###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just jumped. This was brand-new news for me. Really sucky news. My little brother just died around that time so I can see how I missed this. Man that sucks.
He was my favorite. I felt like I raised him. He was having a hard time in his marriage. She was running around on him. Blaming him for it. I was really protective over him. She’s a vile human being.
For anyone who doesn't get it, one of the very last jokes he told in public, Norm had a joke where he was saying, "man Hitler is terrible, we should go kill him" and the other guy tells him that Hitler died decades ago, and norm replies "really? I didn't even know he was sick."
[Then literally everybody was reacting to his death by saying, "I didn't even know he was sick"](https://youtu.be/-_nmdbJI8rM)
The man **literally,** and intentionally turned his own battle with cancer, *and death,* into a setup for a joke where every comedian out there talking about it, would unwittingly deliver the punchlne themselves.
He did that ON PURPOSE. Think about that. There will NEVER be another comedic genius with that level of "commit to the bit" ever again.
Weird how Hitler is somehow the biggest boogeyman in all of history, even when Stalin, Mao, and other communists have more horrendous and higher death counts.
This has historical implications. If Stalin didn’t turn on Germany and Mao didn’t choose to stay in the East it would be different. The Axis alliance made Hitler and Mussolini the main focus for the west, and then later Japan.
We remember Hitler because he became public enemy #1 to the allied countries, while Stalin became “let’s turn a blind eye to this guy” #1. The meeting between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin solidified this. Despite the Soviet Union being crucial in the invasion of Poland, the allies were desperate.
I help you out, you help me, you leave me be. That’s what it came down to.
Now with Mao it was something very similar. China at the time was in conflict with Japan, which was beneficial to the allies. Common enemy creates common goals. Obviously, this all fell apart after WWII. But that was enough for the public at the time to not even really care too much about what was happening in the USSR and China. The west had just got out of the war and couldn’t be bothered.
It all gets very complicated once WWII ended. But the reality is that we remember Hitler because Hitler was our enemy. Stalin helped defeat our enemy. Mao wasn’t directly out enemy until shit hit the fan.
Obviously they are all horrible tyrants, but the historical implications make it clear as to why we remember Hitler more than Stalin and Mao.
Hitler was our enemy that the richest people in our country, including Henry ford, George bush’s grandpa, Rockefeller and Carnegie, all funded through factories building weapons and planes and tanks and through offshore Swiss bank accounts. America would have stayed out of the war if they could because they were funding both sides until it was more opportune to join the actual fight, seemingly because Europe was so weakened that they knew they could pretty much take over the industries and pretty much run the world when the wars over.
> came down to
That’s not really get down to the meaty details, which is the West turning a blind eye to the Holodomor and doing it again when the Soviet Union annexed Eastern Europe, which was prophesied by a certain somebody.
I wonder why Germany would rally behind Hitler. I wonder why schools don’t teach children about the Weimar Republic or the Holodomor and who was behind it? Have you ever heard of Genrikh Yagoda?
Well, Stalin did “turn on” Germany’s war machine by gladly supplying oil and steel and resources to build hitler’s - war machine which started WW2 and invaded Poland, Belgium and attacked England....then it turned on him...
Isn’t it? Jordan Peterson talks aboutthis… the hammer and sickle should incite the same reaction as a swastika, maybe even worse. Yet here we are, with many young people celebrating the communist ideas and flag as if millions more didn’t die under Stalin or mao vs Mr mustache
Also perhaps the propaganda is so strong because it’s trying to cover something up
Really really trying it’s best to paint them a certain way. Children raised on games about it. Young adults raised on movies about it. Etc
Idk the Greatest Story Never Told and A Rich Mans Trick documentaries had me reconsider everything the victors told me about WW2
Perhaps it wasn’t as black and white as Call of Duty or Holly Wood Steven Spielberg made it seem… The girl in the red dress FFS
Then there’s all the Antarctica stuff and it’s just weird. Plus the escape to SA and the adoption of Nazis by US deep state lol
This is a very good point. They want to ingrain into our heads that this dude was so terrible so that way anyone that questions it will look like a lunatic and will make people not push back on the validity. Just like with 9/11.
Stalin and Mao have higher K/D ratio than Hitler, but they didn't industrialize it in the same way the Nazis did. Mao and Stalin also killed those millions over decades, Hitler did it in ~6, with most only in the final 3.
6 years. 1939 to 1945. But like I said it kicked up after 1942 when they decided to skip the "work" part of "work camps" and sent them to death camps. It's all highly documented because the Germans are nothing if not efficient and meticulous. Even when they're industrializing murder.
I do think the Holomodor was a purposeful genocide as well. But again they didn't industrialize the killing. They just took their food and left them to starve, something that has been done innumerably throughout history. Barbaric and disgusting, but not unique like the Holocaust.
Similarly with Mao's Great Leap Forward, forced starvation is a horrific genocide but not unique.
And where’s the evidence? You can’t even question it in Europe or you’ll get penalized or put in prison or both.
Odd isn’t it? The only event in history you’re not allowed to criticize or you’ll face consequences. When has an investigation for the truth ever needed such thing?
In terms of the death toll, if one wanted to confirm the Red Cross number I stated earlier they could refer to almanacs of the years in question. 😉. There's a doc called Dr. Death where this dude who invents death devices for prisons is hired to go to the camps to prove whether or not gas chambers were infact actually gas chambers. I won't spoil it for anyone but it's a pretty good film all in all.
Red Cross official number was under 300,000 Jews died. This isn't just by the hand of Nazis. Typhoid was a huge factor along with the US and French bombing railways to these camps. No food, no medications, nothing. Also, you couldn't burn people in these mass burial pits like most people think. The fuel they had was absolute garbage. There was a documentary I watched years ago where they took that same fuel and dumped it in a hole on top of 3 phone books. Barely burned through the top book's cover. With the crematoriums, at Auschwitz in particular, the chimneys were added AFTER the camp was liberated. Supposedly a lot of those camp pictures we see today in history books of malnourished walking corpses were actually Russian propaganda pictures. They were taken after the railway bombings and supply lines had been cut off for quite sometime.
They do not have a higher death count. Hitler has the highest death count. the fact that you think it is anyone else in asinine. Of hitler, mao, and stalin, one of them started a world war that led to the deaths of 40-50 million. I have not even included the nazi holocausts yet.
Just to clarify, that joke on his youtube show would have been from around 2010, definitely not the last joke he told. However he was battling cancer at that point already
I used your comment as proof to my dad how norm is the best comedian ever. Had to crop out the fact that its on the conspiracy reddit, he’s not ready for that shit.
He has to have reading glasses now, I figured it would be too much for them.
No, history is written by the writers.
Why do we think of Vikings as hairy, dirty, Brutes? Because the people who wrote about them were the monks they attacked.
Why do we think the Huns are uncivilized beasts? Because the people who wrote about them were those that they conquered.
