Does anyone know a non-cuck version (aka not crash course) of an overview of world history

>Ignoring freece, china, india, and persia
Triggered

Praying?

Don't use "edgy kid", it makes you look like an edgy kid.

>Da Vinchi

pls go

I don't think you know what cuck means.

...and then it got worse.

There is literally nothing wrong with crash course, except crash course economics, which is simply bad (main shitlight: immigration, apparently some +35yo bitch knows how young people view their hordes of competition and are just okay being NEETs), and crash course philosophy, which is hank green shitposting videos and letting the world know how atheist he is... Hank, if you're reading this it better get better.

Crash course history is fine, just ignore the forced memes and be prepared to pause the video to Google shit.

>Dark ages
>General decline,no books
wew, muh rennailmaosance amirite

>just ignore the forced memes
That's the problem, their entire school of thought regarding how history should be looked at is a forced meme.

Season 2 or whatever they called it was better for at least providing some alternate perspectives, but they were still only views that could concievably fit into or become a part of the writers' narrative without major upset.

>This machine kills fascists.

If you put this sentence in every video then it must be important to you.

Watched for a minute then figured he likes to sit in his closet watching niggers rape his wife. Case closed.

Extra credits is pretty good for what i have seen

Crash course is good for idiots who know nothing about history but it skims over way too much but i guess it has to, to keep the videos shortish and to keep the idiot masses engaged with their short ass attention spans. I liked them however, but don't expect to learn a lot of new information.

The real issue is the entire crash course team believes it's honest to assume their only target audience are teenage girls, when in reality the people watching informational YouTube channels are predominantly young men a little bored of either studying STEM or bored of NEEThood. It's a cold fact, men are typically more intellectually curious.

The girls that are watching these videos would watch anyway because they're only watching due to studying a similar course. No one cared if patrick JMTs videos were interesting, because you'd watch it anyway, passing a course is more important than a dopamine rush.

This is why John Green gives this impression: >Watched for a minute then figured he likes to sit in his closet watching niggers rape his wife.
He's trying to appeal to teenage girls and the impression that gen x has for teenagers is that they only respect cucks. Pic related, pure appeal to the post sexual revolution generation.

In reality, gen x is the most disconnected, out of touch generation. I fucking lost it when Adrienne Hill said gen y/gen z are just okay with immigration, that's the vocal minority the mainstream media have given a disproportionate amount of attention to. In reality, they're memeified Trump supporters and NEETs with degrees sick of competiting with out group preferences designed against them. Diversity hiring wouldn't be a thing in homogenous nations, this is obvious.

>Extra credits is pretty good for what i have seen
Extra credits is a little too narrative, artistic and may allow a little inaccuracy for the sake of interesting. Definitely highly recommended, but unless you also watch their "lies" episode (boring as fuck, shut up and watch them) then you're missing out and being miseducated.

Definitely what I'd call "beautiful" or aesthetic. Watch it anyway, everything works, the music, the art, the message.

>In reality, they're memeified Trump supporters and NEETs with degrees sick of competiting with out group preferences designed against them
Not really, we're pretty divided. Among college attendees it's like 60% vlog bros-loving post-hipster stereotypes, think millennials but more optimistic, and 40% moderates who are nontheless fed up with pc-esque bullshit. Non college attendees are more conservative but less politically active, but the main difference is they're far less literally r'eddit.

Though my assessment of college attendees comes with an asterisk, there are probably more conservative trump supporter types, but all the student positions of power are locked down by the post-hipster bernie bro types, you really can't afford to say that you hold certain opinions but those opinions are still at best a reasonable minority.

Reminder, the majority of people are still white and half of them are men.

You don't actually think the "white male privilege" field of postmodernist philosophy is appealing to them, do you? In actuality, only 6% of people take the mainstream media seriously, less than 12% of people gen y or younger agree with any affirmative action of the any sort. With these figures in mind, it's near impossible to imagine those post-hipsters being any more than 15% of that generation. Even these, most these people are either women, PoC, or both, minorities of minorities.

