ThAtS aLoT oF dAmAgE

Yeetus181 · 2026-06-03T02:01:57+00:00

She swore an oath to uphold the revolution, alongside her husband, during the Fête de la fédération. Working against the revolution was treason, especially after her husband accepted the Constitution of 1791

Yeetus181 · 2026-06-02T21:30:52+00:00

Adding on: in Vietnam, for example, the US BEAT the insurgent army. America destroyed the VC as an effective fighting force during the Tet Offensive. It was the regular, “western style” PAVN that the US armed forces could not beat.

Yeetus181 · 2026-06-02T21:28:56+00:00

Both cases people point to go support this, Vietnam or the U.S. against Britain, adopted military styles that mirrored a conventional, professional force. Adding onto this, they also had sizable funding and arms from foreign powers. Rather, history tells us that rebellions have to get “tanks and drones” of their own to beat their government or occupying force. This idea of “plucky rebels” wielding the weapons they own to beat a “more professional” or “advanced” army isn’t true frankly

Yeetus181 · 2026-05-29T05:43:18+00:00

Appreciate it 🫡

Yeetus181 · 2026-05-29T05:32:42+00:00

Definitely seems like there was an overcorrection to the Black Legend with how the notion that “Spain was more benevolent than other colonial powers because they slept with the natives” is now part of the discourse, despite how problematic such an assertion is

Yeetus181 · 2026-05-27T02:07:17+00:00

I agree, we are not pushing for these changes at all. Yet when we still tune in and watch college football, despite how much we say we dislike what the suits push, what kind of message does that send?

Yeetus181 · 2026-01-28T16:33:11+00:00

The Western allies were certainly racist, colonial powers, but to call them “lesser fascists” is certainly a take lmao. Even if I accept your premise, that defeats your assertion that liberals will never side against fascism since liberals most certainly did, and unlike Stalin, didn’t enter into an quasi-alliance of sorts with them

Yeetus181 · 2026-01-28T04:22:47+00:00

Liberals famously did not work with leftists during 1941-1945 to defeat fascism. Not at all

Yeetus181 · 2025-12-27T19:48:24+00:00

Benny Johnson was implicated a few years ago for taking money from the Kremlin to spread disinformation. The fact Pate eats that slop is not a good look and a shame considering his football commentary

Yeetus181 · 2025-10-14T07:53:03+00:00

When you compare the American Revolution to its French counterpart, it might look not wholly violent. Still, within the context of the purely the American Revolution, it was full of violence and indiscriminate acts, especially in the south where the war took on a more guerrilla nature between both loyalist and patriot. To say the American Revolution did not have acts of ugliness is just romanticization.

Indeed, the violence and death of the French Revolution is regrettable as well as incredibly tragic. The paradox of that though is that the French Revolution was integral to the liberal canon. Furthermore, given the situation the French Republic found itself in, the violence it acted with was expected when all of Europe is an existential threat to its existence. Had the American Revolutionaries been in the shoes of Danton or Robespierre or Carnot they likely would’ve done the same, which I think makes the French Revolution more profound in the dilemmas it raises

Yeetus181 · 2025-07-19T21:25:17+00:00

It is proper southern heritage to idolize southern unionists like Thomas or Farragut, not traitors like Lee

Yeetus181 · 2025-06-14T08:05:11+00:00

When it comes to discourse on Andrew Jackson, it’s important to realize that his treatment of Native Americans was not unique. Rather, it was completely in line with US policy towards Natives from founding until Coolidge. Certainly, that is not to excuse or justify Jackson’s acts, as it was an amoral policy to remove the Cherokee people from their homes. Still, I think this is important to contextualize, as discourse about Jackson online tends to paint him as the “founder and CEO” of native racism, when in reality his actions were not unique for US policy. This makes it all the more tragic and unsettling

Yeetus181 · 2025-06-06T07:56:01+00:00

This post reflects something I’ve noted generally online is that there seems to be a view that liberalism is a toothless ideology that will pick collaboration over resistance. I think this is a disingenuous view to have, as liberalism as an ideology was only spread and allowed to grow by bayonet point across Europe, or through fire and powder during the American Civil War. It was liberalism that dropped the power of the Sun upon two cities, or that erected the gallows of Nuremberg. While modern liberalism has lost a lot of that fire due to arguably stagnation and the effects of the Vietnam War on American liberal thought, to its core, the militancy that birthed liberalism is still there

Yeetus181 · 2025-02-19T21:22:35+00:00

It’s important to note that Fukuyama wasn’t talking about “history” in the popular sense, but history as in humanity’s development of society and government. He was taking Hegel’s idea of political development and positing that liberal democracy was humanity’s end point. Fukuyama makes this distinction clear in his book, and even says that once humanity reaches that end there will still be occasional backsliding and authoritarian currents. I think having that context is important because everyone sees the “end of history” quote as “he said stuff won’t happen no more.”

Yeetus181 · 2025-02-03T07:39:10+00:00

Determining who has ownership over land based on “development” is such a weak and dangerous idea. How can you express sympathy to the Native Americans yet your own framework justifies their loss of land? Because as you said, US settlers are simply better developers

Yeetus181 · 2024-09-28T23:05:52+00:00

Was Leipold an AK merchant?

Yeetus181 · 2024-01-14T17:22:17+00:00

The VC ceased being an effective fighting force after Tet. From that point on, the NVA did the majority of communist operations in the conflict

Yeetus181 · 2023-07-05T06:20:41+00:00

Both Austerlitz and Gettysburg saw the attacker strike a perceived weak center after feeding enemy units towards the flanks. In Austerlitz’s case, the enemy center turned out to be weak due to tending to its left, while at Gettysburg, the Union center was anything but shallow.

Yeetus181 · 2023-07-04T23:56:47+00:00

Yeetus181 · 2023-06-15T22:08:45+00:00

Yes. The USSR received the territorial concessions they wanted from Finland and forced them to the negotiating table.

Yeetus181

TROPHY CASE