>>3090788

I hate this man. He may be intelligent but he's also an ideological cuck for social justice and has the audacity to dismiss the west and its achievements despite it being the best thing to happen in the development of civilization currently.

Why do submissive men hate anything great? Incredible achievements by individuals?

Because like a book that was published in 1997, it is still being discussed and used for educational purposes.

Oh. Okay.
But wait, why on Earth would anyone refer to this video for educational purposes? High schools?

Reply was unintentionally sarcastic.

Memes aside this video series is, in fact, being used by history teachers. I know anecdotal evidence is pretty shit but my sister says they show this guy during class.

> you realize that these videos are meant to help high school students prepare for ap exams right?
> a 3 essay and 80 multiple choice test covering over 250 years of us history isnt going to have too many questions about the specifics of what happened on the second afternoon of gettysburg
flipping through a text book and looking at the pictures of battlefields and arrows can teach you more than you need to know about civil war military history but will do nothing to show you the impact that colonial egypt and india had on american history

Took AP history classes in Florida few years ago, he was shown in pretty every class except AP Government. My anecdotal evidence is that the students who do actually care about the Crash Course videos and watch them outside of class to help study usually got a 2 or rarely a 3 on the exams.

i know a kid that got a 4 by binge watching these before the test but my school was majority asian so it might just be the different populations of students

The purpose of his YouTube series is not in question. I get that it's for people needing bullet points for history courses

What I DON'T get is the purpose of THIS video, which is just listing off a bunch of battles.

>flipping through a text book and looking at the pictures of battlefields and arrows can teach you more than you need to know about civil war military history
Okay, I get that.
>but will do nothing to show you the impact that colonial egypt and india had on american history
What are you talking about?
First, what does this even mean? How are you relating Egyptian and Indian colonialism with the American Civil War?
If you're trying to make a point that the detailed study of military history affords little to our understanding of broader economic and political movements and relationships, okay, I get that. Military history is important, but knowing who did what in which battle isn't always necessary to get the big picture of historical periods or peoples. I get that.

HOWEVER, that's not what John Green is doing here. People wanted him to do a video on military history. Instead of that, he made a video calling military history stupid. His purpose wasn't to inform, it was to mock. The role or importance of tactics, strategy, soldiers, battles, and generals in getting a better picture of overall events isn't being dismissed because they're mostly irrelevant to the big picture. If that were the case. He wouldn't have made the video. Instead, he took the opportunity to call the field of military history a worthless endeavor, essentially.

The point is, is you're going to make a video about the battles of the Civil War, then make a video about the battles of the Civil War. John does little to talk about the subject and instead substitutes any substance or content with a pretentious tone.

>John fucking Green is being played in high school classrooms
>I have a PhD in history and I barely got a job sweeping the floors at a museum
>my educational YouTube channel has plateaued at like 6k subs
IT'S NOT FAIR

Share a link so we can see it

They're changing the standard. "Beta" men, as they're referred to in social media, can not compete with hyper-masculine or assertive males in terms d attracting women. Women don't always want a rounded-out Chas, but a lot of them generally like an well-rounded guy who's exceptional in at least something. Athletically, intellectually, socially, artistically, etc., chicks like guys who are "somebodies." As anecdotal evidence, my best friend has a hot girlfriend. He's kinda' fat, sure, but he's also very smart, incredibly funny, has a pretty "go-with-the-flow" attitude, and is generally a very kind person who can make any get-together fun. He's also really strong but that's not really what she likes, from what I can tell; she likes his personality and ability to make anything enjoyable, whether it be a party, an argument, or anything, really.

On the other hand, Betas are "nobodies." They know that they cannot compete with any of their peers in getting chicks, much less any of the Greats of ours or anyone else's day. They hate the idea that anyone would go out of their way to improve themselves and that women would be attracted to that. Betas are lazy, no-good, garbage neets who don't read books, practice skills, acquire wealth, work hard, act normal, or any productive or even socially recreational pursuit, and feel that the only way to appeal to the opposite gender is to participate in radical protests or movements.

Moreso, by criticizing and attacking traditionally "masculine" accomplishments or many figures, they deconstruct and make unattractive past notable achievements or activities that people in general might like, leaving what's left to be the general standard that a Beta male can achieve. They're a toxic plague and should be approached critically and with skepticism.

Source: I'm a Beta male.

Source, pls.

maybe you should be more charismatic and interesting instead of a probable robot

post
>inb4 it's terrible

Was he checking for electronic inteference?

Sub here. I really don't like this guy, and I'm only a few minutes in. OP's second post pretty much hits the nail. That and "This machine kills fascists" on his laptop, as if he has any in depth knowledge of fascism beyond spouting facts that he lists in sequence. Disgusting.

> That and "This machine kills fascists" on his laptop, as if he has any in depth knowledge of fascism beyond spouting facts that he lists in sequence. Disgusting.
It's funny. I strongly dislike fascism, but I can see why it appeals to people and why I would have probably fallen for the meme back in the 1920s. Brainwashed leftists on the other hand have no grasp on fascism other than "those evil people who want to kill all the innocent people". It gets even funnier when you ask them to define fascism, which causes them to ramble about minorities and racism, despite the fact that Mussolini didn't give a shit about race and that you could still have a multi racial fascist society if you really wanted to. They are utterly clueless about the thing they claim to hate.

> What I DON'T get is the purpose of THIS video, which is just listing off a bunch of battles.
its a video about military history that lists off a bunch of battles how hard is it to understand
> what does this even mean? How are you relating Egyptian and Indian colonialism with the American Civil War?
the strategy of the confederacy was to get the support of britain which was complicated due to the slavery issue but they were counting on using their manufacturing dependency on southern cotton to win the war. cotton producing colonies in egypt and india caused the confederacy to loose all their bargaining chips
> Military history is important
no it's not. it's entertaining to learn about but it's not important. economics, social, and political are usually the main things that are important to study in history, military history is a subset of political history.
> His purpose wasn't to inform
his purpose was to inform why he doesnt focus on military history
> it was to mock
it was banter no need to get triggered
> is you're going to make a video about the battles of the Civil War, then make a video about the battles of the Civil War.
this is a video about the battles of the civil war. there are probably some battles which he named that people didnt know about

I myself do not adhere to fascism, and instead have taken a shining to Evola and his thought towards the State. Regardless, it annoys me that anything farther to the right of democracy is now viewed as the umbrella term of "fascism". It completely obliterates mankind's ability to explore alternative paths of government, and destroys tradition as well. It irks me. How it irks me.

>military history is unimportant compared to economics, social factors and politics
You're a retard, human history has been shaped as much by warfare as by anything else. You literally cannot talk about the 40's, the middle ages or the roman empire without it being mostly military history. Military history is not a subset of political history; In fact, during wartime, economics, poltics and society are all shaped by warfare, and not the other way around.

The fascism thing refers to some american musician that I guess isn't as famous as I supposed in the anglo world, since it's not the first time I see someone losing the reference. Can't remember the name.

Is Evola worth reading? I pretty much agree with some of his observations, but the solution to those problems can't be an all powerful state that takes a dump on individual rights. Fascists are not wrong about culture and the evil of hedonism, but their collectivist "greater good of the nation" faggottry is unbearable. Also fascist states can only work if they abandon their elitist ideas about inhumane eugenics and expansionist wars, considering that's what killed their ideology in the first place.

That doesn't invalidate the point though.

I am aware. It refers to Woodie Gunthrie and his guitar.

Since he (unfortunately) is pretty much the basis for most AP US history courses, I think he might have been teaching the test here, and probably their isnt much stuff on the actual test about specific battles themselves.

As a dude who lives in a country that had an actual fascist experience, it gets even cringier when fucking americans and brits who know jack shit about it try to have an opinion. Either for or against it.

Spain or Italy?

Evola is certainly worth reading if you want a good refutation of Fascism, National Socialism, and all other forms of government. It is no understatement to say that Evola is far, far, far to the right of those ideologies. Yes, he calls for sacrifice in the name of the state on the basis of elevating both the elite and the populace. Yes, he refutes individualism. Interestingly enough, he does so partly because of his adherence to Therevada Buddhism, as a passage in the Tipitaka he read as a youth prevented him from commiting suicide like some of his friends did. Evola is not an elitist in the sense of monarchism via bloodlines, but rather believes that any man, given proper adherence to tradition, can become a monarch in his own right, and in his soul. Shall I give you a link to a very good essay on the subject? I am not doing him proper justice in this one post.

>Shall I give you a link to a very good essay on the subject?
Go ahead. But it better not involve some esoteric nazi occult bullshit like the black sun.

Spain.

Although some could argue that Franco was not fascist, his regime was certainly close to be than what gets randomly accused of being fascist today.

