I want to call you a coward for saying that but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I misunderstood.
But the fact is you posted this for a reason, and that reason is strongly implied by your follow up post; and furthermore, the author (who, from the link, appears to be one "Eternal Vigilance," -- any relation -- doesn't ask you to think about it, he tells the reader that he will "subconsciously start substituting names and date as you read the content".
That bit about "any parallels are those suggested by your own mind" is untrue.
You’re mistaken. The author is not “EternalVigilance.” If you follow the link you will see that the author/editor/commentator is Michael Walsh.
I simply thought the article to be so good that FReepers would enjoy sharing it.
Why are you bringing contention to this thread for no discernible good reason?