Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "Metatron" channel.

The only people getting butthurt says the man getting butthurt under half the comments in the comment section. Log in the eye and all that.
19
@kokko9507 Dude, I hope you’re just trolling and not genuinely oblivious to how ironic everything you say is.
12
Except that the Normans weren't ever really French but formed their own distinct culture and would be a major political threat to the king for centuries, always looking to overthrow him, even the hundred years war could be said to come about from these ambitions. The frenchness of the Normans was coupled with their ambition to take France for themselves and the later arising of English identity was a great boon to the French as it meant that French lords wouldn't switch sides so easily. Things were the worst when the English nobility could be called Anglo-norman and mixed the strengths and ambitions of both, luckily the the English would have a lot less of an ambition to take France for themselves, unluckily the hatred of the French would remain deeply rooted in English culture and pass on to the British identity, which meant that while they stopped being an existential threat there would always the motivation to drag France back down into the mud should they ever start to gain preeminence.
11
I've bumped into a lot of people with strong opinions on the issue. The AD folks are largely not overly Christian they just feel like spiteing the CE people who have assumed they are and acted in an arrogant and unpleasant manner towards them, I think we have all bumped into such fedora welders and been confused about their myriad baseless assumptions and absurdist posturing. Can't say it doesn't seem like an attack when that's seemingly the only reason they wormed out of the woodwork and took a stance in the first place.
6
The French copied the English longbowmen, they did train a lot of archers themselves as they recognised it as a weakness. And yeah those guys they trained were French. The 100 years war wasn't static, both sides developed in order to outdo each other.
6
The self-justification is literally socialism, and if you look at the criticism within the academia of education it's all that it isn't socialism enough, if you get rid of grading like they want there will literally be no standards instead of very poor ones like now. I'm doing education, I get to read this stuff everyday.
5
Medieval nobleman were soldiers and administrators, anything but useless. Medieval noblewomen administered the household and had a say in practically everything that went on behind the scenes as well as having a big role in the creating and raising of children again hardly useless. The whole selling your wife thing is English mostly talked about around the regency period (1790s-1810 or so) and Victorian fiction set in it and is heavily romanticized (and even then your telling sounded more romantic than their's). Women not having to work themselves to death was a positive throughout most of history, seen as prestigious and chivalric. Modern thoughts on the appropriateness of gender roles, feminist theory and the like were so different in logic as to be practically uncommunicable to the average jo without them presuming one a stark raving, immoral profligate of lower repute than a prostitute and an undoubtable unrepentant deviant. Like with most thing in the period you'd have a better time with the priesthood as their first option would be to argue the point first rather than to judge one a danger to their children and perform an impromptu lynching. People thought in terms of church morality and by modern standards church intellectuals themselves tended to be a good deal more liberal than the populous. While people were a good deal more uncouth that than the Victorians liked to pretend values like loyalty, fidelity and chastity were lionised and smug rebellion to the social order would be seen as parents not beating their dimmest children enough and thus allowing their innate stupidity to manifest.
5
There were basically none ever, it might even have been literally none ever. Just to clarify a few things that people might be confused by, Moor was a historical term for Muslims is wasn't limited to North Africa and most North Africans are either Caucasian or Semitic, their are small minorities of black people as a result of the Arab slave trade and likewise the existing people mixed somewhat with Africans however the current evidence suggests that that intermingling was also part of the Arab slave trade and the further back you go the less there was, but that was a surprising finding given the geography so there if likely be more research to clarify. The white slave trade also seems to have had an effect on North African genetics to an even greater extent, through that is probably regionally dependant. Berbers also are not black and like many North Africans do not appreciate being referred to as such. The was intermixing between Mennonites and Europeans during the Crusades and also the local Christian population (which was about half the population when the crusaders arrived, as later persecution and conversation efforts hadn't yet happened. But the population of the region also isn't black and they had practically no contact with the Ethiopians despite being very well deposed towards them. There were English nobility in Portugal during the reconquest but they did not for the most part leave and marrying into the people they were fighting against wouldn't have conferred anything of value, not that those people were even sub-Saharan besides some slave soldiers. Vikings didn't have trade routes with Africa. They dealt with Byzantines, Arabs and central Asians at the furthest extent the trade routes went, as slave sellers they likely wouldn't have been very interested in buying other than maybe a few novelty items, which would likely be the only way they ever would have come into contact with blacks and obviously there would have been no possibility of political prestige for someone who was a curiosity for some court, central Asians could and did marry into prestige because the point of contact was with powerful families and rich traders and marriage alliances would have to be formed, likewise interactions with the Greeks was not a one sided thing, there seems to be less suggestion when it comes to the Arabs, but that is likely due to the influence of circumcision and the ban on alcohol dissuading them somewhat. English nobility not a chance, their was some very distant relation to Arabs due to marrying people who had made marriage alliances with foreign royalty in the past (which is how the Queen is a descendant of the prophet Muhammad) but most medieval nobility took lineage very seriously and wouldn't want to marry anyone of a low station let alone a foreigner on top of that. There was a period between the discovery of routes to the African coast and the start of mass scale slavery where Africans were decently respected in Europe but that was mostly in Iberia and they were never seen as nobility, indeed such things were so unusual that we know about them as the few times a black person made it into nobility it was such that quite a few people would remark on it and the story would be recorded, as far as I know there was one case in France, another in Poland and one in Russia, France and Russia both during the enlightenment and Poland during the time when a tenth of the country were nobles and peasants would declare themselves such in the hope that no one would bother to check.
