YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[ATPH]

his sticking point is that the culture war is a psyop because conservative organizations take oil money

It feels this is a new pivot a lot of left leaning individuals have done recently in relation to general online conservative movements that they're all artificial and it's only foreign governments (IE the bad ones ignore the ones funding progressive causes) that are actually pushing the right. That the grievances posed by the right could not be a natural reaction to local and global events they have to be a conspiracy done by whatever bad guy nation of the time. Both the right and left are guilty of just blaming political movements to be solely psyops by the enemy team without realising they're just as vulnerable to these things as anyone else. It just makes me jaded seems like it'll just be a never ending cycle.

 

[Computer God Autism]

I skipped the Nostalgia Critic aaa intro

Please don't insult the Nostalgia Critic by comparing him to the likes of Atun-Shei.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Oh, is he talking about Walsh's nauseating hatred for reds? Of all his odious takes, that is one I have found to be the most insane, because it isn't exactly like the fucking Comanche or Sioux are the biggest concerns for the American whites. It would be like a European complaining about those damn Danes raiding our coastlines!

Until leftists stop trying to use the “suffering” of Listerine Connoisseurs as a topic of anti-White struggle sessions and justification for condemning the legacy of America's greatest figures, it is wholly reasonable to make a point about how horrible the Prairie Niggers were. We have reached the point where crying about how you are on “stolen land” is considered an obligation for many institutions, it is completely fair to say that A. The land was not stolen, and B. The “Noble Savage” was in fact just savage many times.

 

[LovisXVI]

Until leftists stop trying to use the “suffering” of Listerine Connoisseurs as a topic of anti-White struggle sessions and justification for condemning the legacy of America's greatest figures, it is wholly reasonable to make a point about how horrible the Prairie Niggers were. We have reached the point where crying about how you are on “stolen land” is considered an obligation for many institutions, it is completely fair to say that A. The land was not stolen, and B. The “Noble Savage” was in fact just savage many times.

It is one thing to say that there is nothing to apologize for and that the noble savage is both untrue and insulting to the actual peoples it is made about. It is another to justify the conquests the US undertook by the depredations and actions the tribes practiced, which is precisely what the left also uses to justify the depredations upon the American white. The US is mean to Muslims and Hispanics, ergo, they should be flooded with the same. Matt Walsh has the exact same flaws of moral framing, except his center point is in the distant past, and about as ethnically narcissistic. Framing the past in purely moralistic terms is the ken of propaganda and exceptionally bad history. Never mind the fact that we have much bigger issues right now, with far more pressing, and most importantly large, populations of hostile foreign minorities.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

It is one thing to say that there is nothing to apologize for and that the noble savage is both untrue and insulting to the actual peoples it is made about. It is another to justify the conquests the US undertook by the depredations and actions the tribes practiced, which is precisely what the left also uses to justify the depredations upon the American white. The US is mean to Muslims and Hispanics, ergo, they should be flooded with the same. Matt Walsh has the exact same flaws of moral framing, except his center point is in the distant past, and about as ethnically narcissistic. Framing the past in purely moralistic terms is the ken of propaganda and exceptionally bad history.

The argument is less that the reds were evil to each other and thus deserved to be killed on sight and more that they terrorized both white settlers and their fellow natives until they were eventually were wiped out when people had enough. I truly believe it is fair to reiterate that a defeated enemy brought their destruction upon themselves when they start crying about “genocide” because they lost a war they started.

 

[Path Wanderer]

I think we can learn from this that
1. Online hick libs are an actual blight
2. History and historiography are two different things. If Walsh had shown up with actual proof of how the transatlantic history is selectively used to distill a narrative it would be far more believable than this “secret history” trying to run over that reality
2a. This and Atun Shei’s video are both slop made to self congratulate and wallow over hurt feeling than engage with the past (funnily enough Shei also warns about the daily wire “attacking heritage”.
2b. History is not a straight ballot ticket

 

[LovisXVI]

they terrorized both white settlers

When was the last time a Plains Indian raided your town? How about the last time you had to deal with some parasitic foreigner in the country? When was the last time you had to deal with some obstinate subcon imported to do a worse job cheaper? Tell me: which is more pressing of a concern to the American people? Some stuff that happened a hundred years ago, or something happening now? That is the problem at hand; it is a waste of air, time, energy, and only serves to alienate people who might agree with you on what is really important, even if you are right!

