because of Lincoln's war... We lost America directly because of Lincoln's war... he declared war on the south.
This is your central claim. You laid blame on Abraham Lincoln. The way you falsely portray the rebellion as a "war" that Lincoln started, is simply untrue. He dutifully responded to the insurrection and rebellion being levied against the USA. Again, I don't disagree with you that there was fuckery afoot, instigated and exploited by some evil people. But your understanding of what transpired, just isn't correct.
This is your central claim. You laid blame on Abraham Lincoln.
Completely incorrect. Nothing I have stated relies on that statement.
Please do a better job of presenting evidence. I am not going to go through all that shit. I am writing something that I hope will help a lot of people escape The Matrix. How many hours do you think I should waste on your non-primary evidence before I get to a primary source that may or may not support your claims?
If you want to present evidence, give me a synopsis of your link (one sentence is fine). Note the source of your evidence. If someone gives evidence in a video, give me a synopsis and an approximate time to look at that supports your claims. Please let that source have at least primary references within it.
I don't want to listen to someone else's shit. I seriously doubt you listened to my video past the first couple minutes (if at all). I admit that was not the best way to present any evidence, but it was a quick reply and it was not an important piece of evidence (even though for some reason you think it was my "central claim").
Evidence please, not someone else's words, unless you want me to take THEIR words as meaningful. I.e. if any of those links go to Abraham Lincoln himself, or maybe some other meaningful primary source then please point out which ones.
Coincidentally I actually watched the video you posted, back on September 21st. Would you like to see my YouTube watch history to confirm? Livingston just regurgitated the same crap spewed by other Lost Cause apologists. Your first red flag, if you did your research about him, should have been his membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. During my years living in South Carolina, I became well acquainted with many other native South Carolinians like Livingston. He means well, but his delusional love of "HeRitAgE" and refusal to accept that he was duped growing up and being educated in South Carolina, by promoters of Lost Cause fake history, is clearly evident. Not surprising that he's the founder of the Abbeville Institute, associating himself with Thomas DiLorenzo, an even bigger con artist masquerading as a "historian"... more bluntly put, he's an idiot profiteering off gullible people. Fren, please better research your sources.
I gave you a synopsis of the Rebellion of 1860 already, one you just didn't like. You asked for references. I gave them to you. If you actually watch the videos and read the books, you'll see that they are all backed by primary sources. You can choose to watch, listen and read them, or be lazy and remain in your state of delusion. Good luck fren.
Your first red flag, if you did your research about him, should have been his membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
This is exactly how people stay in The Matrix.
I don't give a fuck who he is. I only care about the evidence he presents. I can find corroborating primary evidence that supports some of his claims. THAT is all that matters in the search for the Truth. Learn what evidence is, and what it isn't. Debate is never an attack on the presenter of evidence or logic. It can only ever be a direct address of the evidence or logic itself with other evidence and logic (pointing out hidden axioms, etc.).
please better research your sources.
I am trying to explain to you that this type of thinking is the training of The Matrix. It is a fraud. Did you actually read all that I have written? Please do, there is so much in there that I think might help you. If you are ready to hear it. You might not be. Everyone gets past each veil at their own pace.
I gave you a synopsis of the Rebellion of 1860 already, one you just didn't like
Wrong. I didn't not like it. I thought it didn't address the specifics of the argument presented. There is a huge difference between those two things.
You asked for references.
I asked for evidence not references. I don't want to have to search your references for evidence.
Please try to understand what that word means. In The Matrix, evidence is not only what someone says, but who is saying it. Books are at least suspect and are very likely fraudulent. Except where the lead to primary sources, they are mostly useless (unless they have been used in court cases, then they become a primary source themselves (like an affidavit) as far as our laws are concerned).
If you actually watch the videos and read the books, you'll see that they are all backed by primary sources.
When presenting evidence, it is essential that you don't just throw a wall of shit at people. As I said, expecting me to dig through a thousand hours of secondary (or tertiary, etc.) shit to get a some nugget of actual primary source evidence is not a "presentation of evidence", its just rude. As if you are doing your due diligence by forcing me to do all the work. Presenting evidence (if there is any even in there) in the way you have is meaningless. I want evidence, in primary format and I want it spoon fucking fed to me (give me the page, give me the approximate time in the video) where the primary evidence is shown.
Look at how I did it in my longest post where I presented actual evidence. I gave you the quote itself, I linked to the video, and I gave the time. In the case of the Norman Dodd interview (which will be a very hard red-pill for you to swallow, but maybe the most important video you will ever see in your life considering your stated background) I gave the approximate time, and an approximate quote so you could find it without too much difficulty. The first format is exactly how it should be done. The second I will accept. Anything else I consider to be you doing everything you can to not present evidence.
Already saw the Dodd video. I agree with Dodd. Not shocked by Dodd. Already drew the same conclusions as Dodd even before watching the interview. Academia was hijacked and setup up to become propagandic indoctrination machines. Again, what we now call Lost Cause mythology used to be the standard accepted historical narrative taught in schools, at least in the former rebel states. It was propaganda. Unfortunately generations bought the bullshit. The actual red pilling begins with freeing those who've been duped into believing this Matrix of fake history. Already assessed Livingston, DiLorenzo and others of their camp. Again, I gave you crumbs. If you choose to be lazy and not dig into them, that's not my fault. Good luck fren.
