What is your personal theory about Jan 6. I am curious no matter how wild it may sound. I remember when it happened I figured some over zealous Trump supporters got out of hand. I never dreamed there would be this insane level of hysteria over it. I was initially shocked about the hand wringing over this after seeing the destruction of the summer of love as well as seeing other groups protesting at or in the capital. It is hard for me to take seriously the idea that it was an insurrection because if their goal was to take over the government that was a pretty lousy effort and same goes for Trump. Plus you got people still in jail over this.
What do y'all think is behind all this? I also find it odd how there is no curiosity about Ray Epps.
We all lived through it, saw the unedited livestream footage from it, and despite all evidence see how that compares to how media is treating it.
It doesn't take much imagination to conclude EVERY "historical" event we think we know about was treated the same way. Someone pushing an agenda crafted a narrative and used either directly controlled connections or sympathetic fellow travelers to propagate it throughout the culture. The average people don't know any better because they don't realize the utter corruption of every supposedly reliable institution.
Think about the people around you now that believe anything on CNN. Now imagine around 100 years ago when most people didn't travel more than 50 miles from where they were born, only had one newspaper in town and only that one rich guy owned a radio. How easy it would be to spread an agenda.
Yea I remember we learned about that in high school and even then I felt the students were more at fault
It took me a long time to learn this, but it cannot be overstated:
There are two sides to every story. Not every side is going to be plausible or legitimate, but people generally don't do evil things without some form of justification in their own minds.
I despite people who cannot see the humanity in their enemies. How can you learn from a situation if you just assume your enemies are evil and unthinking sadists?
A lot of our enemies are evil and unthinking sadists.
I think evil requires intention.
People who do evil things but are incapable of understanding the gravity of their actions are seen as less than evil. It's why you need to be competent to stand trial for heinous crimes.
There are vanishingly few people in the world who are intentionally evil. Most people aren't good, either, just... respond to stimuli and act on the moralistic story in their head. It doesn't mean good people don't do evil things, it just means most people don't see them as evil while they're doing them.
I think there definitely are those one that could call evil, someone like Klaus Schwab for example. Most of the masses though, those are there with good intentions but very ill informed opinions. I used to be a lefty, I voted for the fucking commies because I thought they were in the right. It took me my own research and some things like gamergate or the German migration crisis from 2015 to change my mind entirely on it all. I don't think I am evil, I don't think I was evil back then, just ill informed.
Just painting a whole group as evil is a bit too much. Granted as I said there are evil people out there, just not as many as one might think.
Hmm. Evil and unthinking...
Tell me more, Mr. "women are literally hitler-stalin-satan and are responsible for every evil under the sun". Surely you have an unbiased, nuanced opinion on this.
Great point. So very true.
Case in point: the American Civil War. It was because there were more slaves than free men, and everybody owned slaves, right?
Wrong. In 1860, there were over 31 million Americans, of which fewer than 400,000 owned slaves... 1.25%. There were about 1.8 million slaves, so less than 6% of the population. Yes, that means in modern America, we have twice the per capita amount of bLacks, compared to the time where "slaves built America." (They didn't, most engineering crews were immigrant whites and Asians.)
So, what was the reason why so many common Southerners, of which 98.75 percent didn't own slaves, fight? Well, maybe the fact that so many Confederate adopted flags based on the one from a 50 year old event should be a clue. The politicians were fighting to save their economic hides. The commoners were fighting to teach the damned Yankees to keep their noses where they belonged.
Commoners were fighting because they feared another Saint-Domingue. Harper's Ferry and the resulting beatification of the cretinous half-retard John Brown by abolitionists did not help. "Abolitionists want us all dead" is an easy sell when abolitionists are celebrating a man who tried (very poorly) to do just that.
e: While John Brown was trying to seize real weapons, it was the improvised polearms that were used to convince southerners that they were in danger. The improvised weapons were sent to southern governors, senators and anyone with influence. Knives tied to poles aren't any threat to an armed man but are perfect for slaughtering women and children.
Oh, good, at least one other person has read Dr. Clavin's book. Yeah, in the run up to war, the slave revolution rhetoric was definitely a booster to the Southern firebrands. After the fighting started, however, a lot of it died off, and got replaced with "go kill Yanks, boys!"
It was actually Thomas Fleming's A Disease in the Public Mind, but Clavin's book looks interesting. I may read it next.