KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Ooof that's gotta hurt considering how much he dunks on movie bob.frankly I'm still aggravated about him going red wave and then him causally side stepping it like it never happened when he was proven wrong.
Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator
- Thread starter f1onagher
- Start date
Ooof that's gotta hurt considering how much he dunks on movie bob.frankly I'm still aggravated about him going red wave and then him causally side stepping it like it never happened when he was proven wrong.
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
For a man who criticizes Abraham Lincoln as a dictator and does indeed appear to get drunk on raging, literally, Razorfist seems to be showing a bit of that authoritarian wannabe streak himself when he's incapable of calmly replying to criticism, and/or raging at ANYONE who dares to disagree with him.
EDIT: If anyone regardless of political spectrum/affinity can't handle criticism and redirects their followers to rage on anyone who dares disagree with him/her, watch out folks...
Last edited:
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Honestly what history has taught me is if you stand for anything and live long enough, society will cast you out at some point.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
I have the impression that Razor's a contrarian more than anything - if it's popular it sucks, basically, and if it's obscure it's cool - an impression that has only been reinforced since I ran across his Kiwifarms thread (yeah, those guys don't pull punches regardless of politics, having insane alphabet soup types try to destroy them has shifted the forum's mood hard to the right but if you're cringe they'll tear you to shreds even if they'd agree with you on some topics). It would explain, among other things, his disdain for The Witcher and anime/manga like Akira while revering Elric and its creator Michael Moorcock (a proto-SJW who wrote an essay bashing Tolkien and got a cancel campaign going aimed at the Gor books, not because they're trash but because they were misogynistic - the irony that Razor's a fan of such a guy while also vitriolically bashing cancel culture and leftists with far milder opinions was of course abundantly pointed out by the Kiwi Farmers).
But I digress. On the thread subject, someone on his KF thread also found Razor plagiarized a book by Thomas DiLorenzo virtually word-for-word for his video, not even changing the order of the arguments he lifted from the book - don't know if I can link the thread directly on the Sietch but it's on page 425, specifically post #8483 if anyone cares to take a look. Embarrassing doesn't even begin to cover this. It's probably for the best that he doesn't test his luck further by trying to post his own full-length rebuttal to VTH and that it was VTH who stepped up to crush his arguments to dust in the first place, I can think of other Historytubers who would be far less kind. Like the Atun-Shei VTH mentions early in his video actually, an overt liberal with a much more argumentative style (and with whom VTH has had disagreements in the past, VTH actually called him out for being too hard on the Confederacy IIRC and yet Atun-Shei didn't call him the leftist playground insult equivalent to 'boomer Bolshevik').
Scrolling through the last few pages for any arguments I missed, I realize it's been a while but I'll take this time to respond quickly before I forget: blaming Lincoln for Wilson, FDR or the modern deep state is as retarded as blaming Augustus for the Crisis of the Third Century or the Diocletianic Persecution, the latter weren't the sort of guys to care for precedent and carried out their actions completely removed from the context of a civil war, not to mention so much of the growth of executive power under Lincoln had been rolled back by even just Wilson's time (by things like the Posse Comitatus Act restricting the use of the military in controlling riots, for example, or the Bureau of Military Information's disbandment right after the war's end). Also I certainly wouldn't try to portray the CSA as some bastion of the Christian faith fighting against a Satanic occultist considering that:
1) They had their own high-ranking Satanist Freemason crazies;
2) Spiritualist mumbo-jumbo was popular with everyone back then, ironically including the Booths - so no, John Wilkes Booth was not some righteous crusader putting down the Satanist in the White House for everyone else's good. Lincoln at least had the excuse of being in serious grief together with his wife over the death of one of their sons when he contacted that medium (and notably having this weirdo supposedly talk to ghosts seems to have been all he did, I've seen no source indicating that he engaged in any sacrifices or spirit-cooking-tier creepiness - in fact he's mentioned making fun of a different medium a few paragraphs down from the one on the Aztec princess named 'Pinkie', so it's not likely that he was a rabid believer in the occult); and
3) This sort of thing literally directly plays into the hands of modern leftists who like to argue that Christianity is inseparably tied to slavery and thus America's 'original sin' as elucidated in bullshit like the 1619 Project, something that the right already has enough trouble with (the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, for example, felt the need to apologize for their role in that mess back in 1995, long before modern wokeness reared its head).
It would be a much better idea for the Right to focus on the role of religious abolitionists on the side of the Union, I'd say, rather than attach the millstone of the Confederacy to their necks and work to tear down probably the single most popular historical figure associated with their party. As the Confederates would put it, Deo Vindice - and God certainly seemed to have vindicated one side in the Slaveholders' Rebellion, just not the one they were hoping for.
