Comments by "" (@emiliascholer9047) on "Q&A n°29 - Is Schwerpunkt an authentic source?" video.
-
Here are the amusing developments of the Reddit discussion that predictably became acid after this video. Let me summarize briefly:
The "historian" claims that you only addressed this topic after "his" Reddit post, despite having multiple videos, including one dedicated to the explication of sources just a few months prior. The sense of self-entitlement displayed here is quite ridiculous.
In response to others pointing out that Schwerpunkt has more accurate history content, he admits that maybe you are better than Kings and Generals. However, comparing a simplified-history channel based on graphics to doctoral-level lessons is nonsensical.
The individual who requested French sources went on a tirade, accusing you of having simplistic historical views because you criticize relativism and materialism, as well as the Dionysian. This criticism falls flat considering the extensive coverage of the necessity of Dionysian in divine transfiguration on this channel.
Furthermore, someone who believes criticizing relativism and materialism is morally or scientifically problematic, without providing a coherent theory of historical interpretation, demonstrates a lack of depth in understanding.
It is ironic that this individual claims to seek historical information while condemning your political ideology, not realizing that your ideology is founded on historical knowledge that they admit to lacking.
The defender fixated on you targeting Anglo-Saxons unnecessarily presented a list of major Anglo-Saxon thinkers to argue against the existence of "Anglo-Saxon" thought. This deconstructionistic/relativistic argument overlooks the synthesis of various philosophies within a culture for a historian to assess.
In conclusion, those who have not thoroughly studied your videos may struggle, hiss, and feel dread as they fail to grasp the depth of your content.
11
-
4