YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Sleazy Car Salesman said:
HEMA is full of fruity faggots and always has been.
Click to expand...
This was a major surprise to me when I found HEMA years ago. I don’t know why you have to believe in the existence of girldick to properly schielhau.

Isnt Buhurt HEMA but for men?
Click to expand...
They are different approaches.


Regardless, we can all agree that Olympic style fencing is the gayest of them all.
 
Last edited:
The Secret Sauce said:
In other words, he's shit. You posted the reason you tolerate the shit he peddles, not an argument for why it isn't shit. His Rome videos are just Unbiased History for redditors, but done completely earnestly.
Click to expand...
Point is, fact and opinion are easily distinguishable in his videos and the facts are relayed competently, comparing him with Unbiased History is just dishonest.
 
Potentially Criminal said:
This was a major surprise to me when I found HEMA years ago. I don’t know why you have to believe in the existence of girldick to properly schielhau.
Click to expand...
It's a European movement and as such it is filled with European faggotry.
NewFagWhore said:
Point is, fact and opinion are easily distinguishable in his videos and the facts are relayed competently, comparing him with Unbiased History is just dishonest.
Click to expand...
The guy constantly gets shit wrong and makes things up. It's fine to like garbage but don't pretend it isn't garbage.
 
NewFagWhore said:
the facts are relayed competently
Click to expand...
Yeah, unless the facts in question are inconvenient for the narrative he's trying to spin. Then they're ignored entirely. Remember when he clutched his pearls over Cicero being told that the Senate couldn't guarantee his safety and he should leave? He left out the fact that Marc Antony received the exact same treatment, and that was Caesar's entire justification for crossing the Rubicon. That's not "competently relaying the facts", that's lying through omission. Propaganda and lies are not synonymous, it's perfectly possible to present a warped version of history without telling any lies.
NewFagWhore said:
comparing him with Unbiased History is just dishonest.
Click to expand...
You're right, Dovah drew attention to the fact that he was an unreliable narrator who was trying to entertain, not educate. HC pretends to be "relaying the facts" while he seethes about fellows that died 2 millennia ago. I shouldn't compare the two, Unbiased History is far more honest.
 
Prester John said:
I seem to remember Schola Gladiatoria suddenly cutting ties with Shad Brooks over the latter being insufficiently woke.
Click to expand...
If it's the dude I'm thinking of I thought he cut ties because wokesters were hassling him for being friends with Shad the grifting racist nazi.

Edit: Yah, here's the full text from his post:

Dear community, fans and members,
This is the kind of post I normally try to avoid.
You will notice that this morning I have removed a post that I made while I was away working and travelling yesterday.
At quite short notice, I was kindly invited to get together with a varied group of people to do some filming.
I don't normally turn down such opportunities, unless I have some concrete reason. Even if I have factual and non-damaging disagreements with another person involved. I try to beat views that I disagree with, with facts and argument.
One of the people involved yesterday, it turns out, is highly *personally* offensive to a lot of people I care about. Both here and offline. I did not know the depths and complexities of the issues with that person before yesterday.
I don't care if somebody has historical views that I disagree with - I will argue with them. But I do deeply care if a person has views that I deem to be venturing into the realm of bigotry, such as sexism, racism or homophobia. That is absolutely, and obviously, a line in the sand for me.
I have interacted with this person over the years, including posting video rebuttals, arguments, responses etc. on historical matters. I had not experienced anything negative with that person, other than disagreeing with a fairly large number of points that person made (as evidenced by my videos responses over the years, eg. what is HEMA?).
However, yesterday after filming, it was brought to my attention that on their second channel (one I have only visited a handful of times, a long time ago) this person is now promoting political and social views which are absolutely against my own views, and indeed against the principles of the groups and events I run. I was not aware of the nature and extremity of this person's views before yesterday. People can of course voice their views in a free society, but I am equally free to disapprove of, disagree with and disassociate with those views. Which I hereby do in black and white terms.
I do not at all align myself, or in any way agree with that person's views on these topics. Which should be patently obvious to anyone who knows me or has followed my channel closely.
I filmed one video with the said person yesterday, and I had already decided last night not to publish that. I have also now taken down yesterday's post, because I want to move on from this and disassociate from them.
I understand that many people will be angry that I have collaborated with that person at all (even before I knew their views), and I hope that it will partially appease you to know that I will not associate with them again, now that I know the full facts, and that there will be no output from yesterday's filming coming from me.
For people who are upset to read this and did not know about this person's views, I suggest that you go and decide for yourself. But I know where my line in the sand is.
Now this page will return to its usual content, apologies for the diversion.
Click to expand...
tl;dr - He was bamboozled by le heckin chud and kneels before ladydick.
 
1771545037887.png

Whig maxxing
 
Slap47 said:
View attachment 8583369

Whig maxxing
Click to expand...
I would agree with the point that Reaction is a fundamentally flawed approach to revolutionary or reformist movements because it typically doesn't address the core concerns or cultural shifts that spurred them on in the first place, but "progress" is a nebulous and ill-defined thing. For example, the response to the failures of the reactionary regime ruling Germany to crush communists effectively and rule the country wasn't social democratic progressivism, as that has also failed, but Fascism, similar to a lesser degree in Italy and other places within central Europe. Hell, I would say this throughline has been the case since the very beginning of Liberal Revolution, as the Reactionary forces weren't able to crush the French Revolution, while Napoleon, a moderator and ideological syncretist, did.

All that aside, of course, because Trumpism (which is what I am assuming he is referring to) is not Reactionary at all. It is still a fundamentally Liberal movement based on core Westphalian and Liberal ideas of the nation-state and will of the people. It could only be described as religious in that a large portion of the people who follow it are religious, and it is only conservative in that it is opposed to gay race communism. A major pillar of support is the fact that many of the adherents have felt a distinct regression of their standard of living and prospects in life due to "progressive" policies.

I would say that in substance so-called "progressives" resemble the 18th and 19th century reactionaries far more than Trumpists do. Claiming a divine mandate (via their nebulous God of Progress) and seeking to enforce an unpopular foreign absolutist and theocratic rule on a dissenting population who have suffered at the failures to actually heed the wishes of the people and reform to more effective forms of governance, both cultural and economic.
 
Slap47 said:
It is fascism.
Click to expand...
If the United States government did decide to become the majority owners of Lockheed-Martin or AMD like Gazprom, or just outright nationalized them, what would actually change?

Of course, this question requires too much honesty for Cypher to ask, and so Fascism is not an economic or political system of managing labor, it is a demon that terrorizes the brown people who were promised white-bread America's land thirty years ago.
 
It is here.
I had forgotten how awful the Ridley Scott film were, but knowing that that directors cut is worse is beyond my comprehension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom