Abraham Lincoln EXPOSED I: Donald Livingston Lecture 2 of 11

[ajames95]

This man is a racist, historically ignorant nincumpoop. He conflates issues to make a point that the US was insincere in opposing the rebellion b/c it resulted in the south's loss. He accuses people today (which has a different context) of being silent on slavery. Post WWII & pre WWII are different. Slaery is wrong-wage or chattel. The societies that didn't have slavery were the "tribal" ones that he implies were "uncivilized" so they couldn't integrate into the USA state criminal enterprise

[ajames95]

Really! Do you mean to tell me that a nation founded on slavery and genocide can't come to terms with the wars that resulted in the deaths of millions "white" men? How did that happen?

[SovereignStatesman]

1. The war was not about slavery.

2. Even if it were, the states were sovereign nations, and so secession and slavery was protected by national sovereignty.

3. Slaves represented a lawful investment of property, and the owners had the right to the fair-market value of it.

4. The Constitution expressly does not permit any amendment that represents an ex post fact law.

5. A sovereign state's domestic policy does not void its national sovereignty, just because others might not approve of it.

[ratonL]

Mentality was f*cked up in the past, no doubt about that.... geez.

[SovereignStatesman]

@ratonL

Oh yeah, you're SO superior.

Or more like arrogant and naive, ignorant and oblivious to the fact that we live under the SAME EMPIRE that Lincoln established.

[ratonL]

@SovereignStatesman Could you please explain to me, how is it we still live in the same Empire Lincoln established? I'm not being sarcastic nor am I trolling, I'd just like to know your point on the matter. Thanks. Oh, and BTW, I assumed you were 'superior' as well, regarding that old mentalities, I don't get where you got the Empire argument out of.

[rexieb3]

The war was a tragedy. Both sides did things which were not in keeping with the principles of the founding fathers ideal government.But today, for the first time since the Civil War we have a chance to move in the direction of the founding fathers' dream. America can be a greater country but we have to make the tough choices and move away from authoritarianism, redistribution,etc., and towards freedom.

[SovereignStatesman]

@rexieb3

No, it was an ATROCITY, since only ONE side was preserving the integrity of sovereign states, while the other was DESTROYING it.

The seceding states were individually sovereign; they were not subordinate districts of a single sovereign state or nation.

The sooner people learn that fact, the soon they can repair their historic ignorance of hagiography and propaganda.

[MrGeorgesaxon]

The Confederate Army and Germany were fighting the same enemy Marxist Jews

[abortfailure7646]

Listen.....you fucktard southern sister fuckers began to secede before lincoln took the oath because you thought he wanted to abolish. You take the time to write on here but can't take the time to research, so you don't deserve to speak period. This just show how lazy fucking morons you are. As lazy as you were back in the early days. To lazy to do your own fucking work. As far as I'm concerned, we should keep the blacks and send all the southerners to Africa. Make sure to take this racist fuck.

[Luigi84289]

America for whites! Africa for blacks! We need an eternal white majority just like African nations. They cannot live on the same land we live on on equal terms with a near equal population to whites unless you don't want anymore whites or blacks.

[powerdriller10]

@Luigi84289

Africa for blacks !! Europe for Whites !! América for real Americans, the aboriginals!!

So you go back to Europe, this is not your land, you are an invader !!

PS there were 2 immigration currents from Asia, one 12,000 and the other 10,000 years ago. And it is suspected that there was one from Austronesia 20,000 years ago. So, the indian tribes had to leave America too and go to Asia. There are no more Austronesians in America, so I guess some had to be brought from Australia.

[099749]

0.48 Quote "So looked at that way the greatest threat to the southern is not hilter or tojo, but the fedral government"

Is this not just the most stupid Lecture ever- what a nonse statement.

[099749]

4.46- "only two generations from tribal existence"

Is that not a rediculas statement? A baby born and raised as a slave in America has no conection to the tribal past, it was stolen from- How stupid a statement could you make?

[099749]

10.30- it suggests that southerners were less racist, than the northerners.

Southerns lived side by side with the Africans, the notherners it appears from those statements- appear to see Black african slaves "As un-clean".

[11MelTrom11]

@099749 It was a currency war. Who writes the history book that you read? The Federal Dept of Education?

[099749]

@11MelTrom11 I dont read American history books, I was commenting on this Vid. Actually it was not as this lecture shows a currency war between north and south, the european bankers refused to give Lincoln credit so he printed his own-

that was probably related to the european banker class not wanting to see a free emprical America, so there was a currency fight between rich bankers and Lincoln

Yet the fight between the north and south was about empire, and the north trying to build an empire

[11MelTrom11]

@099749 Please excuse me, I was not trying to be rude. I was trying to make a point. The Central Bankers (Feds) control the history books through the Federal Dept. of Education. I did not say American history. American History is what it is. History books are written from the perspective of the writer. The reader is then forced to determine if he believes the writers account from history. Slaves existed throughout the world at this time and still does. American boys died on both sides for $

[099749]

@11MelTrom11

Hey it's cool, Americans died on both sides so the north could have an Empire. After Lincoln won the war he was removed by those that wanted to take the new empire in a different direction- Lincoln was going to ship the slaves off to Africa and south America, the north declared freeing the slaves as the main reason for the war- so that wasn't allowed.

It appears to me that Lincoln was removed as he would have caused more problems for the empire builders behind him!

[099749]

@11MelTrom11 cont...

Besides that the real reasons for the war against the claimed reasons are so very different that even today for those in charge to actually admit the truth is not so easy, ergo the freeing the slaves justifcation for al the blood shed will be kept, even thou really it had nothing to with the war at all.