Why do myths about the Eastern Front still exist (like the Asiatic Hoard myths)? Because the Nazis wrote everything down meticulously so our history was crafted from their sources
That’s not how history works. Depending on what survives historians will have access to the full debate on Covid, both sides of it. The historians will talk about both sides of it just like they often do.
History is insanely unreliable and most of it has been twisted. What has happened 10-20 years ago has already been twisted and perverted. What happened 100,500,1000 years ago is insanely unreliable and the powers that be have been caught deleting history many times already see gnostic texts with the vatican and library of Alexandria. You're very naive
gnostic gospels are not really lost or hidden knowledge. They are stories that offshoot groups created which the official church found to be dangerous for souls and contradictory to the canonical scriptures so they prevented them from. spreading. but we can still read a lot of them today.
I have serious doubts about *why* we ended up with the biblical "canon" we have. Why is the book of Enoch quoted in multiple canonical books? The Bible basically "cites" Enoch, and Enoch himself is mentioned in Genesis obviously as well... why did they remove the more detailed account of the creation story and just leave us with the short poem that is Genesis chapter 1?
"That’s not how history works. " only one showing they don't know how history works here seems to be you no offence intended.
tell me about the opposing side for ww2 then and all of the hidden information about it's true reason/origin?
"The historians will talk about both sides of it just like they often do." - historians are fed white washed narratives from the conquerors, who are sworn to secrecy under national security etc etc.
You know about black ops right?
The Eastern Front’s history was written almost exclusively using information left from the Nazis because western historians did not have access to Soviet archives. It’s why myths like “Asiatic Hoards” and the like are still believed by the general public.
Ya not really a lot of the history books we had in school called a lot of bad guys hero’s especially when it comes to the true history of native Americans
True history of native Americans?
And school history books are not what I’m talking about. They are not an accurate representation of history. No historian uses a high school textbook
Splitting hairs I see, let’s get crazy and say 50%, a fucking wild number, didn’t actually die from COVID but instead died *with* COVID. That’s still 900k people. For a sub that keeps bemoaning “the great replacement” and shit y’all really wrote off a whole shit load of people real quick when it wasn’t effecting you directly.
They weren’t though, that’s the point. The Vikings groomed and bathed more than the Anglo-Saxons who were writing about them. They styled their hair in a particular way as well. They are just portrayed as barbarians
The Huns are trickier because of how little we know of them. In many Germanic folklore tales and oral histories, the Huns are the good guys or are a civilized group. In one story they give refuge to a king and his family after their kingdom was usurped. In Roman legends, however, they are godless brutes who can't be reasoned with. Our view of them comes from the Romans instead of the Germans. Why? Because the Romans wrote a lot down and so we have access to that information. The German stories were kept as oral traditions, so historic historians didn't use that information.
Because we've found writings from other sources since then. Originally all we had was those written sources from monks that were the victims of vikings. Later on we discover physical evidence and writings from other neutral groups (Like the Byzantines and Ahmad ibn Fadlan). Using this information and oral sources that were later compiled we were able to paint a very different picture than the one that we had
Ahmad ibn Fadlan: "[They are the filthiest of all Allah’s creatures: they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating or wash themselves when in a state of ritual impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food](https://www.icenews.is/2017/03/15/arabic-sources-describe-the-vikings-as-beautiful-but-filthy/)."
"We thought the Vikings were nothing but brutes based on the writings of the people they killed and enslaved for generations....". Cant say I am convinced yet
I mean, when I think Barbarian, I think murdering rampagers that loot and kill everyone weaker then them. I dont think history viewed them as very friendly
Right but they were portrayed as extra bloody, dirty, and filthy. They weren’t any different than anyone around them. They were probably a bit cleaner, had a different religion, and were more sea based. That’s it
This is from a Nordic website, quoting Ahmad ibn Fadlan: "***They are the filthiest of all Allah’s creatures: they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating or wash themselves when in a state of ritual impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food***."
https://sciencenorway.no/archaeology-history-art-and-literature-forskningno/old-arabic-texts-describe-dirty-vikings/1388613
I read it as both types. Ritually unclean, but also physically: "they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating ... do not even wash their hands after food"
Those specific mentions are all apart of wudu though. Like they aren’t up to our level of cleanliness today, but they were cleaner than most contemporary Europeans. Of course a Muslim is going to see someone who is ritually unclean as physically unclean as well.
I really loved his comment about cancer. Why do we always talk about people dying from cancer as "losing their battle with cancer"? That's a terrible way to talk about someone, the last thing they did was lose, they're ultimately just a lower. When in reality, when a person with cancer dies, the cancer dies too, so it's really more of a draw.
He wrote that joke when he had cancer.
But if you love Norm, you'll appreciate his role as Pigeon on Mike Tysons mysteries. The HBO merger meant that it was removed from all streaming platforms, but it's easy enough to pirate it.
Shouldn’t it be the opposite ? I think very few people have heard about what you guys have been through because of England, at least here in France, we barely studied it when I reached the top elite school past 20
The civil war was far more gray than the better guys won. If you think burning and murdering whole towns and cities was necessary and that every person deserved it 600,000 troops and many civilians because of a horrific historical institution that persists today whether they were involved or not you are just benefiting from our moral progress being raised to know that it was wrong and every man is born free and equal which still hasn’t happened in many parts of the world.
No lol. It was fought primarily over slavery. That’s a historical fact. That doesn’t mean that the north was a bunch of totally accepting angels, but obviously the side that fought for the right to commit atrocities on people that they considered to be subhuman were the worse people.
One of the least morally gray wars in our history.
If you think a war fought kin against kin that involved total war tactics fought on our own soil wasn’t gray I don’t know to tell you. Regardless of the reasoning of either side. Union troops committed war crimes same as Confederates, often worse as they were mostly mercenaries or conscripts.
I never once claimed what it was fought over. If you think burning and murdering whole towns and cities was necessary and that every person deserved it because of a horrific historical institution that persists today whether they were involved or not you are just benefiting from our moral progress being raised to know that it was wrong and every man is born free and equal which still hasn’t happened in many parts of the world.
I said that the north wasn’t a bunch of angels.
But what the sides fought for was black and white. One side was just worse than the other.
The casualties of the war for the most part should be blamed on those who thought slavery was a valid reason to secede.
Reasonings for war are never black and white. Using war to preserve a union is no union. British papers called the war the tariff war until Lincoln used the emancipation to keep them out of it.
I don’t know. Do you really think the run of the mill confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery? The vast majority of them did not even own slaves.
I’m on your side as well as a large number of historians. Also, if he’s arguing for slavery being the sole reason confederate soldiers fighting, he’s also making the case that union solders were fighting to abolish, which is a huge generalization and wasn’t the case, especially as how laws in the north treated blacks as second class citizens if they were free and even sent slaves back to their owners in the antebellum. And there’s a serious hole in moral guidelines dictating which side you fought on in a war that led to some of those atrocities you called out.