>Go ahead. But it better not involve some esoteric nazi occult bullshit like the black sun.
Not at all. Evola, while entertaining and enjoying both National Socialism and Fascism, eventually rejected both as charlatans that could not adhere to Tradition, and thus not worthy.

cakravartin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/julius-evola-men-among-the-ruins.pdf
This book has a wonderful essay that goes over the history of Evola's thought, followed by the actual book, Men Among the Ruins, which he wrote as a guide for the far right of Italian politics to acquire power. The failure of those parties to follow his advice lead to his "Ride the Tiger", which is a guide for the man of Tradition to follow his own path in the face of a decaying world.

I wonder how he would besmirch the name of our Pompey Magnus?

the impudent cretin

Also do keep in mind that while Evola does use such terms as "Aryan" and other such terms related to fascism and the far right, his use of the term is not related to physical reality (nor is most of his writing, it usually relates to the metaphysical sphere), and he also places Jews as Aryans, though he was an anti-Semite. His Anti-Semitism was actually learned compared to this boards usage, and the chapter in Men Among the Ruins is a rather nuanced view of the subject.

>Although some could argue that Franco was not fascist, his regime was certainly close to be than what gets randomly accused of being fascist today.

George Orwell truly was a prophet.

It seems Spain was fated to a bad end either way, communism or fascism, rip

I honestly think that Franco did less damage to the country than the commies wouldh ave, if they had won instead. Reading Homage to Catalonia was one hell of a treat. SJWs really are the second coming of communism. Their methods and reasoning are so very similar that it scares me.

> human history has been shaped as much by warfare as by anything else.
you are objectively wrong
> You literally cannot talk about the 40's, the middle ages or the roman empire without it being mostly military history.
have you ever actually taken a history course or do you believe that mastubating to WWII and julius ceasar documentaries counts as studying history
> Military history is not a subset of political history
yes it is
> during wartime, economics, poltics and society are all shaped by warfare, and not the other way around.
war doesnt happen spontaneously. economics, politics and society shape warfare.

>Current academic consensus equals reality: The Post

Okay, I completely forgot about Britain's cotton trade, so I'll give you that. Your point about British colonialism makes sense now.

As for the rest of your response:
>no it's not. it's entertaining to learn about but it's not important. economics, social, and political are usually the main things that are important to study in history, military history is a subset of political history.
Economic, social issues, politics, and war are all interrelated subjects. Whenever something happens in one, it affects another. Western labor movements were social movements which affected industry and lawmaking. Competing ideologies were heavily involved in World War II, the Cold War, and America's war in Vietnam. The Great Depression ushered in a new era of political liberalism with Franklin D. Roosevelt's entrance into office. Your assertion that military history is unimportant is akin to the same idea that social history is unimportant because all that matters is the end result or big events, not the reasons or conflicts which led to those events, i.e. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were able to gain political control of Germany, but the reasons why they were able to pull it off are irrelevant, just that he did it. By the same token, the reasons why the Allies were able to defeat him are irrelevant, just that he was defeated.
You cannot dismiss an entire facet of study simply because you think it exists in an isolated sphere and has no real bearing on peoples or environments other than its outcome.
>his purpose was to inform why he doesnt focus on military history
Why waste an entire week's video explaining why you don't like something? That's not informing on the subject that the video's named for, it's informing why you don't like something.

His bias blatantly shines through with how he approaches the video as well.
>"By the way, if this is starting to sound like baseball box scores, maybe you're getting a glimpse of why we don't do military history."
He doesn't even inform the viewer with any information or analysis about any of the names he's throwing out there. He's failing to teach what he said he'd teach, and then uses his bad teaching as evidence as to why the subject is bad. It's absolutely moronic reasoning.

>it was banter no need to get triggered
No.
He was surmising the entirety of a field into a list. He did not analyze any of the material, the evolution of warfare, the important ramifications of tactics on armies or civilian populations, and basically devoted resources to wasting a week's episode to "satisfy" military history enthusiasts, and HIS OWN FANS, in the most insulting manner possible.
>So there you have it, an episode of Crash Course ENTIRELY about battles. And what did we learn? Very little, in the end.
The incredible level of audacity a human being requires to make this statement after giving the most sub-par presentation over any subject of any field is inconceivable.
Banter is where you make a joke at someone else's expense. This video was a middle finger to people whose interest he doesn't share, and incidentally his own faithful viewers who had to wait another week just to see a video with effort in it.

>this is a video about the battles of the civil war. there are probably some battles which he named that people didnt know about
I still think that you're missing the point of what people were wanting him to do and how he responded.

>Because people insisted I do so, I have decided to tell you about every single (major) fight of the Civil War.

