BTW I first heard the term 'subaltern' here:
SH Archive - Ask Pro | - Questions for History Professionals
"subaltern designates and identifies the colonial populations who are socially, politically, and geographically excluded from the hierarchy of power"
from
Subaltern (postcolonialism) - Wikipedia
'Subaltern' is a Marxist term and this "work" is a Marxist undertaking. Do history graduates realise this? Or care? Maybe its perceived as the right thing to do - to create history...?
Anyway - history is a big deal to Marxists.
Karl Marx - Wikipedia
Historical materialism - Wikipedia
The idea of Marxism, subaltern voices and the deconstruction of this specific strand of false history probably merits its own thread around here, I reckon. I wouldn't say its the
only reason for falsification of history and the generation of bs, but it is the primary driver of modern history creation in academia - and an easy strand to follow. I seem to bump into it in basically every article I read.
This is indeed an important angle. A little background. To understand the role of Marx, you have to go back to Hegel. Marx's entire thought system can be seen as an inversion of Hegel's. To put it briefly, Hegel is considered the first philosopher of history. Before him, the goal of philosophy was to describe Being in static terms, as something solid existing outside of us. Hegel believed that Being was by nature dynamic, and that consciousness, or Geist, was an integral part of it. There is a permanent tension between "subject" and "substance" in Hegel's system that generates constant transformation on the level of objective reality as well as the subjective consciousness that perceives that reality. He believed that History was animated by a transcendental Geist whose "desire" was to attain a stable end state in which the objective and the subjective would coexist in perfect Absolute Knowledge. Whereas previous philosophers such as Descartes, Kant and Spinoza did not bother too much with concrete history, Hegel was very interested in it. Both "The Phenomenology of Spirit" and even more explicitly "The Philosophy of History" are explicitly concerned with tracking the evolution of Spirit through successive historical events. Hegel is a "dialectical" philosopher, meaning that he sees Being as a dialogue. Crucially, there is no way to step outside of the dialogue and observe it objectively. Consciousness is always caught up in the specific historical moment to which it belongs. Hegel calls this principle the "Cunning of Reason" or the "Ruse of History". In other words, it is never possible to understand the present moment because the Geist blinds us to it until we are "ready" to see it. What's more, it is never even really possible to understand the past, as certain latent potentialities in it do not reveal themselves until a certain amount of time has passed. This website is a perfect example of that. Reading through KD's mindblowing original posts, it is as if every dead event in history suddenly rose from the grave and said, "Not so fast, I still have something to say." Hegel suggests this is a structural principle of Being itself, namely that it only unfolds over time, and that the subjectivity that perceives and understands history after the fact is not just a passive observer but rather a participant in that Becoming.
If this sounds vague, don't blame me too much. Hegel is famous for his ultra-dense, opaque, and complicated writing.
So, on to Marx. Hegel believed that the motor of History was Spirit or Geist. Materialist translators have begun translating "Geist" as "Mind" rather than "Spirit" which I see as a sorry reflection on our reductionist times. The Satanist atheist Jew Marx believed that the motor of history was not Spirit but rather matter. Hence his famous statement that his goal was to "turn Hegel on his head". Marx went to Berlin to study under Hegel, but Hegel died of cholera in 1831 before Marx could attend his seminar. Hegel was the most famous philosopher in the world at that time and shortly before his death gave a famous speech that the Emperor himself listened to. So Marx never met Hegel, but he learned his system. Lenin spent the years between the 1905 failed revolution in the 1917 successful one living in Switzerland and studying Hegel's densest work, the "Science of Logic". In some ways Marx simply continues Hegel's work and in other ways he completely perverts it. The transition from Hegel to Marx can perhaps be seen as a reflection of the transformation within Freemasonry and other secret societies from a more or less Christian ideal of universal enlightenment to a more or less Jewish ideal of universal slavery. That said, there are troubling elements in Hegel already. I now suspect he was one of the most important architects of the Napoleonic Reset in Europe. Reading Hegel makes it easier to understand how the forgers pulled the operation off. Hegel was famously present in Jena in 1806 when Napoleon, the "living incarnation of the World Spirit", rode through town on horseback. Hegel supposedly observed the scene from his window. Napoleon was the World Spirit because he was bringing universal citizenship to Europe and "dialectically overcoming" an "incomplete" previous stage of History in which subjectivity was crushed by feudal despotism. Napoleon was the "objective" face of Spirit and Hegel, by observing, understanding, and reflecting Napoleon's actions into thought, made himself Spirit's "subjective" face and proclaimed the "End of History" in which humanity would finally attain "freedom".
