Historical Expletives or: Unwinding the Conspiracy

Good evening, my friends. A grave matter is on my mind, a matter of which I have long been aware, but one whose manifestations of late have not failed to distress and agitate. I refer, of course, to the use of certain words and combinations thereof in the discipline of History. Historians, oftentimes a despicable lot, at least the despicable ones anyway, frequently show undue favor to these words and combinations thereof. These are typically youthful historians*, all of whom faced a brutal and persistent indoctrination of these concepts by their even more evil predecessors. These youthful historians of which I speak are not so much evil in themselves, but they are rather cogs in the great Machine of Evil that operates in the prevalent and popular Dark Corners of Academia. Thus in using their obscene terminology, they demonstrate** more of a mental weakness and lack of independent thought as being puppets of the Machine (colloquially known as "The Man") than demonstrating a wicked desire to perpetuate the operation of the Machine of Evil, which runs on the Blood of the Ignorant.

What is so vile about these words? What do they stand for? The trouble with them is that they stand for evil and error, and this indeed is vile. I grow weary to think upon them, and it is not without difficulty that I review them here:

Context is an asinine term meaning (or at least it should mean) that we ought to think of history in its proper place and time. This idea is perfectly sound, but the word itself is horribly abused and uttered to death. Forget entirely events (especially that bloody mess of battle), causes*** and effects (someone will just reinterpret them so that you are wrong), and focus everything on understanding context that we might understand cultures or something. Speaking of culture:

Culture used to be something in which to take pride. There was a time when an Ancient Greek could say, "Look at my wonderful Ancient Greek culture, with its art, architecture, philosophy, and hedonistic mystery cults," and everyone would agree that that is all just wonderful. Then the Ancient Roman would say, "Look at my wonderful Ancient Greek culture, which I borrowed from the real, live Ancient Greeks who are dead now," and everyone would still agree that that is still just wonderful. Now any bumpkin or yahoo can have culture; indeed, all bumpkins and yahoos do have "culture," and it is blasphemous not to honor this wonderful culture. I, however, have trouble believing that the cannibal or the heathen have culture. Is it really wrong not to tolerate cannibalism and human sacrifice (the latter where it applies)? Are cannibalism and human sacrifice "culture?"

Bias is the Lord-Emperor of all enraging words. If someone dares make use of it in reference to history, that same individual deserves violent correction. It is not a term of any particular merit in historical analysis, indeed, it has little to do with history at all, yet it continually finds itself regurgitated in from the decayed mouths of some deeply rotten individuals. While the intended expression is that the "biased document" or what have you was influenced by the mindset of its author, the employment of the expletive drags in a weighty, negative connotation, implying that the "biased document" is of limited worth. Thus a student's making of such an utterance is mere ignorance in need of correction, whereas the historian's use thereof is an inexcusable slip of rhetoric.

Consolidation of Power is essentially a meaningless phrase, like unto the others of its kind here listed. Historians use it when the wish to say in an intellectual sounding way that some leader did some clever thing to gain power at the expense of others. Used sparingly, I think this could have turned out to be a fine device, but it has become hackneyed to the point of horror. The only thing worse than having too much of a good thing is having too much of a mediocre thing. At least a good thing can be shared with one's excellent good friends.

BCE/CE are not brought up with the same weight as the others, I simply think they are really extraordinarily stupid and most of all aesthetically displeasing. They originated (as I understand it) in the nineteenth century as "Before the Christian Era" and "Christian Era," but they have sense become the neutral*^ "Before the Common Era" and "Common Era," which I need not point out makes absolutely no sense. If we want a secular dating system, go all the way with it. Make year 1 mark the birth of Henry Ford or something^. Also, to digress, is a secular system a neutral system^*?

Encounters are the events that occur when one "culture" meets a different "culture," and frequently one of them dies, but frequently one does not, also. It is founded in the idea that "discovery" is a nonsense term, that one cannot discover that which already exists and is known to exist by some. This does not hold logical water, but it holds ideological water, that is, the nearly insane veneration of non-Western civilization, the less important and more oriented southward in Africa the better. A wise Oompa-loompa^** once said, "I don't like the look of it," and I must agree with that Oompa-loompa.