I’m not making that case. It is the central reasoning though as you can see in the articles of secession.
Both sides were racist. The difference was the south viewed them as non human while the north saw them as lesser humans. Obviously I’m generalizing but these were the average views. It is better that the north treated them as second class citizens than not citizens at all like the south. 100 years later the south fought to keep black people as 2nd class citizens and the north fought to give them full rights. Even today we can still see the remnants to a lesser extent and a big reason for this is because schools in the south still teach lies about what the south wanted.
Historians do not agree with the guy above. As I pointed out, over a quarter of the soldiers were slave owners. Slave owners were extremely common in the confederacy. The average soldier was in fact fighting for slavery.
Yes we know Lincoln’s goals. I see you’re a die hard republican but not a big history guy. In terms of civil rights issues it’s been the south vs the north for a long time. Whatever party currently occupies the south votes against human rights. It’s not the democrats currently
It would technically be more accurate to say the civil war was fought over a states right to secede. But the reason for the secession was to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, and many confederate soldiers believed in that goal.
Yes. They thought slavery was a right that the federal government was trying to take away. And even if they didn’t personally want to own slaves, they chose to fight for that cause.
That’s the exact reason why it’s so awful that people still fly confederate flags today. A symbol of a region that fought to maintain slaveries legality. It was brought back into popularity to oppose civil rights. It’s a symbol of people who truly believe black people are lesser and it still represents that to this day.
The civil war is a great example of why not everything can be decided at local levels.
You are over simplifying and massively generalizing a subject which people study for years to gain understanding of. I don't know why I expect better here, but this good vs evil, black vs white right vs wrong, bullshit just isn't how things work.
Most people just do what they need to in order to look after those they love. You're broad strokes morality is juvenile
I dont buy this line of thinking. They were literally being invaded and the soldiers believed (accurately) that they were defending their homes. With the exception of Gettysburg at the very end of the war, the entire civil war was the North launching a series of invasions into the South. It was literally a war of northern aggression.
The number of slave owners in the South seems very wrong. Ive read something like 3-5%. But I have seen arguments for about 30% where the author takes hard data and takes it through a series of extrapolations (e.g., takes the 3% and multiples by 4 or so with the assumption that there is a family in each ownership case). I would call this kind of thing using data to sculpt a narrative.
The run of the mill confederate soldier was either drafted against there will or protecting there homes from being destroyed, the overwhelming majority of soldiers did not own slaves and were mainly fighting because there homeland was being invaded. Not saying the were fighting for the right cause but that there reasons for fighting weren’t evil.
About 1/10 we’re drafted.
Somewhere between 2/10 - 3/10 owned slaves. So they were literally more likely to own slaves than be the “run of the mill” confederate that you defined. The reasons they were fighting was wrong. Their homeland was wrong. They knew what they were fighting for we don’t need to make excuses for them. We should look down upon them like Germans look down upon nazi ancestors.
Im from a former confederate state, I know how we look at them today. It is not with the disdain that they should be treated with. Hell some schools even told students that the war wasn’t fought over slavery. Thankfully mine taught us the truth, but the fact that people still say it was over “states rights” but don’t even realize that it was the states rights to allow slavery is insane.
Lmao “the real heroes”
You mean the same heroes rescuing the most evil Nazis and adopting them into their ranks in positions of extreme power and influence
From rocket programs to mass psychology
"Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost"
What a prophet ... sigh
And everybody knows that the plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows
Lmao. I love this parable. People literally do look at the world as a marvel movie, especially on Reddit. I don’t think Russia are good guys, but I’d take a wild guess it’s a bit more nuanced than them being Voldemort or whoever the bad guy in marvel movies is.
I was thinking about this, not the quote but the general idea, just the other night. Even just the fact that we have a Columbus day when considering all of the horrific things that occurred aftering discovering the Americas. It was a monumental discovery that paved the way for the modern western world to evolve, but its hard to really see him as a good guy when you look into what he and those after him did.
H O L O C A U S T H A N D B O O K S . C O M
I dare ye visit and watch a documentary. Spacing because the victors decide what gets auto-deleted merely for linking.
Obviously right around 6 million, the same figure they've been whining about in newspapers since the late 1800s with the same term "holocaust." What, you think I'm a literal nazi or something to question otherwise?
I just wanted to see if you were capable of giving your own honest answer about what you believe without the sarcasm and information you quoted directly from the front page of their website.
Imagine being anonymous on Reddit and still lacking the courage to give a simple, straight answer of your own beliefs.
Imagine being butthurt because someone passively linked a resource but doesn't feel the need to give you the full time of day. It doesn't matter much what some random redditor thinks when the entire resource of nuanced debate is right there. I linked it for attention to the resource, but you can go ahead and think of me and my beliefs however you please and that's completely fine with me.
Makes sense, because it is never the evil, scheming, backstabbing, murderous, bloodthirsty, satanists that win, but the good, God-fearing guys who would never hurt a fly.
/s
I mean we learned this from the ultimate social engineer and predictive programmer, Hollywood, (AKA the "dream factory").
No it’s not. It’s about looking at the record of history and analyzing the context of any given moment in time. It’s still extremely slanted in favor of America and the Western world though.
-Age of Exploration -> Imperial Colonialism…
*Totally awesome. A bunch of Europeans were racing to find the quickest way to China. They found America, everything was awesome. Some bad stuff might have happened, but those guys weren’t Americans because America didn’t even exist yet. Very cool.* *
*One of the most barbaric times in human history. Genocide on a global scale. Entire ethnicities wiped from the face of the planet.
-WWI-WWII…
*America didn’t want to get involved because we were just cool like that. Eventually we showed up because we’re basically the protagonist of the world, and we pretty much singlehandedly beat the bad guys both times.* **
**The United States was significantly late to both GLOBAL conflicts because we were, and arguably still are, a proto-fascist kleptocracy that shared many values with “the bad guys”.
-Civil rights…
*Rosa Parks and MLK Jr solved racism in America. Water fountains were important to some people. All the pictures were in black and white because it was so long ago. It’s over now though. There’s no more racism now.* ***
***Black people were officially second-class citizens in a substantial part of this country. It was illegal for them to vote. They didn’t have the same protections under the constitution in regards to firearms. They couldn’t eat inside almost any restaurant, drink at most water-fountains, or use most toilets. Even in the more enlightened parts of the country, besides the fact that black people didn’t receive the GI benefits that many white veterans used to buy property after WWII, they were also relegated by local governments to only live in certain areas, deemed to have low value. Many leaders of the civil rights movement were killed, and the rest are certainly not living in the utopia they were fighting for.
There aren’t any high school history teachers assigning their students a book report on a complete work of Karl Marx.
Makes you wonder how many times the bad guys have actually won. They are proving today how easy it is to rewrite history. They are claiming there were no Covid lockdowns!!!
Maybe when we finally pass from this life we will get to know.
