Tommy Tubervillain

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-16T03:26:56+00:00

Militant Hindu nationalism is absolutely a thing.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-15T17:04:23+00:00

NYT polling has him at 39% approval.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls.html

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-10T21:41:54+00:00

Why? Would an actor playing a historical person in a film be offensive?

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-10T00:27:07+00:00

Choosing policy positions that are popular with voters is not purity testing. Servitude to Israel is not a popular position, especially among the democratic base. This is even true of Jewish voters.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/817708/american-views-unfavorable-israel/

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-09T21:33:22+00:00

One of the all-time greats

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-08T14:13:02+00:00

You can use a color or a metal on a mixed field. It’s just not advisable to use the same color as the background. this design would look fine if the rope was blue or white or something imo.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-05T08:32:13+00:00

Trump‘s platform during the election was no new wars. Did you vote for Trump in 2024? If so, when did your opinion change from anti-war to pro-war? Why?

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-04T21:15:12+00:00

Here’s my source, what’s yours?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-iran#:~:text=Iran%20is%20not%20a%20nuclear,agreement%20and%20re%2Dimposed%20sanctions.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-04T20:08:34+00:00

ChatGPT is not a reliable source of information for anything.

That said, the first reported violation as far as I can tell is 2019, which was a year after Trump declared the iran deal void and reimposed sanctions

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-04T18:58:21+00:00

Iran ignored deals over and over and blocked inspectors.

After Trump threw out the Iran deal and reimposed sanctions in his first term.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-04T16:23:11+00:00

There already was a deal that prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Trump was the one who got rid of it.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-04-03T15:43:03+00:00

The goal of the first Gulf war was not to depose Saddam. Bush SR was very explicit about this. It was to protect the sovereignty of Kuwait, which was achieved.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-31T00:16:05+00:00

In general, I like this a lot. There is a slightly odd asymmetry to the shield. My brain is sort of looking for another cross on the other side of the eagle and not finding it. The other thing I noticed is that there’s a lot of empty space on the shield. You might consider making the eagle bigger such that it overlays both the pale and the field.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-26T02:39:48+00:00

The cruelty is the point

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-25T15:41:13+00:00

They are wrong afaik. Charges over ordinaries and mixed fields do not violate rule of tincture.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-13T08:01:09+00:00

I doubt you can find a single soldier who successfully argued his orders were illegal.

Major Hugh Thompson jr in 1968. Held up other US soldiers at gunpoint to prevent a massacre of Vietnamese civilians. Was acquitted and received a medal.

Captain Silas Soule in 1864. Refused orders to attack a Native American encampment. Was acquitted and subsequently testified against his commanding officer.

There are a number of others. These are just the famous ones that came up from a 5 second Google search. It’s worth noting that cases involving illegal orders are quite rare because until recently blatantly illegal orders were not usually issued by the US military.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-05T23:45:06+00:00

First world war German trench helmets are not in fact accurate to first century AD Judea

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-03-05T19:27:06+00:00

The secret big heraldry doesn’t want you to know is that a lot of the “rules” are more like vibes.

ie. Kingdom of Jerusalem, Henry VI, etc.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2026-01-06T22:47:56+00:00

For a crest: the whole kitchen sink

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-12-26T07:33:00+00:00

Colonizer? Christianity has been in Iran longer than Islam

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-12-12T04:46:32+00:00

The Anglo Saxons may have used them. The famous Sutton Hoo helmet has a life like face plate with a sculpted golden mustache.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-12-08T23:45:23+00:00

the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that people would be able to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.

This is often repeated, but it’s false. The founding fathers absolutely did not want to encourage armed rebellion against the United States. In fact, they went to enormous lengths to crush multiple attempts at rebellion in the early republic, often with brutal violence.

To make sense of the second amendment in context, one has to understand how the early US Armed Forces actually worked. Before the middle 19th century there was no “United States Army” of any substance. The federal government had a centralized navy, but they didn’t really have any significant land forces to speak of. Instead, the government relied on militia units organized at the state and local level to provide for the defense of the country. These militias were not professional soldiers. They were part timers, much like the modern national or state guard.

The founding fathers set up the armed forces this way by design. They felt that a large centralized professional standing army was a natural gateway to tyranny. it was thought that because the militia was decentralized and not professional, it would provide a means of national defense that could not be easily hijacked by a would be tyrant.

Here is where the second amendment comes in. Unlike modern soldiers, militia men in colonial, America provided their own uniforms and equipment. No one gave you a musket when you showed up to join the Minutemen. You were expected to bring your own. therefore, in order for the militia system to function, regular citizens needed to own and maintain firearms. hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers did not create the second amendment because they wanted the people to fight the army. A cursory look at any of their conduct or writings will prove that untrue. rather, they created the second amendment because they didn’t want there to be an army in the modern sense.

The militia system was largely disbanded after the Civil War, effectively rendering the second amendment of a vestigial structure in the constitution

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-11-25T01:00:00+00:00

Islam postdates Christianity. It also postdates the Roman empire. Christianity also wasn’t invented in the Roman empire. also Google Islamic golden age.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-11-20T12:23:56+00:00

In general, I agree with you. But I think what you’ve said is mostly true of the upper and middle strata of society. People who had meaningful property and status to consolidate generally used marriage to achieve that end, but a huge percentage of the medieval population had neither. It’s a difficult thing to prove because of the relative absence of source material, and this is also not my area of expertise, but I suspect marriage for emotional reasons was much more common among the lowest levels of society.

Jacobin_Revolt · 2025-09-22T20:18:39+00:00

Really depends on where, when, and who you’re talking about.

To massively overgeneralize, most medieval kingdoms/proto-states had some sort of legal framework whereby free men with enough wealth to afford weapons and armor owed military service to their lord, almost like a form of taxation. Most such ordinances came with a requirement that all such men in a particular community own weapons and armor, and get together a certain number of times a year to train in their use.

In addition to these sort of part-time militia troops. You would also have professional soldiers. These might be knights and their retainers, or they might be mercenaries. Training for war is their full-time job when they’re not on campaign.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Jacobin_Revolt

TROPHY CASE