It was easy to fool my father’s ex-wife. It shouldn’t be so easy to fool historians.
I read a lot of history books, and one thing that bothers me is when a historian’s biographical subject is a president, and the historian writes, “We know from his diaries that…” To me, this seems like the mark of an amateur. If a historian’s subject pens their memoirs, the historian almost always knows better than to automatically trust that book’s content because they know that the author will lack objectivity and write about themselves in the best possible light. Why then, are presidential diaries so often not held to the same level of scrutiny? Surely, the presidents know that their diaries will not be kept private. Often, it’s those very same presidents who donate their diaries to their own presidential libraries! And yet, historians treat those diaries as if they’re polygraph tests. A presidential diary is not a hidden window into that individual’s soul. If the person who is writing the diary is well aware that historians are going to be poking around in it, then to the historian, the entire exercise should be seen as pointless. As long as historians keep engaging in this exercise, presidents will continue to keep apocryphal diaries with the purpose of having them be discovered. I say, good for them. I’ve done the exact same thing in my own life.
My parents got divorced when I was about three or four, and about five years later, my father married a seven-year-old who happened to be trapped in a fat thirty-seven-year-old’s body. Her and my so-called “father” were emotionally abusive, and one component of the endless abuse was a lack of privacy. I’m not suggesting that after some really careful sleuthing, I had some mild suspicions that my papers were slightly askew. I’m talking about the seven-year-old outright saying, “But you said on the phone that…” or “You wrote on the computer that…” Understand that when she said, “But you said on the phone,” she was not implying that I said this to her on the phone. When she said, “You wrote on the computer,” it wasn’t something that I printed out and shared with her. These were “private” conversations and writings that she was intruding on. Or so she thought. Before I continue, I should quickly note that I can understand the appeal of wanting to spy on me. After all, I had an older brother, and I did the same thing to him when I was seven. The difference between me and my father’s child bride is that, unlike her, I eventually turned eight and subsequently lost interest in spying. Apparently, this unemployed piece of shit must have discovered the fountain of youth, because espionage never got old for her.
The violation of my privacy began as soon as I moved in with them in nineteen-ninety-three. Until that point, I had lived with my mother, thirty minutes away in the town of West Milford, New Jersey. Then I moved to the stupid, irrelevant, evil, inbred, backward, redneck shithole known as Florida, New York. One day, I was sitting in my room, writing something on the computer that I pretended was meant for my eyes only, when the seven-year-old’s son walked in. On the computer screen, I immediately shrunk down what I had been writing. He noticed that I did that. So far, so good. A short time later, the seven-year-old entered my room, and I once again shrunk down the computer screen. Now here’s the thing—I fully expected them to eventually read what I wrote, which they did. It’s particularly interesting that her son read it, because, for years, his mother had been claiming that he had various learning disabilities which prohibited him from being able to read. I could point to countless occurrences which proved that his “learning disability” was imaginary, and in this one particular instance, Jesus must have cast out the demons of dyslexia, because he was able to perfectly read every word that I had written. When his mother read it a short time later, this was a really big moment in her otherwise meaningless life. I know this because, for the remaining six years that her and my father were married, whenever I said anything that contradicted what I had originally written on that day back in 1993, she made it a point to say, with unbridled joy, “But you wrote on the computer…” What she failed to realize was that what I had written on the computer that day was actually nothing more than a test run, and it was the first of many, many times in which I would fool her. My brother had already lived with them a couple of years prior to this, so I already knew everything that she was going to try to do to me. I remembered how he used to complain about how she would listen in and later comment on his phone calls. Somehow, he was even dumber than her, because he would get angry and demand that she respect his privacy. I understood that there was no chance of this happening, and that getting angry would accomplish nothing. I also understood that it’s not hard to outsmart a seven-year-old, so I developed a strategy.
First, while I’m on the topic of my brother, I mentioned earlier that I had stopped spying on him when I turned eight, which, maturity-wise, was one year older than my stepmother. That’s true, but there was another, more practical reason why I stopped: people’s telephone conversations are painfully boring. To my stepmother, that was beside the point. She didn’t do this to obtain really juicy information, but to let me know that she could fuck with me any way she wanted to. In fact, during my first “test run” telephone call after moving in with them, I said to a friend on the phone, “I’ll talk to you later. I have to go do laundry.” Three hours later, I still hadn’t started the laundry. The cunt asked, “Aren’t you going to do laundry? You said on the phone that you were going to do it.” This perfectly illustrates how the excitement for her wasn’t in what was being said, but in the “gotcha” moment, as in, “You didn’t even know that I was listening in on the other line, did you? Wow! That must have hit you like a ton of bricks, huh? Now you’re going to rack your brain, trying to remember what else you might have said on the call!” Um…to the contrary, not only was I aware of the fact that she was listening in on the other line, but because of my brother’s prior complaints, I was aware of the fact that she would be listening in on the other line before the phone call even started. And once I understood that my writings would be read and that my telephone conversations would be listened to and commented on (and probably recorded too; she really is that pathetic that I wouldn’t put it past her), I intentionally planted so much bullshit into both my phone conversations and my writings that I actually looked forward to having my privacy violated. When I say that I “looked forward to it,” I don’t mean that I looked forward to it in the way that some people look forward to Christmas. I mean that it became an all-consuming passion of mine in the same way that some teenagers would dedicate themselves toward trying to get into Harvard. Actually, that’s not even a proper comparison, because getting into Harvard might be rewarding, but the process itself isn’t fun. I, on the other hand, was having the time of my life (in a painfully boring town like Florida, New York, you have to make your own fun).