RIP Norm. I had just found a major interest in him the 6 months before he died, having watched Mike Tysons mysteries, and watching clips of him on YouTube. I think I most truly loved him because he was a comedian's comedian. His style was almost laser focused on entertaining other comedians, people who deeply understood the craft of The Joke.
But I'm telling you, I would pay serious money for full uncensored episodes of Mike Tysons mysteries, so I could hear Norm's foul mouthed pigeon in all its glory.
I started thinking about this during the height of the Covid theatrical production, as I watched people with power disregard humanity and try to cater the narrative to support their lies…and it all clicked with me that everything we have been told about our collective history is riddled with lies
You've got a good thought here, but I believe your overall judgement is clouded by bias. That's obvious with your designation of Covid as a theatrical production.
Admit you really don't KNOW much, keep going with the critical thinking, and even though you won't ever have the world all figured out, you'll be more comfortable with your place in it.
Where have we been bad but the textbooks say we were good? I can't think of anything in wars.
Yeah the feds are portrayed as good when they're not but that's all I can think of.
Norm MacDonald never said that, nor would he have since it is trite and unfunny. It reads like some Bill Hicks fan's attempt at writing a Norm-esque joke despite having no actual understanding of Norm's style
Norm was all about delivery and many jokes that sucked on paper came to life in his hands. You come across as a pompous comedy snob with no understanding of joy.
What I am, sir, is a Norm MacDonald scholar, and I can say with complete confidence that there is no record of his having spoken this line. It is a misattribution which only appeared after his death, a shoddy imitation which attempts to make the great man into some George Carlin-esque "social-commentary masked as comedy" performer, something which Norm personally despised. Call me pompous if ye may, but I shall gladly die before seeing Norm Macdonald's reputation slandered thusly!
To be fair, it does sound like something he would say in his act. Not as a main course, but one of the "being funny out of necessity between the big punchlines" jokes. This thought that history is written by the winners is not even controversial, it is a truism. Louis XVI couldn't write no history. He was out, and I mean OUT.
I think we should teach it in every school. Poor white people need it the most so of course they tricked them into believing it was about black people.
CRT teaches history and how it relates to our behavior today. Why would rich people want poor people to learn they were robbed.
That’s not the general takeaway from CRT, but I’m sure you already know and understand that, you’re just being disingenuous.
There’s really only one reason to be *critical* of Critical Race Theory, and that’s because someone doesn’t want their ancestors labeled as bad guys. To be honest, I don’t really understand the logic. Your ancestors don’t represent you. Unless you share their beliefs, nobody is criticizing you personally. Even if your ancestors *did* do some shady shit, you shouldn’t be personally offended by people acknowledging what they did. It happened. It’s not up for debate. There’s no logic behind ignoring reality.
Exactly. My girlfriend makes a good point about natives. The further you go back schools really did minimize it. But even when I went to school (graduated 08) history class was big on civil rights. You would think that was the only thing to happen in the 1900s. WW1 gets a paragraph, Vietnam gets a page, civil rights get 4 chapters lol.
Oh I wasn’t really talking about slavery, and if CRT was *just* talking about slavery, then we probably wouldn’t have people like you rooting against it.
The problem you have with CRT is what they say about everything *after* slavery. It’s more about how they describe red-lining, voting rights, and the GI bill. The reality is that this *awesome* country is a product of, at least in part, massive exploitation of minorities and the working class. You might think that’s annoying to hear, but that’s just fucking reality my dude. It’s super weird to argue against reality.
Do you want kids to *actually* learn their country’s obvious history? The same history that almost every other developed nation learns? Or do you want to send our next generation into the world with some nonsensical propaganda rattling around in their heads?
Do you think the kids in Germany should learn about WWII? Or do you think humanity benefits from protecting their feelings?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I miss Norm. Gone too soon.
He was the best guest on The View ever.
I didn't even know he was sick.
Nobody did
It was a draw
I swear, I can hear the man him self lay down this punch line. "WHAT A JERK!"
To set up a joke like that and then die and not even get to be around for the punchline is a real work of genius.
>a real work of genius. Was he good at math or something?
I just jumped. This was brand-new news for me. Really sucky news. My little brother just died around that time so I can see how I missed this. Man that sucks.
My condolences on losing your brother. I love my bro and couldn’t imagine the pain you went through.
He was my favorite. I felt like I raised him. He was having a hard time in his marriage. She was running around on him. Blaming him for it. I was really protective over him. She’s a vile human being.
I didn't even know he was sick
For anyone who doesn't get it, one of the very last jokes he told in public, Norm had a joke where he was saying, "man Hitler is terrible, we should go kill him" and the other guy tells him that Hitler died decades ago, and norm replies "really? I didn't even know he was sick." [Then literally everybody was reacting to his death by saying, "I didn't even know he was sick"](https://youtu.be/-_nmdbJI8rM) The man **literally,** and intentionally turned his own battle with cancer, *and death,* into a setup for a joke where every comedian out there talking about it, would unwittingly deliver the punchlne themselves. He did that ON PURPOSE. Think about that. There will NEVER be another comedic genius with that level of "commit to the bit" ever again.
I'm really starting to think that Hitler guy is a huge jerk.
Weird how Hitler is somehow the biggest boogeyman in all of history, even when Stalin, Mao, and other communists have more horrendous and higher death counts.
This has historical implications. If Stalin didn’t turn on Germany and Mao didn’t choose to stay in the East it would be different. The Axis alliance made Hitler and Mussolini the main focus for the west, and then later Japan. We remember Hitler because he became public enemy #1 to the allied countries, while Stalin became “let’s turn a blind eye to this guy” #1. The meeting between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin solidified this. Despite the Soviet Union being crucial in the invasion of Poland, the allies were desperate. I help you out, you help me, you leave me be. That’s what it came down to. Now with Mao it was something very similar. China at the time was in conflict with Japan, which was beneficial to the allies. Common enemy creates common goals. Obviously, this all fell apart after WWII. But that was enough for the public at the time to not even really care too much about what was happening in the USSR and China. The west had just got out of the war and couldn’t be bothered. It all gets very complicated once WWII ended. But the reality is that we remember Hitler because Hitler was our enemy. Stalin helped defeat our enemy. Mao wasn’t directly out enemy until shit hit the fan. Obviously they are all horrible tyrants, but the historical implications make it clear as to why we remember Hitler more than Stalin and Mao.
Hitler was our enemy that the richest people in our country, including Henry ford, George bush’s grandpa, Rockefeller and Carnegie, all funded through factories building weapons and planes and tanks and through offshore Swiss bank accounts. America would have stayed out of the war if they could because they were funding both sides until it was more opportune to join the actual fight, seemingly because Europe was so weakened that they knew they could pretty much take over the industries and pretty much run the world when the wars over.
> came down to That’s not really get down to the meaty details, which is the West turning a blind eye to the Holodomor and doing it again when the Soviet Union annexed Eastern Europe, which was prophesied by a certain somebody. I wonder why Germany would rally behind Hitler. I wonder why schools don’t teach children about the Weimar Republic or the Holodomor and who was behind it? Have you ever heard of Genrikh Yagoda?
