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.
I am glad you have watched the Dodd video. That doesn't address the two other huge problems with what you have stated is your research approach.
The first is a key element in investigation that your scholastic training has given you, which is a fraud.
You can't do research if you reject what someone says because of who you think they are. I can't really stress this enough. Rejecting what someone says, because you don't like them for whatever reason, in no way is a refutation of their evidence or logic. I'm not suggesting we need to listen to every source. What I'm saying is, rejecting a person, instead of addressing their evidence is not an argument against their evidence. Vetting sources as "reliable" is a fraud during the argument stage. It allows for anyone who has been shat on by the greater community to be ignored, no matter what they have to say. It is a primary tool of The Matrix, and built into our education by design.
Many of the greatest pieces of evidence I have found have been from people who are completely discredited by other sources. I am not suggesting that person in the video I linked is some great source. I don't actually understand why that video has even become some meaningful topic of conversation. It was added as an afterthought (which i stated explicitly). For some reason you took that to mean something important to what I was saying. I never implied that it was. Regardless though, in no way whatsoever did you address a single thing I stated, or was stated in the video you seem to think is so important to me.
What you did was give me your take on the "real history" (without any evidence). Fine, great, but that's not a refutation of evidence or even the statements in the video at all. Your "refutation" of the evidence was solely an ad hominem attack. You never even addressed the argument itself.
The other problem is, in no way have you given me any information I can use. If you honestly believe that pointing to hundreds of hours of research on what? I don't even know what because you have provided no context for me to begin investigating. You didn't even keep the url's so I could get context from that. You completely eliminated all of the tools a person would use to start digging.
If you actually want to help people learn, you must do work yourself. I have shown you the way in how I presented evidence. That is the best way I have found to help spread evidence. Your method is completely useless for those of us who are spending thousands of hours doing our own investigations to help people. There simply does not exist the time to both help other people by presenting evidence, and dig through all of everyone elses shit. If you have seen something, narrow it down for me. Give me a quote. Give me the approximate time where the evidential support is. Give me a brief explanation, even a couple words would make all the difference.
If you wish to become part of the solution, please learn how to both address arguments directly and how to present your evidence. Someone with your knowledge could be helpful if you learn how to unlearn the fraudulent training your education in The Matrix gave you.
This was one of the hardest and most important lesson I had to learn as well for the same reason.
You've wasted plenty of time posting argumentative comments here that could have easily been spent reviewing the sample of sources provided above. You're wanting me to spoon feed you everything because you don't want to research on your own or have time to because you're so busy researching so much on your own?
Either follow the crumbs or don't. Up to you fren. Happy reading. Good luck.
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.
I am glad you have watched the Dodd video. That doesn't address the two other huge problems with what you have stated is your research approach.
The first is a key element in investigation that your scholastic training has given you, which is a fraud.
You can't do research if you reject what someone says because of who you think they are. I can't really stress this enough. Rejecting what someone says, because you don't like them for whatever reason, in no way is a refutation of their evidence or logic. I'm not suggesting we need to listen to every source. What I'm saying is, rejecting a person, instead of addressing their evidence is not an argument against their evidence. Vetting sources as "reliable" is a fraud during the argument stage. It allows for anyone who has been shat on by the greater community to be ignored, no matter what they have to say. It is a primary tool of The Matrix, and built into our education by design.
Many of the greatest pieces of evidence I have found have been from people who are completely discredited by other sources. I am not suggesting that person in the video I linked is some great source. I don't actually understand why that video has even become some meaningful topic of conversation. It was added as an afterthought (which i stated explicitly). For some reason you took that to mean something important to what I was saying. I never implied that it was. Regardless though, in no way whatsoever did you address a single thing I stated, or was stated in the video you seem to think is so important to me.
What you did was give me your take on the "real history" (without any evidence). Fine, great, but that's not a refutation of evidence or even the statements in the video at all. Your "refutation" of the evidence was solely an ad hominem attack. You never even addressed the argument itself.
The other problem is, in no way have you given me any information I can use. If you honestly believe that pointing to hundreds of hours of research on what? I don't even know what because you have provided no context for me to begin investigating. You didn't even keep the url's so I could get context from that. You completely eliminated all of the tools a person would use to start digging.
If you actually want to help people learn, you must do work yourself. I have shown you the way in how I presented evidence. That is the best way I have found to help spread evidence. Your method is completely useless for those of us who are spending thousands of hours doing our own investigations to help people. There simply does not exist the time to both help other people by presenting evidence, and dig through all of everyone elses shit. If you have seen something, narrow it down for me. Give me a quote. Give me the approximate time where the evidential support is. Give me a brief explanation, even a couple words would make all the difference.
If you wish to become part of the solution, please learn how to both address arguments directly and how to present your evidence. Someone with your knowledge could be helpful if you learn how to unlearn the fraudulent training your education in The Matrix gave you.
This was one of the hardest and most important lesson I had to learn as well for the same reason.
You've wasted plenty of time posting argumentative comments here that could have easily been spent reviewing the sample of sources provided above. You're wanting me to spoon feed you everything because you don't want to research on your own or have time to because you're so busy researching so much on your own?
Either follow the crumbs or don't. Up to you fren. Happy reading. Good luck.