History Is An Anachronism

I was aware of historical cases in which the original thinker had written nothing only to be widely read through the writings of others, the apostles, the philosophers and the historians had quoted and amplified them out of proportion and exposed them with impunity using their names to publish lies and truths with impunity. The historians I held suspect in the worse way because they took history from archives, from the word of another that knew another, the historians were suspect because they begun to write the history of a subject after it became popular and more suspect because they needed to make history important to justify their own importance. History was a matter of life and death for the historian, they needed to secure the importance of the past to dig at it to unfold its many meanings and to make them significant enough for us to bother with them. How many characters had been promoted to heroic proportions just to make history rich when it fact their history had been poor and mediocre. History is the curse that keeps the past alive, that does not permit the has been from fading into obscurity, history permits the past to continue to exert an influence on us even after its own period of existence has sentenced it to the scaffold.

This should not be so, many historians ought to be shot dead and made history for their love of the past, for their clingingness to things dead, from their inability to look into the future, for their glorification of something that but for them would not and could not survive into the present, kill them dead! I can see them now telling us that we are fools condemned to repeat history if we do not learn from it, idiots repetition means something is not dead, what do they mean, are they not aware that a pregnancy is a repetition of a life, that every time we repeat something is not because we are repeating but rather that it is not dead, that it, that thing is merely reproducing itself and reproduction is not a repetition but a continuation! The classics are not dead because we repeat them and anything we do not repeat is dead and it is also unique and if historians were really historians they would dig out those original aspects of the past that were so unique that they could not associate or cling to anything to reproduce them but I am afraid that that would be real work and historians suffer from an aversion, and from a fear, of anything that is outside the library’s walls.

Besides anything that acquires a taste for history and therefor consumes history as part of its diet becomes tied to the past and can not proceed swiftly into the future. The most dynamic societies have little respect for history they tear down one-thousand year old temples and erect fast food restaurants. And why should they not do this why should they respect the Sphinx if the civilization that built it is dead, death is not a sign of good health.

Let all reactionaries and historians that read this learn only one fearful thing, history is the product of change. But history’s real problem is more severe than the trivial throwing away of memories it is rather the problem of subjectivity vs. objectivity. For there to be any validity to history there needs to be an objective world, a world that is true outside of our experience even though it may be manufactured by that experience. Unfortunately the truth today is merely a lot of subjectivity, when you get a concentrated lot of subjectivity every one begins to call it the truth. This is a direct result of the democratization process which makes right by assuming that the majority can not be wrong. The only reason that majorities are not wrong is because satisfying majorities is good and it is good because that creates a nice size agreement and masses will not overthrow the leader that agrees with them or themselves. But that certainly does not constitute any objectivity and certainly no truth! And there is also the probability that the truth has an emotional context, what if the truth is a heart? Can a heart ultimately be objective? Regardless it is better to bet that there is no objectivity because subjectivity is so abundant that that is what one will encounter most in life. This is to say that even if there is an objective truth, it does not matter, we live in the world of lies and that is what we have to respond to, pursuing the truth in a world of subjectives will be disastrous!

The other problem is that people can not disembodied themselves, to be objective is to be dead. Everyone is always looking at the world through their own eyes, this includes historians and scientist; scientist like to think that they see the world through the eyes of nature and nature returns the salute by reproducing their observations, but nature is certainly not objective, indifferent to us for sure but nature only cares about herself and that is very much subjective. I mean you can think that you are objective but that does not mean that you are working with elements of truth, all ideas of objectivity today are largely based on subjectives that belong to others. Our objectivity is someone else’s subjectivity, and therefor being objective with someone else’s subjective has no consequence to truth. In the end all objectivity based on external subjectives has to be suspect because all things give us “their” truth and not “the” truth; only the truth could do that and the truth does not care and it does not care because the truth does not need to prove itself. The truth simply is, it can not be anything else, it does not suffer from character conflicts or a need to express itself, so while we may want to posses the truth, the truth could care less.

Now there is this talk that possessing the truth is an advantage, on this subject I can not disagree strongly enough. Humans may act stupid but they are not so much so that they can not see what is ultimately to their benefit, and the fact that the world is largely deceptive means that the truth does not favor us, that ignorance and lying are extremely advantageous and far more so than any truth. I shall further say that just because we act out lies and pretend, this does not mean that we know the truth; to lie is not necessarily to know the truth, to act deceptively is not to say that we know what is genuine, it is simply to know what we should not do and how we should not act. Let me just emphatically say that characteristically liars do not know the truth, and that deceptive actions are rarely motivated by actual knowledge of what is genuine.

So it is simple, objectivity does not equal truth which makes for a very subjective objectivity, so we can only be objective in reference to subjectives and historians are worms, they feed on the remains of the dead to the bone, and when they get to the bone they scrape it, they hurt the dead, they resurrect the bones of the dead!

Philosophers and apostles are more decent, the philosophers fall in love with an idea and perhaps with the ways of a character and because of that they feel a need to repeat their words, to let everyone that might benefit from them know them. Apostles are fanatics, certainly as such they need to be suspect, but apostles are blinded by their faith and this can only serve to make them more human, they are not objective as historians try to be but rather they are bias, they represent something, they have a known agenda, their intent is to convert all to their mentors system of beliefs, and while this can be considered a terrible thing it is an honest act they commit, this is a human frailty and as such acceptable. We can always defend ourselves from Philosophers because we know they are useless, we know that apostles are fanatics but historians are a real danger to us because they claim to be objective observers, and besides myself, for I am able to observe that there is no objectivity, that being the only possible objective observation, I know no one capable of this.

So now because of all of the above and to secure my worth to destiny I needed to deal not only with the hiding my physical works from destiny but I also need to destroy those that had an understanding of my thoughts and particularly those that would be able to write them or to repeat them with just some degree of accuracy. Recollecting their names and whereabouts would be my next step, they would have to be located persecuted and killed! I felt badly for those that had been my closest confidants, for they had been the best listeners, for they had taken my stories to heart, for some had believed my philosophical wanderings even to the point of bleeding tears. Now they were to be murdered because of their ability to listen, to understand, to sympathize, to care, fools!