I am hesitant to turn my gaze to a ‘preferred’ history that matches my politics. The truth is elusive and one will find a hundred varying accounts of any single topic. In my mind a critical approach is best as one cannot forge an iron-clad future without learning from the mistakes of the past, whether real or or falsified. In history- especially in regard to politics one will hardly ever find a non-biased account on a particular subject. History offers us a way to deny or minimalize the mistakes of the past, while these views should absolutely be explored in the pursuit of truth, one must remain non-biased in the realm of actual politics and I hold that a critical view is best. The pursuit of truth is no doubt important, but it will become twisted and contorted in favor of ones political stance on an issue. Thus we have the holocost deniars and others who cling to such views. If you believe in something you must be absolutely critical of its previous applications in the real world, otherwise history (not the history you think happened) is bound to repeat itself.

Note* I am not saying to discard facts. Only that certain political ideologies are dependent on it. That their theoretical views must take into account the most hostile criticisms instead of merely discarding them. Otherwise history is bound to repeat itself. Truth is the most important thing but not when it comes to defending political theory for in that regard even the most vicious lie must be prevented from repeating itself (whether it happened in the first place or not). You are bound to deny the holocost if you are a Nazi, etc. This was the goal of this writing.