Even though this essay is about the self-serving nature of diaries, let’s first explore my telephone conversations in more detail, because that’s where I really used to shine. Here’s a made-up example of how it worked. Let’s just say that I asked a friend on the phone which places they wanted to travel to. I didn’t actually care about the answer. All I cared about was saying the following sentence: “One place I would never want to visit is Hawaii.” I waited about a week, and then, in front of the child, I asked my father, “Where did you go on your honeymoon with my mother?”
“Hawaii.”
“Nice,” I said. “I would love to go there.”
That’s when the child chimed in with, “But you said on the phone that you would never go to Hawaii.” Do you see how easy that is? Internally, both of us were laughing our asses off, her because she falsely thought that she violated my imaginary “privacy,” and me because the wallet that I handed over to my mugger was filled with Monopoly money. Actually, that analogy doesn’t even work because, unlike my former stepmother, the mugger would eventually learn that he had been tricked, whereas, to this day, my former stepmother thinks that she “won.” That’s fine by me. In fact, that was my entire strategy going into every interaction with her and her piece of shit kids. A few years ago, I read Martha Stout’s terrific book Outsmarting The Sociopath Next Door, and one passage particularly stood out to me. She wrote:
Any contest can be won, or at least brought to a draw, even in the throes of defeat, if one contestant unilaterally and quietly changes the objective of the game.
Stout uses checkers as an example, writing that the objective of a game of checkers is to clear all of your opponent’s pieces. But when dealing with a sociopath, Stout writes, one’s objective might be to only obtain, say, an even number of pieces, or to clear a certain section of the board. The important thing is to quietly meet your objectives while making your opponent think that they’ve won. The reason why I enjoyed that passage so much was because that was how I always instinctively dealt with the seven-year-old. ‘I could have written that passage,’ I thought. ‘Hell, I practically invented the idea.’ Which was the better way of handling her? My brother’s way, which was to get angry and demand the privacy that he wasn’t going to get? Or my way, which was to outsmart her and turn this into a really fun game, one that I always won? Granted, I started playing this game at the age of fourteen, which made me twice her age, and I would have liked to have sparred with an intellectual equal, but this was Florida, New York, where beggars can’t be choosers.
How much did I enjoy this activity? One time, a friend called me on the phone when the seven-year-old wasn’t home. I told him, “Do me a favor. My stepmother isn’t home yet. Call me back in about an hour.” He laughed his ass off and said, “You are one strange individual.” Then there was the time that I visited one of my friends in West Milford and told him that I would eventually ask him on the phone if he received my letter in the mail, and for him to say yes. He did as I instructed, and since there was no actual letter, this must have driven the seven-year-old absolutely insane. “HE WROTE A LETTER THAT I DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT? I SPEND HOURS SNOOPING THROUGH HIS ROOM! WHAT THE FUCK?!!!”
There were people who were angry on my behalf, which I found interesting and somewhat baffling since I was enjoying myself so much. They tried to explain to me that even if I gave my mugger a wallet full of Monopoly money, I should still object to being mugged. What they failed to understand was something that I found to be remarkably simple, which was this—I was playing the long game. I didn’t expect her and my father to get divorced a mere six years later. They’re both garbage, so I thought they were perfect for each other, and assumed that they would be together forever. But even if they had remained together forever, I knew that I would be an adult in the not-too-distant future, and I understood that these cunts would be nothing more than a temporary “problem.” I was able to see further than what was five minutes in front of me. I’m Keith Malek, not Rick Malek.
One method that wasn’t nearly as effective but much more fun was the bullshit that I started to write in journals. After they had read what I wrote on the computer, I immediately stopped writing on there and started writing in a journal instead, knowing full well that the seven-year-old’s snooping wouldn’t be limited to just the computer, and that the discovery of a “hidden” journal would be irresistible to her. The funny part is that I didn’t even want to keep a journal, but I know that she would have really wanted me to keep a journal, and, well, I aim to please. Everything I wrote was complete and utter bullshit. Well, maybe not everything. I had to include enough true information to make the bullshit parts seem plausible (which was something that I had already done during the “test run” essay that I had originally written on the computer). I kept the journals “well-hidden,” but not so well-hidden that they wouldn’t be found by her (which, of course, is the very definition of well-hidden, but you see where I’m going with this). This illaqueation didn’t work nearly as well as the telephone ploy. For one thing, in 1999, that loser was still quoting what I had written back in 1993, but I don’t recall her ever saying, “But you wrote in your journal…” It is indeed possible that I might have hidden it too well. The problem with writing, for me, is that I couldn’t quite seem to scale back on the creativity. According to my journals, for a while, I struggled with heroin addiction. Then, when I became old enough to drive, I accidentally ran someone over and dumped their body in Greenwood Lake. My listened-to telephone conversations were both fun and effective in terms of tricking the seven-year-old. My journal entries weren’t nearly as effective, but I had a blast writing them.
It’s not hard to fool someone who is dumb as a rock, but historians should know better. Instead of saying it on the telephone, I could just as easily have written in my journal that I would never visit Hawaii. And if I had become president, I could very easily see a historian write:
His father claimed that Malek had dreamed of traveling to Hawaii. However, we know from his diary entries that Malek had once expressed disdain for the Aloha state. It is that type of indecisiveness that was a recurring theme in Malek’s life, a trait that his Republican rivals pointed to when Malek proved to be indecisive over whether or not he should allow Texas back into the union after the Civil War of 2024.
The difference here is that I wasn’t trying to hoodwink an entire nation. I just wanted to trick one idiot, and it worked splendidly.
I’m living proof that diaries can be self-serving, no matter who is writing in them and despite what the purpose of them might be. To treat them as if they are infallible litmus tests into the inner workings of a subject’s mind is foolish. We should expect more from our historians.