>If Stalin didn’t turn on Germany Uh I think you've got that backwards...
Well, Stalin did “turn on” Germany’s war machine by gladly supplying oil and steel and resources to build hitler’s - war machine which started WW2 and invaded Poland, Belgium and attacked England....then it turned on him...
Isn’t it? Jordan Peterson talks aboutthis… the hammer and sickle should incite the same reaction as a swastika, maybe even worse. Yet here we are, with many young people celebrating the communist ideas and flag as if millions more didn’t die under Stalin or mao vs Mr mustache
Because nationalism is demonized and communism is praised. Those who control the media control the mind.
Also perhaps the propaganda is so strong because it’s trying to cover something up Really really trying it’s best to paint them a certain way. Children raised on games about it. Young adults raised on movies about it. Etc Idk the Greatest Story Never Told and A Rich Mans Trick documentaries had me reconsider everything the victors told me about WW2 Perhaps it wasn’t as black and white as Call of Duty or Holly Wood Steven Spielberg made it seem… The girl in the red dress FFS Then there’s all the Antarctica stuff and it’s just weird. Plus the escape to SA and the adoption of Nazis by US deep state lol
Recommend watching Europa: The Last Battle
This is a very good point. They want to ingrain into our heads that this dude was so terrible so that way anyone that questions it will look like a lunatic and will make people not push back on the validity. Just like with 9/11.
Stalin and Mao have higher K/D ratio than Hitler, but they didn't industrialize it in the same way the Nazis did. Mao and Stalin also killed those millions over decades, Hitler did it in ~6, with most only in the final 3.
[удалено]
6 years. 1939 to 1945. But like I said it kicked up after 1942 when they decided to skip the "work" part of "work camps" and sent them to death camps. It's all highly documented because the Germans are nothing if not efficient and meticulous. Even when they're industrializing murder. I do think the Holomodor was a purposeful genocide as well. But again they didn't industrialize the killing. They just took their food and left them to starve, something that has been done innumerably throughout history. Barbaric and disgusting, but not unique like the Holocaust. Similarly with Mao's Great Leap Forward, forced starvation is a horrific genocide but not unique.
And where’s the evidence? You can’t even question it in Europe or you’ll get penalized or put in prison or both. Odd isn’t it? The only event in history you’re not allowed to criticize or you’ll face consequences. When has an investigation for the truth ever needed such thing?
In terms of the death toll, if one wanted to confirm the Red Cross number I stated earlier they could refer to almanacs of the years in question. 😉. There's a doc called Dr. Death where this dude who invents death devices for prisons is hired to go to the camps to prove whether or not gas chambers were infact actually gas chambers. I won't spoil it for anyone but it's a pretty good film all in all.
Red Cross official number was under 300,000 Jews died. This isn't just by the hand of Nazis. Typhoid was a huge factor along with the US and French bombing railways to these camps. No food, no medications, nothing. Also, you couldn't burn people in these mass burial pits like most people think. The fuel they had was absolute garbage. There was a documentary I watched years ago where they took that same fuel and dumped it in a hole on top of 3 phone books. Barely burned through the top book's cover. With the crematoriums, at Auschwitz in particular, the chimneys were added AFTER the camp was liberated. Supposedly a lot of those camp pictures we see today in history books of malnourished walking corpses were actually Russian propaganda pictures. They were taken after the railway bombings and supply lines had been cut off for quite sometime.
They do not have a higher death count. Hitler has the highest death count. the fact that you think it is anyone else in asinine. Of hitler, mao, and stalin, one of them started a world war that led to the deaths of 40-50 million. I have not even included the nazi holocausts yet.
> highest death count Imagine being this stupid.
how your husband manages to be around an insufferable c#nt like you, i will never know.
He's not a complete jerk. His last act was borne out of selfless heroism, where he sacrificed his own life in order to kill a genocidal madman.
Wow.
Just to clarify, that joke on his youtube show would have been from around 2010, definitely not the last joke he told. However he was battling cancer at that point already
after having it butchered for years. the gall of it. the sheer genius!
Fuck man, that's amazing
I used your comment as proof to my dad how norm is the best comedian ever. Had to crop out the fact that its on the conspiracy reddit, he’s not ready for that shit. He has to have reading glasses now, I figured it would be too much for them.
Bit of a reach…he told that many years before he died. A coincidence, albeit a funny one.
This line hits different now 😢
History is written by the victors of war.- Napoleon.
No, history is written by the writers. Why do we think of Vikings as hairy, dirty, Brutes? Because the people who wrote about them were the monks they attacked. Why do we think the Huns are uncivilized beasts? Because the people who wrote about them were those that they conquered. Why do myths about the Eastern Front still exist (like the Asiatic Hoard myths)? Because the Nazis wrote everything down meticulously so our history was crafted from their sources
Oh yeah are the writers gonna write that the covid was a hoax in 20 years? Regardless of who wrote it the winners can corrupt it and change it.
That’s not how history works. Depending on what survives historians will have access to the full debate on Covid, both sides of it. The historians will talk about both sides of it just like they often do.
both opinions are correct. sometimes historical data is manipulated and sometimes it is not. there is sufficient evidence to support both opinions.
History is insanely unreliable and most of it has been twisted. What has happened 10-20 years ago has already been twisted and perverted. What happened 100,500,1000 years ago is insanely unreliable and the powers that be have been caught deleting history many times already see gnostic texts with the vatican and library of Alexandria. You're very naive
The library of Alexandria and the gnostic texts are not really an example of history being twisted lmao
An example of recorded knowledge being lost or hidden, rather than twisted maybe
gnostic gospels are not really lost or hidden knowledge. They are stories that offshoot groups created which the official church found to be dangerous for souls and contradictory to the canonical scriptures so they prevented them from. spreading. but we can still read a lot of them today.
We can read fragments of some. There were many, we have few, it then follows some are lost or hidden.
I have serious doubts about *why* we ended up with the biblical "canon" we have. Why is the book of Enoch quoted in multiple canonical books? The Bible basically "cites" Enoch, and Enoch himself is mentioned in Genesis obviously as well... why did they remove the more detailed account of the creation story and just leave us with the short poem that is Genesis chapter 1?
Thr vatican killed gnostics and destroyed much of it's history. You really don't know shit lmao
I’m not denying the killing of heretical believers by the Catholic Church, but I’m not sure how that proves that history was deleted and re-written
Just like we have access to all those books in the Vatican library
Aww hes so cute, he still believes that people only act honestly. Never change.
"That’s not how history works. " only one showing they don't know how history works here seems to be you no offence intended. tell me about the opposing side for ww2 then and all of the hidden information about it's true reason/origin? "The historians will talk about both sides of it just like they often do." - historians are fed white washed narratives from the conquerors, who are sworn to secrecy under national security etc etc. You know about black ops right?
