>I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt

>>2440027
I agree, but unfortunately that's not how it works. The academic discipline of history being the very proof that it is the "critics", bystanders and observers that write the narrative that plebs will be taught to consider as facts, and thus what "matters". Unfortunately.

>>2440038
Cont.

the doers of history only rarely write history, such as when they write journals, letters, autobiographies (Hitler and Mein Kampf being one example off the top of my head). And even then the "timid souls" will quarantine and isolate sic sources and make sure that the public only sees them through their lens.

Don't mean to hijack the thread though. Peace out.

>>2440038
>>2440056
Leo Tolstoy — 'History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true.'

Jungian view best view