“It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.
…
All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions.
…
People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us.” -CS Lewis
I notice that on political debate shows, and in history textbooks, the bias is not found so often in lies or in errors, but in omissions, in focus.
John Ratcliffe was a fine man who was later made into a villain by leftists. Why? Because leftists rape history.
A man on Twitter asked me if "invaders" were "the bad guys."
1) Only sometimes.
2) Invasion pre-supposes boundaries and laws.
3) Is the leftist standard that illegals are "the bad guys" no matter what is done to them?
No, the truth is they just hate Europeans and will use any twisted logic to make Europeans history's perpetual bad guys.