The Eastern Front’s history was written almost exclusively using information left from the Nazis because western historians did not have access to Soviet archives. It’s why myths like “Asiatic Hoards” and the like are still believed by the general public.
Ya not really a lot of the history books we had in school called a lot of bad guys hero’s especially when it comes to the true history of native Americans
True history of native Americans? And school history books are not what I’m talking about. They are not an accurate representation of history. No historian uses a high school textbook
Had a routine check up Dr appt today and she was telling me that her kids, 8 and 10, aren't even taught history in school anymore. Blew my mind.
In 2020, 1,813,188 people were hoaxed to death.
[удалено]
Splitting hairs I see, let’s get crazy and say 50%, a fucking wild number, didn’t actually die from COVID but instead died *with* COVID. That’s still 900k people. For a sub that keeps bemoaning “the great replacement” and shit y’all really wrote off a whole shit load of people real quick when it wasn’t effecting you directly.
“The Nazis wrote down everything” really? Then where are Hitler’s orders to start killing Jews? What history do we attribute to Nazi writing?
Until the mid 90s the entire history of the Eastern Front came from the Nazi perspective
To be fair, the vikings and the huns were practically barbarians
They weren’t though, that’s the point. The Vikings groomed and bathed more than the Anglo-Saxons who were writing about them. They styled their hair in a particular way as well. They are just portrayed as barbarians
Fair point on the Vikings. Now do the Huns
The Huns are trickier because of how little we know of them. In many Germanic folklore tales and oral histories, the Huns are the good guys or are a civilized group. In one story they give refuge to a king and his family after their kingdom was usurped. In Roman legends, however, they are godless brutes who can't be reasoned with. Our view of them comes from the Romans instead of the Germans. Why? Because the Romans wrote a lot down and so we have access to that information. The German stories were kept as oral traditions, so historic historians didn't use that information.
How do you know?
Because we've found writings from other sources since then. Originally all we had was those written sources from monks that were the victims of vikings. Later on we discover physical evidence and writings from other neutral groups (Like the Byzantines and Ahmad ibn Fadlan). Using this information and oral sources that were later compiled we were able to paint a very different picture than the one that we had
Ahmad ibn Fadlan: "[They are the filthiest of all Allah’s creatures: they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating or wash themselves when in a state of ritual impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food](https://www.icenews.is/2017/03/15/arabic-sources-describe-the-vikings-as-beautiful-but-filthy/)."
Again, they don’t meet the requirements of wudu
"We thought the Vikings were nothing but brutes based on the writings of the people they killed and enslaved for generations....". Cant say I am convinced yet
Burnt down my village, killed family, kidnapped wife. 2 star service, will not order again.
Lol that’s how history went, mate. You were a conquer or someone that was conquered.
Ya but most countries didn't make pillaging their culture
It wasnt their whole culture. Viking was a job. I mean what do you think knights did when at "peace"?
Do you think the Anglo-Saxons weren't burning villages and raping LMAO
I mean, when I think Barbarian, I think murdering rampagers that loot and kill everyone weaker then them. I dont think history viewed them as very friendly
Right but they were portrayed as extra bloody, dirty, and filthy. They weren’t any different than anyone around them. They were probably a bit cleaner, had a different religion, and were more sea based. That’s it
And dinosaurs probably only ate flowers
This is from a Nordic website, quoting Ahmad ibn Fadlan: "***They are the filthiest of all Allah’s creatures: they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating or wash themselves when in a state of ritual impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food***." https://sciencenorway.no/archaeology-history-art-and-literature-forskningno/old-arabic-texts-describe-dirty-vikings/1388613
Ritually unclean, not physically unclean. Muslims have spiritual cleansing rituals, called wudu, that Vikings obviously didn’t follow
I read it as both types. Ritually unclean, but also physically: "they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating ... do not even wash their hands after food"
Those specific mentions are all apart of wudu though. Like they aren’t up to our level of cleanliness today, but they were cleaner than most contemporary Europeans. Of course a Muslim is going to see someone who is ritually unclean as physically unclean as well.
The fact that spiritually unclean is co-mingled in wudu with physically unclean doesn't mean that physically unclean doesn't exist.
Thought doflamingo said this 🤔
\- Michael Scott
- Wayne Gretzky
<3
no, history is written by historians
This isn’t super relevant however I will not pass up on a chance to post the moth joke. One of my favorite Norm bits https://youtu.be/jJN9mBRX3uo
"[What they don't tell you about crack is...god dam it's good.](https://youtu.be/nLFPK9vmHuw)"
My favorite joke of his.
I really loved his comment about cancer. Why do we always talk about people dying from cancer as "losing their battle with cancer"? That's a terrible way to talk about someone, the last thing they did was lose, they're ultimately just a lower. When in reality, when a person with cancer dies, the cancer dies too, so it's really more of a draw. He wrote that joke when he had cancer. But if you love Norm, you'll appreciate his role as Pigeon on Mike Tysons mysteries. The HBO merger meant that it was removed from all streaming platforms, but it's easy enough to pirate it.
But have you heard the one about Andy Richter, the swedish german?
[удалено]
Wooden doors, Norm.
As an Irishman I can assure you that's not the case
Well you didnt really win and Irish is not really spoken anymore. So england won. You got a phyrric victory.
Shouldn’t it be the opposite ? I think very few people have heard about what you guys have been through because of England, at least here in France, we barely studied it when I reached the top elite school past 20
Don’t think US history books say that about Vietnam
US history books say that about WW2 and the revolution and nothing else
Civil war too but yeah those 3 are definitely all accurate that the better guys won
Patton said we defeated the wrong enemy
Seems like he was wrong about that too since we also beat the Soviets eventually...
The civil war was far more gray than the better guys won. If you think burning and murdering whole towns and cities was necessary and that every person deserved it 600,000 troops and many civilians because of a horrific historical institution that persists today whether they were involved or not you are just benefiting from our moral progress being raised to know that it was wrong and every man is born free and equal which still hasn’t happened in many parts of the world.
No lol. It was fought primarily over slavery. That’s a historical fact. That doesn’t mean that the north was a bunch of totally accepting angels, but obviously the side that fought for the right to commit atrocities on people that they considered to be subhuman were the worse people. One of the least morally gray wars in our history.
If you think a war fought kin against kin that involved total war tactics fought on our own soil wasn’t gray I don’t know to tell you. Regardless of the reasoning of either side. Union troops committed war crimes same as Confederates, often worse as they were mostly mercenaries or conscripts.
Yeah no. It was fought over slavery. That’s way worse than anything any union soldier committed. Stop pretending.
I never once claimed what it was fought over. If you think burning and murdering whole towns and cities was necessary and that every person deserved it because of a horrific historical institution that persists today whether they were involved or not you are just benefiting from our moral progress being raised to know that it was wrong and every man is born free and equal which still hasn’t happened in many parts of the world.
