83KiB, 500x477, cherry-picking-my-argument-is-o-mine-is-x-and-36304407.png
Quoted By:
I don't believe in history. In the sense of history as the "meaningful and logical course of history". History teaches only one thing - that it has never taught anyone anything. Since there are records and testimonies about their actions, people have made the same mistakes, superstitions and passions. It is easier for them to start a war, about which they know in advance that they have no chance of winning it, and the result will be a total ruin of the country - than to admit their mistake. A historian who claims to discover some kind of "historical law". - ...is bullshit. All that is unchangeable in history, is the so-called "extra-source knowledge", means just - whatever we know about human passions, weaknesses, errors (especially I drink here to so-called "cognitive errors"). - without which the history of wars, for example, is incomprehensible!) and delusions. All the rest is a drunken idiot's dream. In addition, written on the basis of an arbitrary choice made by third parties, on the basis of what the dreaming idiot himself testified about his drunken deception after 30 years....
Only in textbooks does history appear to be an organized, coherent and logical sequence of events: it results from an arbitrary selection of facts that are quoted (in all "big revolutions" victims are quite consistently omitted - e.g. victims of an "industrial revolution" or victims of an "agrarian revolution"...) and creative - sometimes very creative - interpretation (this family includes all Polish descriptions of the uprisings, which - admittedly - ended in compromising defeats and total clipping - but instead "strengthened the national spirit": someone at least has a pale idea of what the "national spirit" looks like and why they feed on blood, tears and wasted wealth...?
Only in textbooks does history appear to be an organized, coherent and logical sequence of events: it results from an arbitrary selection of facts that are quoted (in all "big revolutions" victims are quite consistently omitted - e.g. victims of an "industrial revolution" or victims of an "agrarian revolution"...) and creative - sometimes very creative - interpretation (this family includes all Polish descriptions of the uprisings, which - admittedly - ended in compromising defeats and total clipping - but instead "strengthened the national spirit": someone at least has a pale idea of what the "national spirit" looks like and why they feed on blood, tears and wasted wealth...?
