One thing I detest about the modern conventions around historiography — or any kind of hindsight through the modern lens — is that anti-white and victimhood narratives are readily embraced and widely regarded as ‘official’ history, whereas the actual explanations and temporal justifications are treated as ‘bigotry’ or ‘heterodoxy’.
The same rings true for those clever and courageous enough who endeavor to understand the actual reasons and causes — the finer details and the complete stories — who are dismissed as ‘bigots’, or worse — most often by people who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the real history, or people who stand to benefit, usually financially or socially, by the spin they put on that which can loosely be called ‘history’ but which has been reframed or which expresses a narrow perspective to fit with a personal or political agenda independent of the truth.
It is in this way that political fairytales manage to evolve into the histories taught through textbooks and in the classroom, and it is in this way that the truth-seekers, who endeavor to unearth the true history in its proper context, face an unending uphill battle and so much difficulty in uncovering the truth under so many layers of lies, myths, and misconceptions.
And even when the truth is finally uncovered, it has the further difficulty of overcoming the status quo and the prima facie ‘evidence’ which has kept people either indifferent to new information or otherwise committed to the lies they’ve been told not only to believe and accept, but to guard and maintain at the risk of otherwise becoming a ‘bigot’, a ‘conspiracy theorist’, an ‘enemy to the state’, a ‘thought criminal’, or worse.
It is in this way, not necessarily by a heavy hand, that the threat of becoming a ‘thought criminal’ keeps people in line, incapable of thinking for themselves, and generally indifferent (or even hostile) to the truth.
Comments
Post a Comment