YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Coalescence]

Reminds me of when Apostolic Majesty put his video on Francisco Franco behind a paywall because of the immediate negative reaction it got. I don't think he was really aware of the political demographic of people who watch his channel when he posted that, since the comments were full of people calling him out for accusing Franco of being an opportunist.

Apostolic Majesty also posted a video on why he's essentially abandoning monarchism (He described himself as a reactionary a while back) because the king didn't step in to stop the British equivalent of MAID from being voted on in parliament.

I absolutely love AM's stuff, he's definitely my number one favorite channel for history stuff (and I have this thread to thank for the recommendation), but the man cannot handle even the slightest bit of negative reaction, especially recently. If there is a SINGLE negative comment on a stream, it will be mentioned the next time around.
I'd like to be charitable and attribute it to the man's recent personal problems, but it's really a Chicken and Egg situation. Is he fragile because he's miserable or is he miserable because he's fragile?

 

[Karakhalkin-Gol]

Zoomer Historian has been banned from Patreon.

(Link to Post)
(Archive)

 

[Corpun]

No idea where this gem of a channel was all my life. If you enjoy sperging about historical geopolitical theories I would recommended it.

 

[85CentSoda]

No idea where this gem of a channel was all my life. If you enjoy sperging about historical geopolitical theories I would recommended it.

He's got a really good video on the beginning of the American Revolution. The series on the British conquest of India is really good too.

 

[Corpun]

He's got a really good video on the beginning of the American Revolution. The series on the British conquest of India is really good too.

I've watched a little of his content and can wholeheartedly give my approval. There is no talking about random current year bullshit, the editing is simple and concise, and the videos are not overly lengthy. Granted all three videos I watched were 5+ years old, maybe he is different now, in the same vein as that guy who does Roman stuff and quotes Marx and Walkable City people.

 

[Jewthulhu]

Granted all three videos I watched were 5+ years old, maybe he is different now, in the same vein as that guy who does Roman stuff and quotes Marx and Walkable City people.

His last upload was a year ago. It's a shame his uploads take so much time, he really does quality content.

 

[No. 7 cat]

Perhaps History Chap was posted already, but I think his content is excellent. His content is largely British Empire History with many difficult topics tackled with ease and aplomb.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

Zoomer Historian has been banned from Patreon.
View attachment 6993860
(Link to Post)
(Archive)

"Puts me directly in the red"

Exhibit W, X, Y, and Z why you should not be making Youtube a job.

 

[LovisXVI]

"Puts me directly in the red"

Exhibit W, X, Y, and Z why you should not be making Youtube a job.

Or if you must, try to diversify your income sources from a single, left-leaning, corporation.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Apostolic Majesty also posted a video on why he's essentially abandoning monarchism (He described himself as a reactionary a while back) because the king didn't step in to stop the British equivalent of MAID from being voted on in parliament. Not passed mind you, just presented. He abandoned his ideology because the king didn't do something he wanted.

Monarchists are all bitch made house niggas. The reason they are against gommunism and democracy is because they find it emotionally "icky". They don't really have an argument against it, in general they are not swayed by arguments. There is also the delusion that they would be king or at least a duke or something.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Monarchists are all bitch made house niggas. The reason they are against gommunism and democracy is because they find it emotionally "icky". They don't really have an argument against it, in general they are not swayed by arguments. There is also the delusion that they would be king or at least a duke or something.

I think the merit to monarchy is if you get a Trump-esque situation of highly motivated, well-intentioned guy who employs more competent people beneath him to do positive shit (Musk with Doge). And since their authority is unmatched, you wouldn't get the situation where some random judge appointee acts on partisan whims to stifle progress. Of course you could get a Biden-like situation, wherein a dementia-addled senior is technically 'in charge' but actually beholden to the whims of his 'advisors' and shit goes South. Now, you see, there's an argument for and against monarchism. However, what's especially bitchy about Apostolic Majesty, is that he abandoned something he supposedly believed in because the British monarch (Powerless figurehead with 'theoretical' power but not really) didn't exercise his theoretical powers (which could get him and his entire family dethroned and kicked from their positions by parliament) to stop a bill which was an affront to his religious beliefs (He's Catholic in a primarily Protestant country and the royal family is the head of the Church of England I.E. Protestant). It'd be like jumping off the Trump-train because he didn't veto a bill the Democrats proposed and voted on because he theoretically could. I can abide someone having a different opinion from me, but I can't abide a bitch.

 

[>IMPLYING]

 

[DeadwastePrime]

 

[ShittlerNiggler]

Bronze Age nerds have one joke that they beat to death, even after it got buried and devoured by worms

 

[Computer God Autism]

Monarchists are all bitch made house niggas. The reason they are against gommunism and democracy is because they find it emotionally "icky". They don't really have an argument against it, in general they are not swayed by arguments. There is also the delusion that they would be king or at least a duke or something.

2/5 bait, try harder

It'd be like jumping off the Trump-train because he didn't veto a bill the Democrats proposed and voted on because he theoretically could. I can abide someone having a different opinion from me, but I can't abide a bitch.

