Of course I'm familiar with a lot of folks beliefs. On LW you can generally assume that the people with whom you arguing aren't stupid.

I wasn't trying to imply that you are stupid.

A single countries history doesn't provide much data

Which is why I said that knowing world history is beneficial. But if you are going to participate in American government then knowing about the American civil war is going to be especially beneficial in understanding current political tensions, while if you were going to be in the Iraqi government then you would gain more from knowing abut the history of conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite.

It also allows you to kick out anybody who doesn't agree with your interpretation of events out of your political system.

My intention is examinations with questions like "why did Napoleon lose?" not "write a description of our glorious victory over the French!". Incidentally, people who disagree with the mainstream view of history are never going to get elected in a democratic system, so this examination-based system is more tolerant of dissenting views.

If you are NRx of course you might want a tool to kick out those people with different political ideas but if that's what you want, be more open about it and don't hide behind slogans.

Are the NRx the only people intolerant of those with different political ideas? Or can someone lose their job for, say, being against gay marriage? (I'm ok with gay marriage, but uncomfortable with censorship)

Anyway, I'm not NRx, in that while certain aspects of society were better in the past, on the whole things are a lot better now. And even if modern society is going in the wrong direction, it seems to me that classical Rome/Greece/India/China were more functional than medieval Europe, so heading back to medieval social norms is entirely the wrong way to go.