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.

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.

That is exactly what I am trying to teach you how to do. 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.

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. Learn how to debate. It 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.

That is exactly what I am trying to teach you how to do. 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.

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. Learn how to debate. It 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.

That is exactly what I am trying to teach you how to do. 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 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.