2 questions:

so nothing

I chuckled at that line. “Their god is a corpse nailed to a tree.”

Can tell you don't follow smaller YouTubers, he adds one for every 5k subs, other small YouTubers do other little incentives for sub gains

>Can tell you don't follow smaller YouTubers, he adds one for every 5k subs, other small YouTubers do other little incentives for sub gains
If I ever decide to kill myself, that will be the last line in my suicide note

have you ever consider that you're wrong?
you're fighting against nature here, troon
checked
they so love to think of themselves as all knowing
all i see is uppity delusional cunts
likes Assassin's Creed games
the newer ones i'll bet
same as every leftist piece of shit
they're just jealous
they can only dream about going out in such a hardcore way
fuck "jew"tube

Norse mythology has become overused and boring.

He got told the Vikings were trannies and diverse and shit and parrots it

>leftoid
>telling me about history

Lolno. What's next? Gonna explain gender or god forbid labor to me?

i half expected it to be that way
best life advice i can give is: never listen to a leftoid, commie, tranny or other degenerates
before you know it they're trying to groom you into joining in the degeneracy
t. knew a guy that was blatantly faggot in middle school, he came to visit years and years later and tried that shit on me
i almost commited homicide but i managed to restrain myself, one day i will find that faggot and cave his skull in

Wtf, is this really what 'based' means? I've been using it as an acknowledgement of anyone who does things that are both impressively ballsy and going at it their own way.

Attached: 1426597534019.gif (493x498, 1.35M)

that's what it is, fella
don't let mentally ill degenerates tell you what is and isn't

Seriously, is his definition the real meaning of based?

Attached: based.jpg (1920x1080, 305.72K)

it's how right-wing newfags use it

He cites sources, Vikings travelled and worked for the Spanish and Arabs

these the same vikings who were trannies?

>He cites sources
oh well that settles it then. academia isn't just a nest of faggots making things up all the time

evidence that goes against the narrative you want to present is automatically invalid? that's pretty convenient

Let me guess this UK Muttoid is a SocDem?

Attached: arrr.gif (350x350, 132.14K)

He played a videogame

>evidence that goes against the narrative you want to present
I don't give a shit about vikings. I have no dog in this fight. but the faith some people have in academia is amusing.

checked
being based means you're awesome
simple as
don't let leftist dictate what is and isn't
before you know it you'll have doublethink and newspeak
>it's already happening, the ministry of truth is a reality now
that they did
they weren't only raiders, but explorers and traders too
sometimes even bodyguards or kings or emperor guards for the byzantines
varangian guards were awesome
if a timemachine ever gets invented, i'm taking one with me to show it to them
it's going to be kino seeing their reactions
its first words will probably be ACK
sure it is, most of the time
you'll have to sift through a lot of chaff to get to the wheat
taking your cues from ubishit, the absolute fucking STATE

your opinion on modern academia has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of historical sources

but Yea Forums IS full of racists who love the Northman.
why are you denying that?

how is it an incentive for the viewer that the fat man gets some chocolate?

No historical sources are valid. You are operating on faith to believe another man's word.

sure it has
academia has corrupted everything
i doubt there's an honest source to be found these days
they'll all pander to the "narative"
i don't do isms, but i like vikings, i'm sure i'll find it middling at best thanks to that alien cunt

>academia has corrupted everything
you're saying their corrupting influence is so powerful that it works retroactively and pozzes sources of 900 years ago?

yes it does. the "validity" of historical sources is decided by modern academics, who pick and choose which sources to emphasize and which to ignore.
The soft-sciences/humanities should always be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

i'm not a huge fan of the vikings just because of all the e-pagan faggots who have co-opted norse culture to try and be cool. as a christian i do find that most of them are salty at me for my belief and are basically satanist/wiccans/fotm shit of a different flavour. however yes i don't like non-whites or women.

yes
even further back
are you really this dense?
still?

this is an incredibly stupid argument to make when the subject is history
we're talking about sources that were around centuries before modern academics. some guy in 2022 has can ignore a source if he wants but that same source was also studied from like 1400-today so it doesn't really matter at all

it's always the meds

I'm not really asking you to clarify, I'm seeing if you're willing to commit to making such a retarded statement

sure moshe, i'm the retarded one
mein gott

What the fuck is this "based always meant based in fact" zoomer revisionist shit I'm seeing lately?

>some guy in 2022 has can ignore a source if he wants
Exactly. So when you say "He sites sources" it means absolutely nothing. Any idiot can find a source to prop up an argument while ignoring or downplaying sources that contradict the argument. "He cites sources" is not impressive to anyone familiar with how humans are.

Btw we're still pretending that this thread isn't just you plugging your gay little youtube channel. Nice beard faggot.

Yes. You are the retarded one. In fact, you are so retarded that I'm not sure if you realize what your actual argument is here. You're saying the actual information itself becomes trustworthy or untrustworthy based on who's interpreting it.

Anywhere a nigger or mudshit went once was a multicultural paradise

no
i'm saying that all information is untrustworthy since it has all been corrupted
try to keep up

Yes
Maybe

Attached: hype girl.webm (576x1098, 1.76M)

Probably will go see the film in a week. Not caring about this psy-op desu.

Answers:
1.) You will never be a woman
2.) You are a faggot

How does she wipe her ass?

>"He sites sources" it means absolutely nothing
it means nothing to you because as I've already observed you think any source that contradicts your preconceived beliefs is automatically invalid
someone less retarded than you would look at what the sources are
I'm still not sure how information written in the tenth century becomes bad because you don't like college professors

Greek God X has let himself go.

He is of pure Irish decent actually

You feel represented in the video

You = Sub = Chocolate in video

that's what I said you were saying worded differently

im not fascist

sure you did moshe

I'm gonna be really nice and charitable and break it down for you.
There can be good and bad interpretations of the facts.
No interpretation of the facts changes what the actual facts are.

Like other fat people, poorly

is that why they always keep changing things to fit their narratives?
alrighty, then

your counterargument to
>No interpretation of the facts changes what the actual facts are.
is
>but there are people interpreting it in ways I don't like

Academia is mind control

fuck vikangz, where are my saxon enjoyers at

Attached: 1641286263438.png (407x576, 431.95K)

lmao what a fag

>it means nothing to you because as I've already observed you think any source that contradicts your preconceived beliefs is automatically invalid
I have no preconceived belief about vikings. They could have been flaming homosexuals for all I care, and I have no interest in watching the northman movie. I do however have preconceived beliefs about youtubers with political agendas, for good reason. They're not credible at all. History is a battleground in modern day culture wars. The claims of culture-warriors like the guy in the OP/(you) should be treated with extreme suspicion.

>I'm still not sure how information written in the tenth century becomes bad
History and Anthropology are not hard sciences. We have no way of knowing for certain if something written down hundreds of years ago is truthful or accurate, and given the nature of humans there is always good reason to be very skeptical. That's assuming that, best case scenario, an ancient source is being used in good faith by a skeptical and impartial person rather than an ideologue selectively using bits and pieces that seem to support his position, while ignoring others.

The trouble is idiots think the humanities are as credible as stem because they're dazzled by the trappings of academia
>"omg he cites sources!!!! so impressive!"
>"everything he says must be truthful then"

>There can be good and bad interpretations of the facts.
>the facts
assuming they are facts at all, which is a hell of an assumption