 

[Flaming Insignias]

When was the last time a Plains Indian raided your town? How about the last time you had to deal with some parasitic foreigner in the country? When was the last time you had to deal with some obstinate subcon imported to do a worse job cheaper? Tell me: which is more pressing of a concern to the American people? Some stuff that happened a hundred years ago, or something happening now? That is the problem at hand; it is a waste of air, time, energy, and only serves to alienate people who might agree with you on what is really important, even if you are right!

Until leftists stop claiming that “nobody is illegal on stolen land” to justify the continued invasion of third-world parasites, it absolutely is important to call out their lies about the supposed victims of “land theft”

 

[LovisXVI]

Until leftists stop claiming that “nobody is illegal on stolen land” to justify the continued invasion of third-world parasites, it is absolutely important to call out their lies about the supposed victims of “land theft”

So how does it work in Europe then? It is almost like their actions and policies are not contingent on truth, reality, or the assent of the people at all, but pure ideology. All their justifications are post-facto moralizations to themselves.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

So how does it work in Europe then? It is almost like their actions and policies are not contingent on truth, reality, or the assent of the people at all, but pure ideology. All their justifications are post-facto moralizations to themselves.

When did I even mention Europe? My point stands: if you do not refute the lies your opponent uses to convince the public on their righteousness, you will inevitably be defeated when the world is convinced to turn against you using those lies.

 

[LovisXVI]

When did I even mention Europe?

Another white place where they encourage mass immigration, that is devoid of easy claims of poor oppressed natives, like in Australia or NZ, much less North America, and yet they still manage to do it. The point I am making is pretty simple: attacking an essentially religious claim is wholly pointless, because even if you could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt correct, they would just find some other redoubt to hang their wickedness on and you have just wasted time and energy on an argument wholly unnecessary and strategically pointless. You know what arguments do work? Actually pointing to the present situation. People respond to material realities, and the fact that their lifestyles and livelihoods have been made worse by mass immigration, pointing out and to particular instances of criminal negligence has done a lot more to convince people than century-old grudges and cultural myths. But ultimately it is all moot because Walsh is a propagandist first and foremost, not a real historian, and as such isn't interested in actually conveying the facts, but to massage it to suit his narrative. If he did, whites and reds would come out looking probably as bad as each other, which is how most history tends to shake out.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

Confederacy was literally Nazi Germany

"Libertarianism in America is Fascism in Central Europe"

When your whole worldview is filtered through cable news and American public education teaching .gov sources are unable to be false.

 

[Kyria the Great]

Id say Atun Shei he's only doing this because he wants to delegitimize America like all international Leftists though I don't see how he thinks that Democracy how he wants it survives if all the pillars of America are uprooted because no other society gives a shit about fucked up things they did to others than Euro societies. I despise Matt Walsh as a Kosher Conservative as he's also a propagandist but at least he actually has a family.

Honestly if we were as Fascist as Atun Shei thinks, his faggy ass would be hanging from a highway overpass with his 5th Colomnist drivel being his crime.

 

[The Secret Sauce]

If he did, whites and reds would come out looking probably as bad as each other, which is how most history tends to shake out.

The prehistoric, illiterate, Stone Age societies were clearly much worse for everyone involved. Even the descendants of the prairie niggers agree that the conquest of their ancestors was a good thing, though they'd never admit it.
Source: I've met hundreds of injuns, and not one of them chose to live in a teepee or a mud hut.

 

[LovisXVI]

Source: I've met hundreds of injuns, and not one of them chose to live in a teepee or a mud hut.

It isn't about who has the superior lifestyle, some nobility of the tribal existence, or some shit (because leftists aren't arguing for that either), but that neither race has a monopoly on warmongering, truce-breaking, and slaughter. What was the response of fronteirsmen upon encountering scalp hunting? Was it to moralize and steel themselves as the better, more moral men who wouldn't mutilate the dead of their enemies? Fuck no, they started doing it themselves! Albeit at a larger scale and more effectively due to better technology and a more stable society.

