Modern ideological movements have developed a predictable habit. Whenever a nation, culture, or group achieves visible success, someone attempts to rewrite the origin of that success and assign it to another source. It’s rarely an academic argument. In fact, it’s usually a political tactic. Japan appears to be the latest target. Articles and Youtube videos are circulating that claim Japanese culture, innovation, and identity are “actually Chinese.” Of course, the goal is not to correct history. The goal is to dilute the legitimacy of a society that performs well.

This isn’t new; it happens more than many might like to think. In fact, this pattern is also evident across the West. Britain has recently dealt with similar revisions, attempting to portray the Picts as a group with little connection to the people who historically inhabited the region. These claims detach cultural inheritance from its roots and force modern audiences to believe that nothing successful was produced by the people who are commonly associated with it. When taken at face value, it seems absurd. When viewed through an ideological motive, it becomes clear why these ideas circulate.

It’s often referred to as “revisionist history.” We see it a lot with anti-Western narratives. For example, communist and socialist ideological frameworks have always struggled to produce consistent material success. Nations that adopt them tend to experience stagnation, shortages, and predictable decline. When an ideology cannot win through performance, the next available strategy is narrative dominance. If you cannot outperform successful societies, you can attempt to weaken the legitimacy of their accomplishments. This is to say that a population that doubts its own heritage is easier to influence and easier to steer. This is part of the reason why I say that knowing your history is so important.

Perhaps an easier way to think of this tactic is as a form of strategic re-attribution. In other words, it’s designed to shift credit away from societies that have proven their models through growth and stability. For example, Japan’s success presents an ideological problem because it contradicts progressive narratives about collectivism, demographic politics, and cultural flexibility in China. Japan shows that a nation can be stable, prosperous, and cohesive without adopting progressivism. However, rather than studying what makes Japan work, critics attempt to undermine its uniqueness by claiming that its accomplishments are not its own. If you don’t know history, you likely wouldn’t see it for what it is.

The Pict example follows a similar pattern. The argument that this ancient group was actually of African descent has no meaningful evidence behind it, yet it circulates widely among activists and academics who prefer ideological narratives to archaeological record. The value of the claim is not historical accuracy. The value is the power to unsettle cultural identity. If the past can be rewritten, the present can be reframed, and a society can be told that its identity is built on falsehood.

In fact, the United States faces its own versions of this problem. One major example is the growing insistence that American technological and industrial achievements were primarily the result of exploitation rather than innovation. This argument is frequently presented in classrooms, the media, and activist circles. It reframes American success as something unearned, which helps support modern narratives of redistribution. If the nation never truly earned its position, then its institutions and systems can be treated as illegitimate or undeserving of preservation.

Another American example appears in the repeated claim that the Founders were simply imitators of European political systems. While they certainly studied classical and Enlightenment thinkers, the structure they created was not a copy of anything that came before. The Constitution was unique in its balance of federal and state power, its separation of branches, and its treatment of individual rights. Yet there is an ongoing effort to portray the Founders as accidental beneficiaries of ideas they barely understood. Such a notion is extremely silly. But, at the same time, it undermines the perception of American innovation, making the system easier to dismiss in favor of modern ideological preferences.

Now, when you view these examples together, the pattern becomes impossible to ignore. Ideological movements that fail in practice attempt to succeed through narrative control. This is why narrative clarity is so vital, and a big part of why this website even exists. Look, this is not about correcting the historical record. It is about neutralizing the legitimacy of societies that produce better outcomes than the ideology can deliver. If every successful nation can be framed as fraudulent, stolen, or derived from someone else, then ideological failure becomes easier to hide behind a curtain of relativism.

Of course, there is also a psychological layer to consider. People who subscribe to failing ideologies often struggle to accept that their preferred system is not working. It’s actually easier to believe that the successful cheated or stole their accomplishments than to admit that the ideology itself is structurally flawed. And you probably guessed it, this is the same mechanism that fuels modern political resentment. When people are told that success is illegitimate, they become open to radical revisions of society. The narrative becomes a justification for disruption. Unfortunately, that usually comes with a side of anger and violence.

Ultimately, the strategy is fairly straightforward. Re-attribution is used to erode confidence in models that work and to elevate models that don’t. It encourages doubt where stability exists. It replaces historical complexity with ideological convenience. Likewise, it tells successful nations that their achievements don’t belong to them. When the truth is removed, the ideology becomes the only remaining reference point. And now you know why such nonsense is flooding social media these days. But here’s the kicker. You may not believe it or fall for it, but some young, impressionable mind will.

The public needs to understand what’s happening because the tactic is not going away. As long as ideological movements struggle to produce successful outcomes, they will attempt to rewrite the success of others. Cultural confidence is a barrier to ideological capture, which is why these narratives prioritize identity over accuracy. This is just another spoke in the wheel of ideological subversion/active measures, but it’s a strong one.

The nations and people that preserve their history, their truth, and their achievements remain the hardest to manipulate. Knowledge is power, and there’s a big difference between indoctrination and education. On that note, you should probably stop badmouthing colleges. The indoctrination you’re so upset about occurred in K-12 anyway.

Keep Learning: Indoctrination Starts Before College