And he does nothing more than state that they happened. He lists them.

If that's your standard for a video informing people about anything, than your bar's pretty dang low.

> is you're going to make a video about the battles of the Civil War, then make a video about the battles of the Civil War.
>this is a video about the battles of the civil war. there are probably some battles which he named that people didnt know about

Saying this is the equivalent of stating that you're going to give a presentation over the Periodic Table, and then you just list the elements in order, with no further information.

You're doing mental gymnastics by proving that he "technically" gave a video about battles.

You should not argue with his type. It isn't worth your time. Some men are stuck in their ways, thanks to the wonders of our modern education (indoctrination) system. Just as a stick can bend when pressure is applied, so to can he argue with flexibility. Yet his principle will remain the same. You will simply waste valuable effort in an attempt to defeat his adherence to historicism.

While I kinda' like that pic, what you're claiming is still absurd, especially in relation to pic.
The picture you provided shows the organization of different facets of society and environment, of which political entities do indeed control the military.

However, that doesn't mean that military history is a subset of political history. There are politics in the military, sure, and when studying either military or political history you have to refer to the other. They're married to each other.

However, you're mitigating the very concept of military history. Tactics, logistics, morale, effects on the economy, social unrest, revolt, strategy, technology, etc. are all considered in military history.

You're correct in the fact that wars don't happen spontaneously, and I would certainly agree that conflict arises from other factors other than "durr, I'm a general so war time it is!", but at the same time it is very much true that economics, politics, etc. are extremely malleable to warfare. War affects society, and society affects war; it's not all black n' white, here.

Also, I'm sorry, but:
>you are objectively wrong
You're literally saying nothing.

I'll take your advice. I don't know why I've been arguing with him this long.

I just don't want to be that guy who drops an argument just because he assumes the other guy's stubborn or something.

In the age of Kali Yuga, men will be stubborn like donkeys. Do not be distracted by fools and charlatans. Find your own path, and do not worry about arguing with others to appease the ego. You are worth what you know you are worth. And he is not worth it, swimming in Samsara as he is.

Are you a wise man? I'm feeling enlightened just reading your comments.

Not being sarcastic.

I am not wise. As I speak to you, I am a fool, for I attempt to inflate my ego by speaking. It is bad form, and I am not yet ready to swim in the stream, against the current of samsara. My ego is still intact. I am a fool. Why do you ask?

Nothing, just wondering. There's an extreme contrast in content and tone between what you typed and the average Veeky Forums poster.

Forgive me for saying this, but the average Veeky Forums poster seems to be an academic and intellectual, both strictly adhering to historicism and modern thought, and typically either centrist leaning towards the left. Considering the progress of political thought in the past few decades, this is rather far left of Tradition, and strictly embraces positivism. Academics, like any average man, typically see their way as the light and the truth, and blindly follow it after a while. Such is man in the age of Kali Yuga! He knows neither light nor truth, yet believes by utilizing science he is broadening the scope of the universe, yet fails to see it condensing before his eyes. The path of absolute adherence to historicism, science, and the material inevitably leads to degradation of thought and man alike.

Well, thanks. I learned something today.

Link?

Learn something more. Here:
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

Contained therein are the principles I am attempting to adhere to so that I may transcend this reality.
I second this motion. I may support him as well, depending upon what I find.

>jizz into my breakfast and i will eat it
Fucking hell

> Economic, social issues, politics, and war are all interrelated subjects.You cannot dismiss an entire facet of study simply because you think it exists in an isolated sphere and has no real bearing on peoples or environments other than its outcome.
military history is a subset of political history which is related to the rest. I didnt say that military history is irreverent and should be dismissed just that it is not as important as other issues. the civil war is a perfect example of this, the south had a better military with better generals but still lost the war due to other factors
> Why waste an entire week's video explaining why you don't like something? That's not informing on the subject that the video's named for, it's informing why you don't like something.
it's just banter and military history isnt important for the ap test anyways (this was also made during the summer which means that there is no need to hurry), he goes on to recommend authors for those interested in military history in the next video
> Saying this is the equivalent of stating that you're going to give a presentation over the Periodic Table, and then you just list the elements in order, with no further information.
no, this is the equivalent of giving a series of presentations which are meant to help chemistry students for a test which does not put any emphasis on the Periodic table but people keep asking for you to talk about the periodic table even thought it's not important for the test so you list off all the elements and then move on

Funny. What do you expect of him? He is a slave to modernity. Purity of women is Traditional, and that cannot be allowed any more.

