I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you understand deflationary and critical vs inflationary, conflationary, and fictional grammars.
I am tracking the technologies of truth and deception, and group evolutionary strategy using those grammars, just as you would track the history of linguistics, genes, pottery, or metallurgy.
I track economics not literature.
I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them.
I understand the desire for literature in some classes and results in other classes throughout history.
And once you have these understandings, you also attribute very different values and incentives to historical events, just as knowledge of science forced us to rewrite our understanding and history.
Now, you might say I err, but do I err, but it’s extremely unlikely that I err. Because we need do nothing more than study the economics (incentives), and grammars (excuses) to determine whether people acted morally in fact, or immorally, casting themselves as moral.
I am not misguided. My understanding of history is very clearly, the initiation of indo europeans, and the socially destabilizing counter-revolutions against their innovations, because meritocracy, reciprocity, sovereignty, and markets are a threat to every single old order.
The problem that you’ll face is providing superior explanatory power with greater parsimony, without appealing to knowledge that can’t exist in time and space.
You don’t know that (yet).
but that’s what you’re dealing with.