Some works will better equip you to deal with regressive nonsense.For example, if you are well-informed about the Crusades or the Inquisitions, you can humiliate every regressive who tries to parrot these as they always do.
A good(true) history book is radical in this climate. History has a strong reactionary bias. Name a good book on the Crusades or Inquisition and I shall read it, preferably something written before 1942.
A good(true) history book is radical in this climate.
I've read plenty good ones that are not 'radical'. A good work is based on evidence, and the evidence is apolitical. Unless you want to replace one set of myths with another set.
Name a good book on the Crusades or Inquisition and I shall read it, preferably something written before 1942.
I can give you two good books not written before 1942. And there's plenty of terrible stuff written before, by Enlightenment writers who regarded the Crusades as barbaric, or Juan Antonio Llorente.
Thomas F. Madden - A New Concise History of the Crusades
Henry Kamen - The Spanish Inquisition
The latter is just about a small sliver of the Crusades, but the radical left is generally too stupid to distinguish between the various InquisitionS that existed, and their ignorance will make them collapse into silence and show that they know nothing of what they purported to know.
Added both to my reading list. This article by Madden has made me excited for his book. He uses some very reactionary language such as calling the Crusades a restoration.
When the globalist theocracy is waging a war on reality, how is truth not radical?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
He uses some very reactionary language such as calling the Crusades a restoration.
Madden will be most to your liking of the writers on the crusades, but this is pretty mainstream, not 'reactionary' at all. The black legend of the Crusades is basically only dominant among ignoramuses. Same for the black legend of the Inquisitions. Few know that the Inquisition in Spain prevented execution of witches, because it judged accusations to be spurious.
When the globalist theocracy is waging a war on reality, how is truth not radical?
What are your criteria for judging 'truth'? For many, I worry that it's just what suits them politically.
Some works will better equip you to deal with regressive nonsense.For example, if you are well-informed about the Crusades or the Inquisitions, you can humiliate every regressive who tries to parrot these as they always do.
A good(true) history book is radical in this climate. History has a strong reactionary bias. Name a good book on the Crusades or Inquisition and I shall read it, preferably something written before 1942.
I've read plenty good ones that are not 'radical'. A good work is based on evidence, and the evidence is apolitical. Unless you want to replace one set of myths with another set.
I can give you two good books not written before 1942. And there's plenty of terrible stuff written before, by Enlightenment writers who regarded the Crusades as barbaric, or Juan Antonio Llorente.
Thomas F. Madden - A New Concise History of the Crusades
Henry Kamen - The Spanish Inquisition
The latter is just about a small sliver of the Crusades, but the radical left is generally too stupid to distinguish between the various InquisitionS that existed, and their ignorance will make them collapse into silence and show that they know nothing of what they purported to know.
Added both to my reading list. This article by Madden has made me excited for his book. He uses some very reactionary language such as calling the Crusades a restoration.
When the globalist theocracy is waging a war on reality, how is truth not radical?
Madden will be most to your liking of the writers on the crusades, but this is pretty mainstream, not 'reactionary' at all. The black legend of the Crusades is basically only dominant among ignoramuses. Same for the black legend of the Inquisitions. Few know that the Inquisition in Spain prevented execution of witches, because it judged accusations to be spurious.
What are your criteria for judging 'truth'? For many, I worry that it's just what suits them politically.