Thread by @IncelKulak

Dan Carlin is a prime example of why it's foolish to analyze history only through the lens of 'human experience.' If you think a good historian is an empath you will come to believe that you are witnessing a world historical moment every time the present makes you feel icky /1

That is Dan Carlin's shtick: unlike the stuffy historians, he gets deep into the real experiences of the grunts of history, the dirt and grime and gore. He puts himself into their shoes. He's no lofty academic, you see - this is real history, and real history is HARDCORE. /2

By filtering history only through yourself, you begin to think that *you* are the determiner on what is significant in history and in the present. "I can't analyze the past properly until I feel something" is the pathway to egotism and hysteria. That's Dan Carlin /3

What's really happened when Carlin attempts to understand the "extremes of the human experience" is not that he puts himself into the shoes of past figures, but forces past figures into his post-war paradigm. His vision of the past is a lie. /4

Carlin does history like Pentecostals do religion: he reads until he's in a frenzy and becomes convinced the Spirit of the Past has touched him, that he has achieved oneness with history.

Hence "I know the Founders worried about this because *I* am worried about this." /5

Carlin's apocalyptic vision of Modern America isn't rooted in history, it's the product of his alienation by a present which has rejected the gospel of the post-war consensus. Carlin had imposed that consensus on the past, and for him its failure is like the death of God. /6

We've seen Leftist historians driven insane in the same way. They create for themselves an anachronistic vision of the past that is hurtling towards progress and, when the future takes a turn away from that fanciful trajectory, they despair /7

Carlin can't create a tidy thesis explaining the present and future because he is unable to impose himself upon them. He can "put himself into the shoes" of the Khans or Doughboys because they are helpless, he can violate them with his modern respectability all he likes. /8

The present and future are not harmless, however. In their company, Carlin is the helpless one. Unlike the past, the future isn't plastic, moldable by shoddy theses and self-important podcasts. It is concrete, and people like Carlin will be dragged across it face-first. /end

NB: obvious point but Carlin's crashout and his audience's surprised reaction confirms that we need actual historians. Relying on the "history buffs" and youtubers to form a coherent record of the past is foolishness. It has led us to some very retarded places.