what the two Harvard professors theorize James Wilson intended for this country. An America that is the complete opposite of what it was meant to be. Granted, this would take a long time to happen, but if there’s one thing I know about the Left, is that they’re patient.
 
Now, this is all vastly a theory. One that I highly doubt would ever come to fruition. I don’t think there will ever come the point that the vast majority of people think this country was founded illegitimately. But the Left can only hope that they are no longer in the minority for this kind of thinking. In the meantime, they’ll play along and say that they love this country and other such lies.
 
Having seen what the Left is like, I think we know what is in their collective hearts and minds. We know that the delegitimization of America would be a dream for them. We know that their hearts deeply desire to be the ones in power, with no one who could ever take them away from such power. We will never know exactly what is in their hearts, though we might get a gist, but God will always know precisely what is in their hearts. He knows that the American Left is not one that loves Him or respects Him in any way. He knows that the American Left despises all who worship and love Him and wish to do away with those people. But He also knows where their souls are headed once they meet Him at the Gates of Heaven.
 
In the Afterlife, the Left will hold no power whatsoever.
 
2 Thessalonians 1:9
“These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.”