This is your central claim. You laid blame on Abraham Lincoln. The way you falsely portray the rebellion as a "war" that Lincoln started, is simply untrue. He dutifully responded to the insurrection and rebellion being levied against the USA. Again, I don't disagree with you that there was fuckery afoot, instigated and exploited by some evil people. But your understanding of what transpired, just isn't correct.
You can start here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otTsbqK4U7o&t=529s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6DiA_7AjcU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3E2FdedPwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EOhXF5lNgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbEjmEyHf8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc0GvbzhoWs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Elc1-j6Jrg
For when you have more time for easy reading, you can start with the following...
https://tinyurl.com/4h5msr45
https://tinyurl.com/xtdtpvtt
https://tinyurl.com/yymtxn3s
https://tinyurl.com/9spk73m8
https://tinyurl.com/59ftuzww
https://tinyurl.com/sndbxaah
Completely incorrect. Nothing I have stated relies on that statement.
Please do a better job of presenting evidence. I am not going to go through all that shit. I am writing something that I hope will help a lot of people escape The Matrix. How many hours do you think I should waste on your non-primary evidence before I get to a primary source that may or may not support your claims?
If you want to present evidence, give me a synopsis of your link (one sentence is fine). Note the source of your evidence. If someone gives evidence in a video, give me a synopsis and an approximate time to look at that supports your claims. Please let that source have at least primary references within it.
I don't want to listen to someone else's shit. I seriously doubt you listened to my video past the first couple minutes (if at all). I admit that was not the best way to present any evidence, but it was a quick reply and it was not an important piece of evidence (even though for some reason you think it was my "central claim").
Evidence please, not someone else's words, unless you want me to take THEIR words as meaningful. I.e. if any of those links go to Abraham Lincoln himself, or maybe some other meaningful primary source then please point out which ones.
Coincidentally I actually watched the video you posted, back on September 21st. Would you like to see my YouTube watch history to confirm? Livingston just regurgitated the same crap spewed by other Lost Cause apologists. Your first red flag, if you did your research about him, should have been his membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. During my years living in South Carolina, I became well acquainted with many other native South Carolinians like Livingston. He means well, but his delusional love of "HeRitAgE" and refusal to accept that he was duped growing up and being educated in South Carolina, by promoters of Lost Cause fake history, is clearly evident. Not surprising that he's the founder of the Abbeville Institute, associating himself with Thomas DiLorenzo, an even bigger con artist masquerading as a "historian"... more bluntly put, he's an idiot profiteering off gullible people. Fren, please better research your sources.
I gave you a synopsis of the Rebellion of 1860 already, one you just didn't like. You asked for references. I gave them to you. If you actually watch the videos and read the books, you'll see that they are all backed by primary sources. You can choose to watch, listen and read them, or be lazy and remain in your state of delusion. Good luck fren.
This is exactly how people stay in The Matrix.
I don't give a fuck who he is. I only care about the evidence he presents. I can find corroborating primary evidence that supports some of his claims. THAT is all that matters in the search for the Truth. Learn what evidence is, and what it isn't. Debate is never an attack on the presenter of evidence or logic. It can only ever be a direct address of the evidence or logic itself with other evidence and logic (pointing out hidden axioms, etc.).
I am trying to explain to you that this type of thinking is the training of The Matrix. It is a fraud. Did you actually read all that I have written? Please do, there is so much in there that I think might help you. If you are ready to hear it. You might not be. Everyone gets past each veil at their own pace.
Wrong. I didn't not like it. I thought it didn't address the specifics of the argument presented. There is a huge difference between those two things.
I asked for evidence not references. I don't want to have to search your references for evidence.
Please try to understand what that word means. In The Matrix, evidence is not only what someone says, but who is saying it. Books are at least suspect and are very likely fraudulent. Except where the lead to primary sources, they are mostly useless (unless they have been used in court cases, then they become a primary source themselves (like an affidavit) as far as our laws are concerned).
When presenting evidence, it is essential that you don't just throw a wall of shit at people. As I said, expecting me to dig through a thousand hours of secondary (or tertiary, etc.) shit to get a some nugget of actual primary source evidence is not a "presentation of evidence", its just rude. As if you are doing your due diligence by forcing me to do all the work. Presenting evidence (if there is any even in there) in the way you have is meaningless. I want evidence, in primary format and I want it spoon fucking fed to me (give me the page, give me the approximate time in the video) where the primary evidence is shown.
Look at how I did it in my longest post where I presented actual evidence. I gave you the quote itself, I linked to the video, and I gave the time. In the case of the Norman Dodd interview (which will be a very hard red-pill for you to swallow, but maybe the most important video you will ever see in your life considering your stated background) I gave the approximate time, and an approximate quote so you could find it without too much difficulty. The first format is exactly how it should be done. The second I will accept. Anything else I consider to be you doing everything you can to not present evidence.
Already saw the Dodd video. I agree with Dodd. Not shocked by Dodd. Already drew the same conclusions as Dodd even before watching the interview. Academia was hijacked and setup up to become propagandic indoctrination machines. Again, what we now call Lost Cause mythology used to be the standard accepted historical narrative taught in schools, at least in the former rebel states. It was propaganda. Unfortunately generations bought the bullshit. The actual red pilling begins with freeing those who've been duped into believing this Matrix of fake history. Already assessed Livingston, DiLorenzo and others of their camp. Again, I gave you crumbs. If you choose to be lazy and not dig into them, that's not my fault. Good luck fren.