You are also being disingenuous in claiming military history is unimportant and apparently has only influenced BY politics, economics, etc. If warfare wasn't an important factor in those things, war wouldn't happen in the first place.

Why are you arguing with him? He knows himself.

But he clearly doesnt know, and is wrong

> political, economic, and social histories are constant and continuous stories
> military history focus on events which have political, economic, and social causes and effects
> wars have a beginning and an end and can be fun to learn about but its the long lasting causes and effects of war (which are political, economic and social) which are more important

You misunderstand. I stated that he knows himself.
Another into the fray?

see

im the same person

His thread involves defending Green's video. If he believes what he says, he should probably be deriding Green for completely ignoring the ramifications of said Civil War battles. He "knows" in that he used the words, but he still dismisses their importance.

is a different guy from .

"Another into the fray" was a couple lines earlier bruh.

...

Why does anyone give a fuck about what this guy says about history?

I do

> I am of supreme intelligence and have a superior understanding of reality than current academic consensus: The Post

>but its the long lasting causes and effects of war (which are political, economic and social) which are important
You're an idiot. Everything in history is interconnected, and completely glossing over one element in favor of another is just plain bad history. You can't just talk about what happens to cause a war, and as a result of the war, and ignore everything that happens in the middle.If I was doing a video on the Reformation, and I barely touched on Martin Luther and the 30 years war, it would be a shitty video, because I would be leaving a fuckton of important details out. The same thing is happening when John "the meme" Green makes a video about the bloodiest war in american history and completely glosses over the details of the war itself.

I understand this.
Or do I? No matter. Warriors of truth, one and all in this thread. Fighting! Fighting! Yet not for empire or nobility, but rather for chicken seed.
Yes, the supernal is the supernal.

>Everything in history is interconnected, and completely glossing over one element in favor of another is just plain bad history.
it's impossible to learn everything about everything when it comes to history. especially when it comes to preparing for a test there some elements of history are not as important as others
> You can't just talk about what happens to cause a war, and as a result of the war, and ignore everything that happens in the middle.
you're not ignoring everything that happens in the middle you're just placing less emphasis on it
> If I was doing a video on the Reformation, and I barely touched on Martin Luther and the 30 years war, it would be a shitty video, because I would be leaving a fuckton of important details out.
if you were to make this video without talking about martin luther it would be a bad video because he was one of the main causes of the reformation but you can make a video about the reformation without mentioning a single battle of the 30 years war and it could be a good video as long as you are able to explain the causes and effects of the war
> The same thing is happening when John "the meme" Green makes a video about the bloodiest war in american history and completely glosses over the details of the war itself.
this video is part of a series of videos which is meant to prepare students for a test which does not require knowledge of specific details of the civil war

>ITT: butthurt military """historians""" and dixieboos

wait for it...

THE MONGOLS!

>sex with a few people before marriage
sure
>sex with a shameful amount of people simply for the sake of getting off
degenerate. Does he not know the difference?

But he glossed over Civil War battles in a video about civil war battles.

Arrogrant and condesending
How do you become such an imbecile that you would purposely alienate a part of your fanbase cynically

This.

if you dont like it make your own video

If it bothered him that much, he could simply not make it. Making a glossed over and passive aggressive video just makes you look like an idiot

>Make entire argument defending Green
>user makes valid criticism about video
>"if you dont like it make your own video"

>if you don't like how your lawyer is representing you or how your accountant did your taxes, do them yourself!

What do you guys think about his next video on the Civil War? It seems a lot more constructive and helpful.

youtube.com/watch?v=rY9zHNOjGrs

> If it bothered him that much, he could simply not make it. Making a glossed over and passive aggressive video just makes you look like an idiot
he made some money and triggered some faggots what's wrong with that

> make posts explaining why military history is not as important
> austisic user replies by complaining about a video that triggered him without responding to any of my arguments
> confusednig.jpg

> lawyers and accountants cost money
> youtube videos are free

At this point, this is just trolling.

>Being thi sarrogant

Fuck off cuck of Akkad.

t. fresh out of college graduate

Every historian enjoys a bit of military history and it's incredibly important to contemporary nations and the present. The meme some academics push that military history is less respectable than other forms of history is just a crap meme because non academics like to posture.

Military history isn't a major branch, but it's certainly not a subset of political. You must have fallen asleep during the lecture on financing wars and the military or how things like desgregation of the military and negro regiments were some of the first major steps in changing society. Military history affects all branches of history and other branches affect military history. You must have had a shitty professor.