Last edited:
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
I am 20 minutes in the video and I just hear minor nitpicking.
I am on Razorfist's team here.
Speaking of nitpicks, one of Vlogging Through History's first arguments right as he saw the video was that if it takes an hour to make your argument, it might be a weak argument.
Just so happens that other History Youtuber who VTH is loosely associated with did actually make a like... one minute video on the same topic and yeah, far more effective. He even introduced a whole nother Lincoln critique that Razorfist didn't touch on during his poorly sourced bloviating.
One might even say "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in one hour, as you did in one minute."
Just so happens that other History Youtuber who VTH is loosely associated with did actually make a like... one minute video on the same topic and yeah, far more effective. He even introduced a whole nother Lincoln critique that Razorfist didn't touch on during his poorly sourced bloviating.
One might even say "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in one hour, as you did in one minute."
Last edited:
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Honestly what I want to know is this and no one seems to answer this and instead just go back to spouting rhetoric.
What did Lincoln have to gain from "Preserving the union." Was it out of a financial kick back or did he want to be like King Nebuchadnezzar and be able to look out the white house window and go "look at my empire!"
Call me q cynical but nothing is done for it's own sake. Even Christians do what they do for the promise of Salvation from judgement.
What did Lincoln have to gain from "Preserving the union." Was it out of a financial kick back or did he want to be like King Nebuchadnezzar and be able to look out the white house window and go "look at my empire!"
Call me q cynical but nothing is done for it's own sake. Even Christians do what they do for the promise of Salvation from judgement.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Is it really impossible to conceive of national leaders actually believing what they're saying and being genuine nationalists? Especially in the 19th century, literally a time period sometimes nicknamed the 'age of nationalism', where hundreds of thousands of men were willing to fight and kill and die for the freedom and/or unification of their countries from Germany to Italy to Poland to the Balkans, and you had leaders like Giuseppe Garibaldi who adventured all over the world constantly risking his skin in wars which weren't his business (including jaunts to places as far as Uruguay) for the cause of liberalism (at the time mostly associated with nationalism, not conservatism, until Bismarck managed to thread the needle of aligning German nationalism & the drive for unification with his own steely conservatism).
In this context, do you think it is impossible for Lincoln to have been a genuine American patriot who didn't want his country torn asunder and reduced to easy pickings for the likes of the British or French, and was thus willing to fight to prevent such an outcome? After all the context in which he was willing to concede on slavery, an institution which he profoundly despised and made clear he despised in his personal correspondence & the Lincoln-Douglas debates which Razor cherrypicked, was in a last-ditch attempt at holding America together peacefully.
Like I completely understand that the world sucks, our elites suck, and it's really easy to get the impression from them that national leaders are absolutely faithless snakes who don't give a flying shit about anyone but themselves, but I don't believe it is reasonable to assume that every single historical leader in the past (even just the modern period!) was the same way. People are people, some of us are cads but others are noble, and some leaders might be sociopathic hypocrites who don't believe a word that they're saying but their existence doesn't mean there are no true believers who have ever risen to a leadership position either.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
to be frank, yes it is becoming impossible to conceive especially as more and more of their skeletons are uncovered. The more I learn, the more I believe everyone has a catch, everyone, there no one in this world is good but the Lord Jesus. amicable sure, likeable definitely, but not good. it's all a sales pitch and I don't buy it.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Well OK, I find such a take to be extremely blackpilled but understandable given the present state of the world even if I disagree personally, and in any case I'm not here to argue about the merits of your viewpoint. I will however argue that we shouldn't project our generation's postmodern cynicism onto figures from the past (especially as we go back further into history and start running into an increasing number of historical characters whose thought process would've been completely incomprehensible to the people of today) and that this idea of all authority figures being not only evil people but also hypocrites who don't believe in their own professed ideals is at best a baseless misconception constructed by the misanthropes currently dominating pop culture & media who are making money fooling their audiences into thinking it's 'the real reality' like George RR Martin. At worst, dons tinfoil it may even be a psyop by nihilistic deconstructionist puppet-master types who want to undermine faith in all that came before us to make it easier for them to tear such 'olds' down on the road to whatever dystopian hellscape they have in mind.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
see and I think your view of the noble ruler is a psyop "Yeah all those recent rulers are evil hypocrites but trust us WE will be different we'll be like the noble rulers of old." but I won't convince you and you won't convince me so we'll have to just disagree.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Whoa, I didn't say past rulers were all noble. (I did say 'some people are cads and others are noble', not leaders. I also firmly acknowledge that the act of ruling, leading, whatever-you-want-to-call-running-a-country inevitably involves having to make compromises, some of which will probably compromise one's own morals to a degree. That's just life, man.) I was saying that not all leaders were hypocrites, which in no way means they're good - some were true believers in evil (see: every useful idiot who actually believed in Marxism and got into a position of power ever, or Fire-Eaters like Edmund Ruffin who killed themselves rather than free their slaves and lose to the damnyankees at the end of the ACW), others just genuine lunatics who were true believers in the voices in their head. Take for example Lincoln's Chinese contemporary Hong Xiuquan, I don't doubt that guy unironically thought he was the younger brother of Jesus, but the sincerity of his fervor has no bearing on whether he was a particularly nice or noble guy (he wasn't).
