Some counter-revolutionary circles have spoken recently of the need for a concerted historiography of the right, around which resistance to the modern world could crystallize, just as liberals have rallied around the principle of progress. I'd like to briefly point out something I've noticed, during my time in the Church, that supports this contention.

It's critical to get the two Great Wars and the surrounding events straight, because they are pivotal to the identity and worldview of the modern west. I think one could draw a pretty straight dividing line between those traditional Catholics who accept the mainstream narrative, and those who don't. In a fairly consistent way, the two groups seem to espouse competing values, often while using the same terminology and referring to the same authoritative sources. It does not seem possible to resolve this sort of controversy on the level at which it is currently engaged, since the disagreement clearly arises in the emotional layer as a result of identities rooted in different soils.

So I find it true that one cannot accept a liberal historiography without letting liberal emotional structures in through the back. And I'm convinced that the lack of a coherent alternative historiography results in many otherwise good Catholics dallying with the modern world. The Right needs more comprehensive fortifications if it hopes to hold out.

correction:

In practice, there are those who subject the historical narrative to what Richard F Burton calls  "the vapid utterance of the so-called liberal school." - with some exceptions thrown in for particular cases like Franco - sometimes - and their views are ultimately incompatible with a Catholic view of history - and they are extremely intolerant.