I said that the north wasn’t a bunch of angels. But what the sides fought for was black and white. One side was just worse than the other. The casualties of the war for the most part should be blamed on those who thought slavery was a valid reason to secede.
Reasonings for war are never black and white. Using war to preserve a union is no union. British papers called the war the tariff war until Lincoln used the emancipation to keep them out of it.
I don’t know. Do you really think the run of the mill confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery? The vast majority of them did not even own slaves.
I’m on your side as well as a large number of historians. Also, if he’s arguing for slavery being the sole reason confederate soldiers fighting, he’s also making the case that union solders were fighting to abolish, which is a huge generalization and wasn’t the case, especially as how laws in the north treated blacks as second class citizens if they were free and even sent slaves back to their owners in the antebellum. And there’s a serious hole in moral guidelines dictating which side you fought on in a war that led to some of those atrocities you called out.
I’m not making that case. It is the central reasoning though as you can see in the articles of secession. Both sides were racist. The difference was the south viewed them as non human while the north saw them as lesser humans. Obviously I’m generalizing but these were the average views. It is better that the north treated them as second class citizens than not citizens at all like the south. 100 years later the south fought to keep black people as 2nd class citizens and the north fought to give them full rights. Even today we can still see the remnants to a lesser extent and a big reason for this is because schools in the south still teach lies about what the south wanted. Historians do not agree with the guy above. As I pointed out, over a quarter of the soldiers were slave owners. Slave owners were extremely common in the confederacy. The average soldier was in fact fighting for slavery.
[удалено]
Yes we know Lincoln’s goals. I see you’re a die hard republican but not a big history guy. In terms of civil rights issues it’s been the south vs the north for a long time. Whatever party currently occupies the south votes against human rights. It’s not the democrats currently
It would technically be more accurate to say the civil war was fought over a states right to secede. But the reason for the secession was to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, and many confederate soldiers believed in that goal.
Yes. They thought slavery was a right that the federal government was trying to take away. And even if they didn’t personally want to own slaves, they chose to fight for that cause. That’s the exact reason why it’s so awful that people still fly confederate flags today. A symbol of a region that fought to maintain slaveries legality. It was brought back into popularity to oppose civil rights. It’s a symbol of people who truly believe black people are lesser and it still represents that to this day. The civil war is a great example of why not everything can be decided at local levels.
You are over simplifying and massively generalizing a subject which people study for years to gain understanding of. I don't know why I expect better here, but this good vs evil, black vs white right vs wrong, bullshit just isn't how things work. Most people just do what they need to in order to look after those they love. You're broad strokes morality is juvenile
There’s a term for it: presentism https://youtu.be/schuzjknjYE
I dont buy this line of thinking. They were literally being invaded and the soldiers believed (accurately) that they were defending their homes. With the exception of Gettysburg at the very end of the war, the entire civil war was the North launching a series of invasions into the South. It was literally a war of northern aggression. The number of slave owners in the South seems very wrong. Ive read something like 3-5%. But I have seen arguments for about 30% where the author takes hard data and takes it through a series of extrapolations (e.g., takes the 3% and multiples by 4 or so with the assumption that there is a family in each ownership case). I would call this kind of thing using data to sculpt a narrative.
The run of the mill confederate soldier was either drafted against there will or protecting there homes from being destroyed, the overwhelming majority of soldiers did not own slaves and were mainly fighting because there homeland was being invaded. Not saying the were fighting for the right cause but that there reasons for fighting weren’t evil.
About 1/10 we’re drafted. Somewhere between 2/10 - 3/10 owned slaves. So they were literally more likely to own slaves than be the “run of the mill” confederate that you defined. The reasons they were fighting was wrong. Their homeland was wrong. They knew what they were fighting for we don’t need to make excuses for them. We should look down upon them like Germans look down upon nazi ancestors. Im from a former confederate state, I know how we look at them today. It is not with the disdain that they should be treated with. Hell some schools even told students that the war wasn’t fought over slavery. Thankfully mine taught us the truth, but the fact that people still say it was over “states rights” but don’t even realize that it was the states rights to allow slavery is insane.
Read When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams or The Real Lincoln. The war was far more gray than you think.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lmao “the real heroes” You mean the same heroes rescuing the most evil Nazis and adopting them into their ranks in positions of extreme power and influence From rocket programs to mass psychology
Yep, the official name there is "Resistance war against the United States" Guess who is the bad guy here?
Yeah or the colonization of North America. We are definitely the baddies in that one.
Obligatory recommended reading: *A People's History of the United States*.
Realizing the bad guys won WW2 is the key to understanding the world.
Are we the baddies?
Always have been 🔫
Funny skit
i miss norm - an all-round good guy - he said so himself
absolute legend
There's There's GWAR song called Regeanator where the line is, 'We're the good guys so you have to die.' About sums it up
I used to think that revenge was a dish best served cold … then I realized it means “getting back at somebody”
“Everybody knows the good guys lost” - Leonard Cohen
"Everybody knows that the dice are loaded Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed Everybody knows the war is over Everybody knows the good guys lost" What a prophet ... sigh
And everybody knows that the plague is coming Everybody knows that it's moving fast Everybody knows that the naked man and woman Are just a shining artifact of the past Everybody knows the scene is dead But there's gonna be a meter on your bed That will disclose What everybody knows
Maybe Norm needs to watch more hecking Marvel movies, the good guys always win dude 🙄 they're the good guyzzz
Lmao. I love this parable. People literally do look at the world as a marvel movie, especially on Reddit. I don’t think Russia are good guys, but I’d take a wild guess it’s a bit more nuanced than them being Voldemort or whoever the bad guy in marvel movies is.
I saw this same quote 5 days ago and made this meme: https://old.reddit.com/r/ConspiracyMemes/comments/ym0unn/the_good_guys_always_win_trust_me/
Thank you I didn't know such a sub exists. Joined lol. This meme pic you've used is one of my favorite ! And I like your meme:D
RIP in peace you Canadian treasure.
"Let me guess, public school right?" In Fairly Odd Parents
I was thinking about this, not the quote but the general idea, just the other night. Even just the fact that we have a Columbus day when considering all of the horrific things that occurred aftering discovering the Americas. It was a monumental discovery that paved the way for the modern western world to evolve, but its hard to really see him as a good guy when you look into what he and those after him did.
H O L O C A U S T H A N D B O O K S . C O M I dare ye visit and watch a documentary. Spacing because the victors decide what gets auto-deleted merely for linking.
How many Jews do you believe were intentionally killed during the 6 year period of the war?
Obviously right around 6 million, the same figure they've been whining about in newspapers since the late 1800s with the same term "holocaust." What, you think I'm a literal nazi or something to question otherwise?
I just wanted to see if you were capable of giving your own honest answer about what you believe without the sarcasm and information you quoted directly from the front page of their website. Imagine being anonymous on Reddit and still lacking the courage to give a simple, straight answer of your own beliefs.