3
Orwell worked for the government during and post war, it is very likely that 1984 is a reference to 1948 and the atlee government, with the whole ideology of the British state shifting from being imperial to a protectorate of the US. He was involved both in cleaning Stalin's image during the war and demonizing him once it ended, he was a socialist but at the same time seems to have hated the hypocrisy, personal immorality and borderline treasonous sympathies of many of his fellow British leftists and intellectuals. He also worked under James Burnham, so could be said to have learnt where things were heading from the devil himself, a bit like a brave new world's author having a very good knowledge of what prominent socialists were interested in due to his brother being prominent among them while not being a believer himself, or at least not that their utopia would end up as anything different than what he described.
3
@ashleywetherall The issue with using descriptions like dark skinned in such a way is that it’s contextual, if you are a Scandinavian then you could easily refer to Italians as such, likewise and Englishman might consider someone from the south of France such, it depends on what someone is used to. Medieval London certainly had “moors” to the point of there being connected place names but it was a generic term for muslims, just as the the moors would have called the English Franks.
2
@ashleywetherall Sorry, agreed.
2
I'm surprised as a non-Catholic I have to explain this, there are different factions within the Church, Francis is a modernist, which means he is quite influenced by liberalism and reforming the church into something contemporary. However there are factions of much more extreme modernists, and most of them, frankly, like men in a certain way, this faction wants to turn the Catholics into something like the Unitarians, and they are powerful and well organised, after all they all 'know' each other. Also this faction is an ongoing safeguarding risk to children as like 90-95% of all the scandal has come from them inducting priests who either had ill intentions or thought that celibacy was on the way out, and then covering for them. Francis has many controversies, but this faction are constantly threatening schism so I doubt he very much likes the idea of them taking over more positions within the Church. The other side Francis does not like are the trad caths, who think the Church have gone too far, it would not be hyperbolic to state that if they took power they would release the inquisition, and all the modernists would be flushed out of the Church, this faction are a danger as they are the only part of the Church having kids and taking theology serious, Francis has tried to suppress their worship as most of them still have Latin mass and are interestingly opposed to the new order mass which replaced old worship with a new protestant style one in what was a mixture of an appeal to protestants and a coup for the modernist faction. The tradition faction has finally slowed down with infighting over whether bad things are good if the pope says so and started putting up serious opposition to the current leadership of the Church. Also there is likely an entire other level to all of this as western government backed lobbying groups fund and give good press to extreme modernists and the trad faction would literally support monarchy and restarting the Crusades (ironically not as much as recent converts to orthodoxy however) if they became dominant, politics is very much involved. Either the Catholics will go Anglican (women priests, liberal political pandering), they will become what boomer schizophrenic evangelicals think they are (demon worshippers), or they will start making 40k seem understated (deus valt, deus valt, deus valt). This is what he said it in the context of, he thinks they already have enough awful people and political enemies in the seminaries, they don't need more. Luckily there was any Italian word by which he could call them what he felt, the best one he has for the trads is misguided, I'd have a laugh if he ever called them autistic, as just like what he said it would be a neat summation.
1