It's sad after the north won the north incited race hatred between the southerners, they told the Blacks it was for them, and the whites they were evil.

Causing hatred

[099749]

@11MelTrom11 cont...

The imancipation proclamation:- insited that hatred also, Lincoln called the slaves to kill the slave owners- yet all the men are off at war, so Lincoln asked the slaves to kill the women and children that remained at the home.

That action is disgracful in the extreme and ofcourse added no doubt, to bitterness after the war.

[11MelTrom11]

@099749 It's cool to meet another educated person here. Usually, you have kids spouting off meaninless hate filled remarks. Divide and Conquer is the way that the Central Bankers have always worked. Ever Checked out the Left/Right Paradigm? The only time people need government is when they oppose each other. Hopefully, the internet can connect people to see that: Red, Yellow, Black, or White, It's our own decisions that decide whether this world if full of hate or love.

[099749]

@11MelTrom11

Hopefullly the internet will yet the business' that are taking over the building and running of service providing could start to limiting acess. That's under discussion at the moment- Russia Today did a story on it recently.

As with the Left right paradigm- it's ofcourse simplistic and designed to be so, not just politics, Mcdonalds V Burger king, Coke V Pepsi

There are always many sides to a debate, limiting to only two, left and right, for or against, is inherently simplistic

[099749]

@11MelTrom11 cont...

Yet it serve it's purpose for those incharge, in that, as with the Iraq war- the left right debate was go in to iraq with UN aproval(LEFT) Just go into Iraq without any approval by the UN(right).

Notice please- the "don't go in at all" agruement never got a look in there at all.

Very cute. With paradigms classical, romantic and modernistic also exist, with all there neo forms also.

Real eye opener actually Anakism and Communism really come from the romantics rebellion

[099749]

@099749 cont...

The romantics paradigm of rebellion against the status quo- under ideas that people are inherently good and that people have unlimited potencial if given total freedom.

But you know being aware and thinking slightly more outside the box, certainly allows a person to see the limited nature of a left-right paradigm debate. People tend to shout over each other alot today and the whole thing gets lost anyway, but still there is always another way to look at things and problems

[099749]

@11MelTrom11 cont...

My biggest concern for the left-right paradigm is that these types of debates are happening inside politics, and that really limits not only the debate but also the possible answers that each problem presents.

There are politicians engaging in that kind of thinking. Not really a great time for democracy at the moment, yet I am quiet hopeful for the long term future, I really feel politics is going to come back with avengence- and histroy shown to be anything but dead.

[099749]

@11MelTrom11 will add what I see with the paradigms

Classical- tradition verse progress

Romantic(what could be) verse what is

Modernistic(what could be tech, not for people in terms of romantic) verse whats been. Old V New.

Yet apparently monderism and classicalism hold similar notions of mans limited ability- in contrast to the romanitcs that see people as potencially unlimited.

Not an expert on this it's what I have seen and understood.

[099749]

@11MelTrom11

Thanks for getting me onto that paradigm thing I've just had lots of ideas.

Notice that for a modernist people progress in line with technology, it's the technology that for a modernist that allows people to progress- unlike for a romantic who believes that people can become in-of-themselves very different.

[gempeddlersc]

Abraham Lincoln, US President and Illinois citizen: “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people..." Was he also "Southern scum"? Get the facts straight. That must be done before a meaningful debate can take place.

[gempeddlersc]

First of all, when you must resort to name-calling in a feeble attempt to make your argument, you have lost the debate argument. Don't knock us Southerners and try to pretend that the North was the champion of the black race and the equality of man when it simply is not true.

[BenLS1975]

@gempeddlersc Exactly. As in part one, we can see that thoughtful objections or respectful differences of opinion are not in the repetoire of the great Lincoln congregation. It's profanity, name-calling, short blurbs about complex events, stereotyping of an entire region of people and culture, and general intellectual and cognitive ineptitude. Rather than respond to any important points in the lecture, this is what you get. Don't believe in Lincoln's divinity? You're a fucktard! LOL

[ItchMyFoot]

Lincoln wanted more than anythingn dumb fuck is to stop the SPREAD of slavery- cancer.

The South had used violence to try to force the rest of the US to become Slave states. D

red Scott decision came -- said no state, north south or west, could stop slavery.

So it was the end of government on earth for the hope for equality-- or slavery was going to end.

[gempeddlersc]

I don't even know how to intellectually respond to that...

[ItchMyFoot]

@gempeddlersc try one thing at a time, idiot.

Deal with the South's 40 year reign of terror to try to spread slavery outside their land. To Texas, Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico. If you are fucking unaware of the unrelenting violence by Southern scum to spread slavery, you are too stupid.

Thats first

[ItchMyFoot]

@gempeddlersc Deal with this next. Lincoln's goal from the start was to stop the spread of slavery. That;s what the fuck he was talking about almost every time he opened his mouth retard. Stop the SPREAD fo slavery. Lincoln Douglas debates, for example, that's all they are about. Nothing else.

In fact, the whole country was focused on one thing -- will the new territories be slave, or free? Not just Lincoln focused on it, retard, it was the main issue for EVERYONE.

[ItchMyFoot]

@ItchMyFoot Then you can deal with Dred Scott decision. Lincoln said the decision was part of a conspiracy to spread slavery by deceit and violence, because the Southern scum knew they could not spread it by legal and honorable means.

' Dred Scott "logic" made it inevitable that Northern states would have to let slavers bring slaves there. Dred Scott logic: blacks were no more human than a pig or a pile of shit or a desk, therefore no state could stop folks from taking them anywhere