It is somewhat curious that there is a veiled homogeneity in the idea of historical evolution in the modern West, when there is enormous accessibility to established historians whose works dismantle this very idea. In other words: the subject proclaims what he has discovered very well documented in a reliable source, sometimes in a publication that was published more than half a century ago, and is still regarded as crazy, as an enemy and as a criminal. For some reason, the veiled consensus wants to remain immune to certain works. But it should be noted that, at least since Hegel, being a historian has, to a large extent, also become being iconoclastic.