Historical relativists insist that the historian is a product of his time, and as such he is subject to the unconscious programming of his era. It is impossible, allegedly, for the historian to stand back and view history objectively because he too is part of the historical process. Hence, historical synthesis depends on the personality of the writer as well as the social and religious milieu in which he lives. (Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume I: Pirenne: Meyerhoff)

While I do agree that our unconscious programming plays a part in our writing (whatever its context), the problem is that the historical relativist embraces this programming and transfers it to the conscious domain. At this point all the history he writes is severely damaged. This has not always been the case, and I feel for the next generations of those that would study history. They will have a much harder time getting through to the actual history rather than the “story” the liberal historical relativist would have them believe.