It's been a while since I listened to his British Republicanism: A Necessary Evil video (and I can't listen to it now since it's been made members only), but iirc his reasoning wasn't just that King Charles refused to stick his neck out to stop something that would be an affront to general Christian doctrine - both Anglican and Catholic - but that he and the Hannovers had actively handmaidened policies like those along and were, at best, being used to just defang opposition to them, and that particular bill was just the straw that broke the camel's back for him. If Trump is being used an analogy then a better one would be jumping off the Trump train because of how he handled Jan 6th. I don't get the impression he's turned his back on monarchism in principle either - granted I'm only a casual listener, so I could be mistaken - just Britain's current iteration of it, as he argued for republicanism as a step towards bringing back a proper monarchy in the video where he disavowed Charles. You can call that bitch-made but it's effectively the same position that Hobbes held.

All that said AM does seem to me to be too thinned-skinned for the niche he's made. I get he wants to portray history from the perspectives of the subjects he's covers but it inevitably is going to result in some people bringing up x or y as a counterpoint on any topic that's remotely ideological. I can understand having to clarify that once over, say, his Soviet series but bringing it up enough to become a recurring theme just exposes it as a weakness.

 

[>IMPLYING]

I don't get the impression he's turned his back on monarchism in principle either - granted I'm only a casual listener, so I could be mistaken - just Britain's current iteration of it, as he argued for republicanism as a step towards bringing back a proper monarchy in the video where he disavowed Charles

I was being a tad facetious and oversimplifying his argument, true, but I feel like he didn't at all acknowledge the current state of the monarchy, which has been far more subservient to parliament than it was in the past. The English monarchy has been the lesser authority to parliament ever since they welcomed back the monarchy following the civil war, and monarch's power has continued to decline ever since. If the monarchy were removed entirely during times of peace by an elected government, I think it's a naïve hope that it could ever come back never mind in a stronger form, especially when its existence would be entirely credited to a different government body. If the King were to have interjected in this instance, it's very likely - especially under Labour - that the monarch would be censured harshly, maybe the nation would even transition to a full republic. Right now the English monarchy is toothless, but not lacking in popular support. It'd only really take one party to get into parliament and trojan horse a means to empower it, but whether any politician would willingly surrender their power to the monarchy is another topic and such a politician and pro-monarchy party might be a ways off. Maybe if the Overton window was pushed very far to the Right.

I think AM's video was a more eloquent example of a political youtuber putting up a reactionary diatribe on something that just happened that very day. Despite the use of RP, it still came across as fairly impotent and full of seething to me, which soured my view of him quite a lot. The fact he locked the video, something I only just discovered when it was pointed out, tells me that he's too assured of his own intelligence to be humble or accept contrary viewpoints. But at a certain point I think I'm just a-logging.

And according to some comments I've seen around, he's not as devout a monarchist as he portrays. He might be a Hoppian.

Although after his video calling republicanism a necessary evil, I was struck by an epiphany, or a rather autistic and possibly schizophrenic theory. He was someone more loyal to his faith than his nation. Not Christianity mind you, but Catholicism specifically. As he's more loyal to Catholicism, he also has more respect for its followers, than those who don't follow it. It's why despite being an Englishman, he primarily tackles Catholic nations and individuals specifically, or Christian nations who pre-date the schism, only flirting with England when covering a notable English Catholic or Catholic-aligned English: Tolkien (Catholic), Richard 2nd and Charles 1st (Former Catholic, latter married a Catholic and supported policies in tolerating them), Enoch Powell (Catholic) and has an entire stream dedicated to the what-if scenario of England remaining Catholic. You can't fault him for carving a niche, but it seems intentional. He also has multiple streams and discussions with people where he argues a very cynical, negative outlook on Britain which I initially believed was just him being blackpilled politically, but - and this might be due to my negative bias towards him - I think he doesn't like his own country, and would much rather live somewhere Catholic. Apologies for this.

 

[Computer God Autism]

but I feel like he didn't at all acknowledge the current state of the monarchy, which has been far more subservient to parliament than it was in the past

I think his argument is predicated on the current state of the monarchy being self-evident, but getting rid of it peacefully in the hopes of a stronger one later being restored is wishful thinking at best (nevermind that the current Jacobite pretenders are the Wittlesbachs, whose current head is a literal homosexual). Given Britain is implementing woke juche I'm not going to fault him for thinking that breaking up the Blair political machine from within is impossible - he probably is genuinely blackpilled.

Spoiler

I think he doesn't like his own country, and would much rather live somewhere Catholic.

The eternal P*pist strikes again

 

[Ahriman]

TL;DW Metatron got practically scammed by his MCN. Basically, a middleman between youtoob and him.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

TL;DW Metatron got practically scammed by his MCN. Basically, a middleman between youtoob and him.

Doesn't that shit happen all the time with brand managers/community managers? I recall that happening to Boogie and a couple other youtubers over the years.

 

[Breadbassket]

Doesn't that shit happen all the time with brand managers/community managers? I recall that happening to Boogie and a couple other youtubers over the years.

It happens from time to time for sure. Multi-channel networks kind of function as agents for Yotuube channels and sometimes there are people out to get money for very little actual work. One of the worst situations that happened with MCNs in the past besides this instance was the now ancient and defunct Machinima trying to get their "partners" to sign perpetual contracts with them.