Type 56: white guy dressed in a rotating series of Chinese military uniforms. He never mentions them. The 30+ minute videos are Chinese history with translated Chinese from primary sources, maps with primary research, and historical footage. Solidly communist across all of it, no more doubt about his background than I have for any generic hexbear poster.

Beau of the 5th Column: white guy dressed as a whiter guy. Can't get through a ten minute video without saying " y'all i reckon i'd ding dang dun fuck mah banjo iffin it was my cousin" as hay falls out of his mouth. Social fascist who turned out to be a human trafficking mercenary.

Scientifically proven.

The Lenin Head is sufficient, all other visuals are bourgeois.

"Have these gentlemen ever considered deez nuts?" -

This too

I'm not saying you can't watch it, just be especially critical of it. If 20% of a 10 minute video is silly time, did they actually do 8 minutes-worth of research on the topic or did they skim a few sources to frame their idea for silly time? Is their audience there for the ideas or silly time? Some creators will pass that bar, most of them won't because they've self-selected for an audience that doesn't want to listen to a detailed lecture or read the primary sources themselves. When there's no silly time, a channel like Red Pen where it's just a static screen and a lecture, they self-select for an audience that knows the material will enough to engage with it directly and critique all of the little details in their commentary on it. There's no parasocial celebrity factor to it.

Yeah I'm cool with style so long as the substance is there

There are like two exceptions I can think of, but usually when there's a lot of sugar there's no medicine, it's just a sugar pill that you're told is medicine.