Perspective is yet another term that has found itself utterly purged of any significance whatsoever thanks to recent obsession therewith and (as we should expect) excessive use thereof. It is supposed to mean that we should consider history from the angles of all its concerned parties, which is fair, except that it takes effect to the point of parodying itself. Yes, "perspective" gives insight into matters that might not otherwise have received attention, but very often (especially in the worst offenders on all these points: Elementary School and High School textbooks^***) at the expense of obviously more important matters. The fact of the matter is that the Civil War is vastly more important than nineteenth century proto-feminism. This is not do deny the worth of certain historical specialties, simply the need for balance outside those specialties, but when three of five authors of a particular textbook are noted feminists, what am I supposed to expect?

Geopolitical, Socioeconomic, Ethnoreligious, Religio-cultural, et cetera are all dreadful words that those historians wishing to sound more intelligent than they actually are use in profusion. These words are useful because they are both lengthy and often made up on the spot. For example, I invented the terms ethnoreligious and religio-cultural just now, but that does not make them useless. It makes them profound, destined to impress the easily confused. I, however, hate these words not simply because they are invented, in which case I would have a difficult time using words, rather, I hate them because they are invented to propagate a sham, which is the ability of the writer or speaker thereof as an exceptional wordsmith.

In conclusion, the Man is full of rhetoric, all of which is crafted carefully to prey on the feeble-minded, whose blood (I remind you) is the oil of the Man's Machine of Evil. As long as the cogs on this machine are turning, the mass delusions (not that the masses know enough history to become too terribly deluded) will not be beaten. I implore you, my friends, to abstain entirely from speaking these obscene expletives, and that you all might cringe upon hearing them, for they reek of dishonesty whether their speaker realizes it or not. It is a subconscious conspiracy, so watch out. Everyone is out to get you, they just do not realize it*^^.

Notes:

*See Thorvald Erikson, The Youthful Professor as Ideal Form (Erikson Press. Oxnard: 2008) for further information. I quote:

Yea, the clock truly hath struck a dark hour in our history when such vulgar creatures gain most undeserved entry into positions of influence, and indeed it reflecteth great poverty in the beloved halls of the academy. Nay, I say unto them, thine attempts at youth and friendship are ill spent, for such spendeth undue energies better devoted to the academy. Therefore, never shalt thou be called by thine initial by me, and never shalt thou ever receive any credence from me, but only criticism, precisely that which thou lackest, for thou art unable to soundly interpret by thine own ability, rather I shall interpret by mine own ability, disregarding thy fallacies. Furthermore, 'tis a tragedy when thou speakest with strange and common accentuation, applying such accentuation to pure history, thereby subjecting it to much undue squalor by thy forked tongue. Much the same, never shalt thou make any gain in allusion to plebeian amusements or any other vulgar efforts toward good humor, lest thy aim be distraction, which yet remains an undue aim and not a gain at all. Last, in thy great defamation and degradation of the noble humanities, 'tis our desperate plea that wouldst cast off false conviction and unsound presupposition, thereby drawing nearer the truth. O youthful professor, who remains always in ideal form, a curse thee and all thine house for a thousand and one generations!

**Note the presence of "Demon" in demonstrate. See Matthew 8:28-34.

***The word "cause" nearly made the list, but not quite. Causation is out. Just dig the groove of an infinite history until your head explodes in paradox.

*^The linguist Zeldornius prefers "impotent" in his recent translation of The Quotable Thorvald Erikson.

^Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. Give credit where it is due, my friends.

^* No.

^** See Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, 1971, screenplay by Roald Dahl, based on the novel by the same, for whatever reason replacing Charlie with Willy Wonka in the film title. Starring Gene Wilder and lesser beings.

^***Especially in American history textbooks, which have a long history of being just awful. American history is not at all as important as this country's educational system makes it out to be, and if you ever want your European friends to talk to you, you must first realize that the French Revolution was far more important than that strange uprising in a few British colonies.

*^^ That is right. Only you. Yes, you, right there. Call into Coast to Coast AM and tell George, Ian, or Art about it, but preferably George.