I swallowed this stuff when I first read it twenty years ago. Now I suspect that "Napoleon" never existed as anything but a cutout and that therefore Hegel never saw him riding his horse through Jena. Which means he was lying. Now I see in Hegel's system nothing but standard esoteric doctrine translated into the pompous language of German Idealism. I suppose he was commissioned by the esoteric societies of which he was probably a member, if not the leader, to covertly spread their doctrine of Enlightenment, a "Great Work" which continues today. Take the bizarre unveiling of transgenderism in the last ten years. In my opinion, the only way to explain this phenomenon is as a concerted effort to induct as much of humanity as possible into Satanism without them even knowing. What's interesting is that we could argue that there is a deep opposition between a good "Hegelian" or spiritual transgenderism, which would be nothing but the realization that at the deepest level, consciousness is universal, and an evil "Marxist" or material transgenderism, which attempts psychotically to realize this esoteric insight on the level of the body, an operation which does not "raise" consciousness but rather destroys it. In other words, Satanism.
The question that I still have no answer for is whether the delusional, Satanic, materialist, Jewish, Marxist version of esoteric thought that is shoved down our throat every day was part of the plan from the beginning or rather an artificial takeover of it. Were Hegel and the other Enlightenment philosophers like Jefferson, who said so many good things, aware that the end goal of the Great Work was universal slavery? As I said, there are troubling elements in Hegel already. If Napoleon was fake, then Hegel knew it. If Hegel knew it, then he was actively concealing our true history from us. Perhaps he believed that this was the only way for humanity to evolve, like an adoptive parent waiting until a certain age to reveal the truth to an adopted child. Maybe this is even true. It is important to note that without realizing it, we have all internalized the Hegelian vision of history, which could be described as the tortuous ascension of man from a primitive state to a perfected state. With each important historical event, man is "purified" a little more. The French Revolution, the Civil War, the two World Wars, etc. When you begin to realize that these events are scripted and largely hoaxed, people like Hegel no longer seem so innocent. It seems less like humanity is evolving upwards and more like we are being enslaved and hypnotized, ritual by ritual. Then again, they may be saving the biggest reversal for last. And they do always seem to leave clues for those who are paying attention that the whole thing is a gigantic opera. What I mean is that the "default" vision of history is evolutionist
because of Hegel and it is precisely his invisibility here that shows just how influential he is. There would be no Darwinism without Hegel, for example.
Hegel basically said, towards the end of his life, that the authoritarian Prussian state (which invented modern schooling and pushed bureaucracy to the next dehumanizing level) was the greatest thing since sliced bread and a necessary precondition for humanity to evolve to the next level. I am paraphrasing. From this point of view, Marx's universal communist state is nothing but a turbo-charged update to the Hegelian ideal. Still, there is a huge difference between the two. Hegel believed, or at least professed, that we had to be humble in the face of History and refuse the temptation to take it into our own hands, since it is smarter and stronger than us, and will always find a way to use us. Marx, on the other hand, rejected Hegel's circumspection and insisted that the goal of philosophy was not to understand history, but to change it. I suspect that it is precisely this act of hubris that functions as an invitation for Satan to pick up the reins. Keep in mind that Marx's brother-in-law, Ferdinand von Westphalen, was the head of the secret police for the Prussian state. They don't teach you that in philosophy school...
Having said all this, I think one of the most interesting things someone here could do would be to read Hegel's "Philosophy of History" and comment on it. Why? Because I now suspect that every single historical event he brings up may be some kind of fake. (He loves the French Revolution.) In other words, it's possible that this text could be used as a skeleton key to identify and pick apart the narrative at the moment it was created. Again, like all the other Romantics and Idealists, this MFer was (1) a towering genius and (2) connected with the highest levels of power, which means that inventing and publicizing an entire fake history would be, if not easy for them, at least imaginable. Elsewhere on this site Usselo goes into a lot of detail on how the English romantics were instrumental in forging history.
Hegel's simplified chronology is basically:
1. "Oriental Despotism"
2. Greek and Roman period
3. Christianity
4. Feudalism
5. Englightenment
6. The Universal State
In other words, the standard schematic that closes our minds to other possibilities.
Feralimal, you ask if history graduates know if they are creating history according to a Marxist/Hegelian formula or not. I would say the answer is probably both. At the bottom you probably have "honest" but not particularly intelligent people who just repeat what they are told and do the yeoman's work of producing and salting in fake history. These people are motivated by conformity and a salary. At the middle level you encounter more opportunistic and cunning types who know they are making stuff up but they don't care. They like power and they like the idea that they are creating a new world in which they will have more power. They rationalize their dishonest behavior by telling themselves they are working for a Good Cause. At the highest level I suspect you have the people who have either been born into the con or recruited from among the most intelligent and amoral of the second category. I imagine that they are initiated into intelligence agencies and secret societies, inserted into positions of power, and tasked with orienting and managing the others.
YULETIDE GREETINGS TO ONE AND ALL! 