I actually think you don't realise how minor this minority is, I actually think you've also been affected by media manipulation making this minority out as a majority.

That's the final red pill that /pol/ refuses to swallow, they're actually a majority pretending to be a reactionary, dissenting minority. It makes them feel better, more rebellious, when in reality the rest of the world is saying "DUH."

>less politically active
I think it was Socrates who said these people just follow the "dox" or dogma or perceived most popular political fashion. They're basically prone to agreeing with whatever the media tells them is popular to avoid trouble.

Question them longer and very few of them are anything but moderates.

>I actually think you've also been affected by media manipulation making this minority out as a majority.
It might be easy to think that, but I've met plenty more people who openly and enthusiastically mock Trump or general conservative opinions than people who's silence indicates to me that they feel they can't safely say what they actually think without backlash, ridicule, or ostracism. I remember I was sitting in a polisci class and we had an anonymous poll about the presidential election, something like 80% bernie and 13% trump, other repubs were ~5% if I remember correctly, I'll see if I can find the picture I took of it.

This is all for college campuses. People not in college are much more conservative, most all young conservatives prefer Trump over any other prominent candidate, the second biggest being the libertarian wing. I actually find it funny that young conservatives are more anti-establishment than young liberals, if only slightly. Hillary still gets about 30% of them, whereas I'd be surprised if every establishment republican who had anything close to a shot put together could muster that now.

But none of this matters, Gen Z still doesn't fucking vote. The ones that did were bernouts and will probably vote Trump to spite Clinton if they vote at all.

What if I told you they were doing that because they too falsely believed that the popular political opinion is moderate left rather than moderate right? What if they just don't want to be told they're bigots by three degrees of association? They'll still vote Trump, if not simply for the morbid curiosity of what a Trump presidency is going to be like.

And stop talking about polsci, of course anything humanities or sociology is going to be left wing as fuck, go to STEM and conduct surveys, they are the majority you need to talk about and trust me they're not too happy with the blame white men for everything narrative, unless they're PoC in which case they're thrilled they can be as bigoted as they like and get told only white men are bigots. They're especially weary of the dumb minorities who they're studying alongside for "diversity" reasons and that women are twice as likely to get jobs upon graduation, so would blacks if they applied to as many jobs. White men in STEM know this well and aren't happy that they're being deferred due to their skin colour rather than anything resembling their merits.

Think of it like this, the left is now very overtly attacking the majority and those who are just taking it up the ass are getting called cucks. Everyone else would prefer the cuck insult than the bigot insult, but they'd still vote Trump anyway.

This is the state of politics. White men will pretend, but when it comes time to vote they'll vote to end the double standards.

Will Durant's "Story of Civilization" is still the best introduction to universal history that there is, and will probably ever be, because such endeavours are not fashionable anymore.

It's also full of red-pills.

>A nation is born stoic, and dies epicurean. At its cradle (to repeat a thoughtful adage) religion stands, and philosophy accompanies it to the grave. In the beginning of all cultures a strong religious faith conceals and softens the nature of things, and gives men courage to bear pain and hardship patiently; at every step the gods are with them, and will not let them perish, until they do. Even then a firm faith will explain that it was the sins of the people that turned their gods to an avenging wrath; evil does not destroy faith, but strengthens it. If victory comes, if war is forgotten in security and peace, then wealth grows; the life of the body gives way, in the dominant classes, to the life of the senses and the mind; toil and suffering are replaced by pleasure and ease; science weakens faith even while thought and comfort weaken virility and fortitude. At last men begin to doubt the gods; they mourn the tragedy of knowledge, and seek refuge in every passing delight. Achilles is at the beginning, Epicurus at the end. After David comes Job, and after Job, Ecclesiastes.

Just watch Crash Course. It's not like it's going to brainwash you if you already understand the bias.

Also I recommend their Big History series.

Reminds me of the Fate of Empires, but I know Veeky Forums typically calls that a meme so whatever.

youtube.com/watch?v=muq7rWFOk_Q

Well it's been almost a year since he came out with this yet It doesn't seem to have reached very far through the inter web. Here's the man we need all be learning from.

