Why was Abraham Lincoln so mean in calling out secessionist traitors to the US who just want to maintain the barbaric practice of slavery (which is misunderstood)?
— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) September 4, 2022
Lincoln’s hate speech is so political and divisive! We’ll be back with Robert E. Lee for his thoughts.
Brion McClanahan is right.
The Claremont Institute and neocons should have loved this Lincolnian speech about equality and democracy. It was well received by the neocons over at The Atlantic.
Boomer tier. He is right about everything but the normalcy bias is hard to take. We are one click away from gulags, famine and nuclear war if we can’t change the direction of our government. Jazzhands posted a good analysis of the speech yesterday.
Most Boomer conservatives are people like Victor Davis Hanson who think Lincoln was a great conservative and that the Democrats are the KKK or nonsense like that. McClanahan is always ridiculing those people.
The 1920’s march on Washington is demonized because it was effective. The Hollywood version of the Klan is about as real as Harriott Tubman.
Shitpants Joe’s latest incoherent rant looked more like a Shabbat Night Live comedy sketch than a legitimate address to the American people. What message were those responsible for it trying to convey?
And why does Brion look as if he gets up at 3am to do these podcasts ?
@Spahn
Re: what message were they trying to communicate to the American people with Biden’s speech.
If you look at the background colours, these are red, black and white. These are the primary colours of Alchemy. Alchemy means change/transformation.
Given the speech took place in Independence Hall, where the USA was founded, the symbolic meaning of the speech is that the USA will undergo a profound transformation, probably leading to its dissolution.
Biden’s speech was a carefully crafted device, created by professional magicians.
As Q said, symbolism will be their downfall (please note I am not an adherent of the Q psy op).
Both Biden and Lincoln have a lot in common. Both are petty tyrants, go after political enemies and both declared war on half of the population. Lincoln case, the South.
Yes, indeed, John, your comparision is very apt.
That said, I think it no accident that the same time in the history of this country, in different centuries, produced men who, though very different of temperment and lifestyle, have a similarly despotic urge.
In fairness to Lincoln, however, he was at least trying to tamp down on diviseness in his rhetoric, in the months leading up to his inauguration, during, and shortly thereafter.
Nonetheless, in the end people will choose whether to line up on the side of tyrannical usurpation or sovereign freedom.
The Confederate side, no matter how imperfect it’s manifestation, is always closest to what is right – because local control belongs to local people.
Rule by people far away, who have no particular knowledge or affection for those local, is always wrong – no matter under what guise, ‘for justice’ it parades.
That said, the history of some nations is irrevocably tied up with central government.
Our nation, however, is not.
No, Sir our nation was conceived in the notion of non-centralized control, and, to that end, I trust that it will endure, no matter how determined some are to thwart that.
As we get further into this century the more I am convinced that the Good Lord has given it to us to throw off much of what occurred in the previous two.
Biden’s speech was screwed up, the whole thing looked like a horror movie, blood red background, army guys lurking in the background, they couldn’t be seen very well, just enough to be vaguely sinister. A senile old bastard wanting to attack other citizens, and then doing what the modern left always does, which complain about the people being attacked aren’t tolerant enough about being attacked. I call them the tolerance junkies, they never shut the fuck up about tolerance and never show any.
Lincoln never spoke tyrannically. He simply got between you and your appetites.