 

[The Secret Sauce]

If he did, whites and reds would come out looking probably as bad as each other

due to better technology and a more stable society.

These 2 statements are incompatible to me. If one society is stable and advanced, they are not just as bad as the unstable, tribal society they are fighting. Even if they were on equal "moral" footing (which I find incredibly hard to believe), the stable, advanced society is morally superior to me. If the descendants of the people who were conquered shun their ancestors' lifestyle and adopt that of the conqueror, then the conqueror was clearly in the right. Debating the point seems silly to me, it's just self evident. If I knew my great grandchildren were destined to live in a post-scarcity interstellar utopia because aliens conquered Earth, I would greet them as liberators, and I would cheer on whichever atrocities they committed in the process.

 

[LovisXVI]

These 2 statements are incompatible to me. If one society is stable and advanced, they are not just as bad as the unstable, tribal society they are fighting. Even if they were on equal "moral" footing (which I find incredibly hard to believe), the stable, advanced society is morally superior to me. If the descendants of the people who were conquered shun their ancestors' lifestyle and adopt that of the conqueror, then the conqueror was clearly in the right. Debating the point seems silly to me, it's just self evident. If I knew my great grandchildren were destined to live in a post-scarcity interstellar utopia because aliens conquered Earth, I would greet them as liberators, and I would cheer on whichever atrocities they committed in the process.

First of all, the tribes didn't know that would be the case, as, besides the point, for the most part, they didn't see life improvements, as they got shoved off to marginal lands, even the ones who adopted European culture and lifestyles willingly, like the Cherokee. Second of all, you might be eager to turn Quisling to promises of a better lifestyle, but promises can be broken just as easily made.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

First of all, the tribes didn't know that would be the case, as, besides the point, for the most part, they didn't see life improvements, as they got shoved off to marginal lands, even the ones who adopted European culture and lifestyles willingly, like the Cherokee. Second of all, you might be eager to turn Quisling to promises of a better lifestyle, but promises can be broken just as easily made.

Most will agree that the US government's treatment of the Five Civilized Tribes was unfair, but that doesn't mean that it is somehow wrong to note that the Plains Indians were generally horrific such that their brutal subjugation was probably a good thing altogether, even if we may find things like retaliatory scalping (as a proof-of-death bounty system, mind you) horrific as well. That point is important because invoking the Indian Wars is still a regular tool used by American leftists to promote anti-white struggle sessions, condemn the history of many of America's Great Men, and to justify illegal mass migration through claims of “stolen land.” Being able to refute your opponent's claims is important as to convince undecided and/or wavering individuals to support you, since most things are decided more by getting otherwise apathetic people to support your cause rather than sheer numbers of diehards.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

 

[The Secret Sauce]

First of all, the tribes didn't know that would be the case,

Nor did I say they did. The point I was trying to make is that given that we do know the ultimate fate of the prairie niggers, it's clear that European colonization is the absolute best thing that could've conceivably happened to them.

they didn't see life improvements

I'll believe this as soon as you show me a sizable contingent of the native population that prefers the lifestyle of their ancestors. No indoor plumbing, no heating, no a/c, no agriculture. Show me a thousand injuns choosing to live in teepees year-round, and we can debate this point further. What an absurd thing to say.

they got shoved off to marginal lands

And they were incredibly lucky to receive such a treatment.

promises can be broken just as easily made.

Yet there are still reservations in the US today where it is illegal to do business as a white man, unless you find some prairie nigger to take a cut of the profits in exchange for the legal right to do business there. Show me the Gallic reservations where Romans were forbidden to do business. Show me any example of a conquered people who enjoy rights privileges like this. The natives here got, by a wide margin, the nicest treatment any conquered people have ever received throughout all of human history. If the Chinese had discovered the Americas, they would've all been turned into soup.

It isn't about who has the superior lifestyle

That's precisely what it's about. Natives were living hellish lives of brutality and scarcity. Then whitey showed up. Now they not only enjoy technology millennia more advanced than they would otherwise, but equal rights plus a helping of privileges that their conquerors do not. If they want to bitch and moan about this deal, I'm not listening.