>12 minutes in
who he fuck is this guy? Like, nothing he's saying is crazy, I'm just curious as to why I should care to continue.

>In the beginning people understood that a cuckold was a man whose wife was an adulteress.
>Then there was Veeky Forums...

Erol gives his rendition of a self-deluded idiot giving their rendition of Erol. 23 minutes in he reverts back to his true self and explains. 24 and a half minutes he gives the same rendition again to reinstate just how banal and vapid these people are, and to imply that they are all the same. 44 minutes he reiterates the same question

I don't wanna spoil it for you

>terms can never change meaning!
>older meanings of terms are more valid than current ones because reasons!
nice pic resolution by the way, I bet it's just the right size for meme-tier reddit cultural marxist >holy >roman cucks like (You) to read.

>25 mins in
Okay, so... the beginning is his parody of other people's strawman of him?

Crash course philosophy is actually pretty good.
Crash course would be good if John just kept his idiotic sjw opinions to himself.

maybe man i wouldn't wanna dumb it down further

*tips fedora

Hey Hank.

Crash course philosophy so far has been more about shitting on theology than about presenting philosophical tools. Hank butchered existentialism, had a laughably whimsical video on death and basically gave us every strawman ever against theists.

The only thing that came close to real philosophy was when he covered JTB and the gettier cases. Good work Hank. How about you combat postmodernism like a man who actually owns his own testicles? Live dangerously and accept that philosophy is meant to be about contention.

Inb4 deanonymising me, remember, love your enemy ;)

(actually I'm quite enjoying crash course philosophy but I'm going to use every second of it to rip on Hank Green)

>CC philosophy
>good
within two fucking episodes they had called aristotle sexist for "man is the rational animal" even thought the text uses the word anthropos and I shouldn't need to tell you what that word actually means. Either they went out of their way to call someone sexist by lying or they're idiots who write based on whatever thoughts pop up into their heads without thinking about it or fact-checking themselves, and Either way it's shit. I stopped watching after that bit in the beginning of the second episode, so I guess it's *possible* they could have somehow written a great series that somehow isn't covered in the same layer shit that soaks anything the Green brothers lay their hands on, but it'll be awhile before I'm ready to give them what must be a 50th chance.

it's also kind of important and as nothing at all to do with me. i'm just here to ask and answer the following questions

are there any of you with more than a solitary brain cell capable to comprehend let alone appreciate what Erol has said in this video alone?

this is the single greatest mind of our (perhaps all) time so are we going to let him get buried on this thread in Veeky Forums or react sensibly and use our sensibility to evoke this man's wisdom toward the only thing which matters in life?

we need i repeat to be learning from this and, as he put it himself, 'burying it in the epicenter of our minds'

Alright, calling Aristotle sexist within the second episode was bullshit I agree.
But when Hank tries to be objective it's pretty good.
At least when he keeps such bullshit comments out of it.

J.M. Roberts' History of the World.

Oxford U. Press

>when Hank tries to be objective
>when he keeps such bullshit comments out of it
That's the thing, I have a hard time believing this is the case for anything but a very small part of a series starring hank fucking green.

Yes but surely there's an alternative that isn't filled with reddit jokes, right?

Don't use "edgy", it makes you look like a cuck.

This Ranke's Universal History, guaranteed uncucked.

Bingo, Mandingo

On YouTube, I doubt it. I can't think of any channels dealing with history in general that are unquestionably non-r'eddit. Many are r'eddit, and many others don't say a lot of r'eddit things but also haven't spoken out against cuck-tier opinions, implying that either they hold them themselves and don't want to get outed or are afraid to alienate people who do have them. Either way they're partially r'eddit in my book, by intent or omission.

And if anyone calls me out for using terms like "cuck" or "r'eddit", you know what I mean, there's just no good word to describe those beliefs/attitudes succinctly besides those. I don't like using them, cuck is more used by association and is kind of an overplayed meme and what defines literally r'eddits isn't quite the same as these people, but they work until someone comes up with something better.

Can you give an example of a "reddit" type opinion about history?