Imagine being butthurt because someone passively linked a resource but doesn't feel the need to give you the full time of day. It doesn't matter much what some random redditor thinks when the entire resource of nuanced debate is right there. I linked it for attention to the resource, but you can go ahead and think of me and my beliefs however you please and that's completely fine with me.
The site tells me nothing about you. I asked what you believe.
Nine eleven
That WAS a national tragedy.
He walked through the blood and bones... trying to find his brother
Explain to the folks at home who Norm Macdonald was
Makes sense, because it is never the evil, scheming, backstabbing, murderous, bloodthirsty, satanists that win, but the good, God-fearing guys who would never hurt a fly. /s I mean we learned this from the ultimate social engineer and predictive programmer, Hollywood, (AKA the "dream factory").
Not anymore! History in schools now is all about the oppressed being noble and the U.S. oppressors are evil.
No it’s not. It’s about looking at the record of history and analyzing the context of any given moment in time. It’s still extremely slanted in favor of America and the Western world though. -Age of Exploration -> Imperial Colonialism… *Totally awesome. A bunch of Europeans were racing to find the quickest way to China. They found America, everything was awesome. Some bad stuff might have happened, but those guys weren’t Americans because America didn’t even exist yet. Very cool.* * *One of the most barbaric times in human history. Genocide on a global scale. Entire ethnicities wiped from the face of the planet. -WWI-WWII… *America didn’t want to get involved because we were just cool like that. Eventually we showed up because we’re basically the protagonist of the world, and we pretty much singlehandedly beat the bad guys both times.* ** **The United States was significantly late to both GLOBAL conflicts because we were, and arguably still are, a proto-fascist kleptocracy that shared many values with “the bad guys”. -Civil rights… *Rosa Parks and MLK Jr solved racism in America. Water fountains were important to some people. All the pictures were in black and white because it was so long ago. It’s over now though. There’s no more racism now.* *** ***Black people were officially second-class citizens in a substantial part of this country. It was illegal for them to vote. They didn’t have the same protections under the constitution in regards to firearms. They couldn’t eat inside almost any restaurant, drink at most water-fountains, or use most toilets. Even in the more enlightened parts of the country, besides the fact that black people didn’t receive the GI benefits that many white veterans used to buy property after WWII, they were also relegated by local governments to only live in certain areas, deemed to have low value. Many leaders of the civil rights movement were killed, and the rest are certainly not living in the utopia they were fighting for. There aren’t any high school history teachers assigning their students a book report on a complete work of Karl Marx.
Makes you wonder how many times the bad guys have actually won. They are proving today how easy it is to rewrite history. They are claiming there were no Covid lockdowns!!! Maybe when we finally pass from this life we will get to know.
every time.
Where are they claiming that?
RIP Norm. I had just found a major interest in him the 6 months before he died, having watched Mike Tysons mysteries, and watching clips of him on YouTube. I think I most truly loved him because he was a comedian's comedian. His style was almost laser focused on entertaining other comedians, people who deeply understood the craft of The Joke. But I'm telling you, I would pay serious money for full uncensored episodes of Mike Tysons mysteries, so I could hear Norm's foul mouthed pigeon in all its glory.
I started thinking about this during the height of the Covid theatrical production, as I watched people with power disregard humanity and try to cater the narrative to support their lies…and it all clicked with me that everything we have been told about our collective history is riddled with lies
You've got a good thought here, but I believe your overall judgement is clouded by bias. That's obvious with your designation of Covid as a theatrical production. Admit you really don't KNOW much, keep going with the critical thinking, and even though you won't ever have the world all figured out, you'll be more comfortable with your place in it.
Which bias is that? The bias of critical thinking in the face of two years of propaganda?
Where have we been bad but the textbooks say we were good? I can't think of anything in wars. Yeah the feds are portrayed as good when they're not but that's all I can think of.
[удалено]
True but today we know about it
Norm MacDonald never said that, nor would he have since it is trite and unfunny. It reads like some Bill Hicks fan's attempt at writing a Norm-esque joke despite having no actual understanding of Norm's style
Norm was all about delivery and many jokes that sucked on paper came to life in his hands. You come across as a pompous comedy snob with no understanding of joy.
What I am, sir, is a Norm MacDonald scholar, and I can say with complete confidence that there is no record of his having spoken this line. It is a misattribution which only appeared after his death, a shoddy imitation which attempts to make the great man into some George Carlin-esque "social-commentary masked as comedy" performer, something which Norm personally despised. Call me pompous if ye may, but I shall gladly die before seeing Norm Macdonald's reputation slandered thusly!
To be fair, it does sound like something he would say in his act. Not as a main course, but one of the "being funny out of necessity between the big punchlines" jokes. This thought that history is written by the winners is not even controversial, it is a truism. Louis XVI couldn't write no history. He was out, and I mean OUT.
it reminds me of the jokes section on his podcast. he'd read random bad jokes and make them funny
Wonder how this sub feels about teaching “CRT” in schools.
I think we should teach it in every school. Poor white people need it the most so of course they tricked them into believing it was about black people. CRT teaches history and how it relates to our behavior today. Why would rich people want poor people to learn they were robbed.
[удалено]
Good. We need to learn our history. Only Cons are afraid of teaching our true past.
Our true past? What would that consist of?
"White people are inherently evil", duh.
That’s not the general takeaway from CRT, but I’m sure you already know and understand that, you’re just being disingenuous. There’s really only one reason to be *critical* of Critical Race Theory, and that’s because someone doesn’t want their ancestors labeled as bad guys. To be honest, I don’t really understand the logic. Your ancestors don’t represent you. Unless you share their beliefs, nobody is criticizing you personally. Even if your ancestors *did* do some shady shit, you shouldn’t be personally offended by people acknowledging what they did. It happened. It’s not up for debate. There’s no logic behind ignoring reality.
What school curriculum in the past 50 years were teaching that slavery didn't happen or that it was a good thing?
Exactly. My girlfriend makes a good point about natives. The further you go back schools really did minimize it. But even when I went to school (graduated 08) history class was big on civil rights. You would think that was the only thing to happen in the 1900s. WW1 gets a paragraph, Vietnam gets a page, civil rights get 4 chapters lol.
Oh I wasn’t really talking about slavery, and if CRT was *just* talking about slavery, then we probably wouldn’t have people like you rooting against it. The problem you have with CRT is what they say about everything *after* slavery. It’s more about how they describe red-lining, voting rights, and the GI bill. The reality is that this *awesome* country is a product of, at least in part, massive exploitation of minorities and the working class. You might think that’s annoying to hear, but that’s just fucking reality my dude. It’s super weird to argue against reality. Do you want kids to *actually* learn their country’s obvious history? The same history that almost every other developed nation learns? Or do you want to send our next generation into the world with some nonsensical propaganda rattling around in their heads? Do you think the kids in Germany should learn about WWII? Or do you think humanity benefits from protecting their feelings?
He was a comedian and the joke is funny, but it’s just a joke. Outside of the US there is much more nuance.