But alright, if you believe this conversation is unproductive and will result in neither of us convincing each other of anything, I will relent.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I'll simply say this. I think if your morals have to be compromised you have to question why you have them. I personally have more respect for an honest criminal than a "moral crompromiser" again that's me. There is something oddly refreshing about the blunt honesty of someone saying "boo you I'm big your little and there is nothing you can do about it." compared to someone giving a long flowerly speech about how he's got a right to mess me over. It's part of the reason why I loved Trump before and why he's starting to lose favor with me now.
Last edited:
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
My answer is equally simple: the Second Coming hasn't happened yet and the fallen world, by definition, is not perfect, as no small number of saints with a checkered past and heroic Biblical leadership figures going back to David & beyond can attest. But as you say, we are exceedingly unlikely to convince the other of our viewpoint and it would be best to agree to disagree.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
real quick just to finish my comple thought. I personally have more respect for an honest criminal than a "moral compromiser" again that's me. There is something oddly refreshing about the blunt honesty of someone saying "boo you I'm big your little and there is nothing you can do about it." compared to someone giving a long flowerly speech about how he's got a right to mess me over and how I should like it. It's part of the reason why I loved Trump before and why he's starting to lose favor with me now.
"Of course, I use those loopholes, and I know you aren't going to do anything about it because you and your friends use it too."
I would have honestly given slick wily a lot more props if he had said "Yeah I had relations, it's not illegal what'cha going to do about it?" and started pelvic thrusting the court. maybe I'm weird, but I value honesty above most other things.
Last edited:
Sometimes you have to put survival above being nice.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
and I think there are many situations where living is a worse fate than death. Then again, I don't believe death is the end.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
You may find this odd, but Lincoln himself would agree with you in a way.
It is a viewpoint I have some sympathy for myself, hence why I have previously said (and continue to stand by my statement) that I have more respect for Hong Xiuquan than for Jefferson Davis. Man might've been crazier than a shithouse rat, but at least nobody can say he wasn't a believer to the bitter end (to the point of eating random weeds during the final siege of Nanjing, just like he told the lowest of his followers to do, rather than continue feasting like a king even though it immediately led to his death from food poisoning) where Davis tried to flee from the site of his utter defeat in his wife's clothing and he also used the name of God for a more noble cause than the defense of chattel slavery. I do not expect that to be a popular viewpoint, to say the least, but it is the hill where I stand regardless.Lincoln's 1855 letter to Joshua Speed said:
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I can understand having a bug out plan, but fleeing in his wife's clothing after the confederates did some of the crap they did...yeah boo him.
Davis was perhaps one of the most opportunistic and evil men of the Civil War, who functionally preyed upon the "nationalism" of others in the South for their own power... and then when defeated spent decades writing and rewriting history in order to paint himself as the hero and others as villains. Davis was a foundational intellect of Lost Cause Histography, and, something a lot of modern people forget, is that the initial wave of Lost Causers actually tended to DEMONIZE Robert E. Lee (since, yanno, he ended up losing the war and surrendering) while holding up as heroes figures like Jubal Early, Bedford Forest, and Thomas Jackson (who likely would have hated being lionized by these people).
Lee's lionization came not from the Lost Causers, but from the military and veterans not just those who fought under him, but also those who fought AGIANST him. There was good political reasons for this too, firstly Lee pushed for peaceful reconciliation between the North and South and lived the few years after the war exility in that way, despite the Federal government fucking him over because the Secretary of State wanted to give a friend a memento. Secondly, Lee had always been more skeptical of secession and thus made, in some respects, a perfect hero for the South to hold to in the Civil War. A man loyal to his State which had gone astray and fought brilliantly to the end but was also gracious in defeat (it helped that Lee WAS actually a good general whom had pulled multiple victories out over bad odds to the point where his maneuvers were studied for generations after, and that he had won the respect of those who served under him to the point where he had a strong degree of personal loyalty from his troops... and finally that even in surrender he had advocated for them to Grant, whom had respected those requests from Lee, Grant's terms of surrender to Lee were actually quite generous to the troops and not, as he was famous for "unconditional").
Basically Davis is scum, and I wish people focused on hating him more than Lee...