This week's Last Week Tonight was good. It's pathetic that we need a lesson about the Confederacy from a British man

This week's Last Week Tonight was good. It's pathetic that we need a lesson about the Confederacy from a British man.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qmevmxOwThE
youtu.be/3NXC4Q_4JVg
youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Gc1bv-Mj4&feature=youtu.be
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Faggot.

eurotrash

Did he own shrempf again

a british super beta male cuck sure showed us by rehashing the old wounds and reminding us all that white people are evil. Keep laughing at these teleprompter reading comedic morons.

...

All I heard was "I hate white people."

Putting hundreds of Confederate monument all over the South doesn't rehash old wounds?

...

>makes people dumb
Accurate.
Btw, it's hilarious that lefties thinks he's this "fuck the system" anti establishment guy, when he's literally the opposite, always keeping the narrative on track.

That's strange. Especially since he never said that. Projection?

You're not welcome here, Bernie bro

...

You and your ilk use the words sexist and racist VERY liberally (no pun intended) but even so, there's nothing wrong with being either of those.

If you honestly believed that, then you wouldn't be triggered if someone said "I hate white people'.

Go get HIV you nigger loving kike

>muh slavery
Actual reason for the Civil War explained here:
youtube.com/watch?v=qmevmxOwThE

>you wouldn't be triggered if someone said "I hate white people'.
This never triggers me. I always love to hear the reasons why, though.

Amusingly, whenever I crawl through the refuse on Reddit and they talk about (((Sargon))) as if he's relevant, a question is asked.

>why is he so popular with right wing nutjobs?

The answer is almost always a "because he has a British accent. That's it".

Yet if you were to ask why this retard is popular, they stammer and choke at how funny and "right" he is, despite he's far more inaccurate than that bearded race traitor.

>reddit
kys

>Muh civil war had nothing to do with slavery

Why do you spread revisionist lies? Here's an accurate account on the wide spread devastation caused by the Transatlantic slave trade in both the America's and Africa.

youtu.be/3NXC4Q_4JVg

The important thing to remember here, user, is we don't actually give a fuck about what damage slavery caused to niggerhood. This is because they would have inevitably caused the same amount of damage in their own account.

>Why do you spread revisionist lies?
Is that what liberals call the truth? The Civil War, like all wars, was fought for money.
>slavery was bad
Really? Quick, link me a video about the Arab slave trade as well which took more slaves from Africa than anyone, and then castrated them, ensuring that they wouldn't have any place in Arab lands afterward.

youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Gc1bv-Mj4&feature=youtu.be

We should've paid more attention to what the arabs were doing..

Slavery was a tangential issue for the civil war; if you can't understand that, you can't understand anything. At the centre of the divide was the rapid industrialisation and economic & demographic expansion of the North, enabling it to pillage the South through legal means (tariffs) that in turn would fuel further imbalance and accumulation of centralised power for the North, over the South--the South was agrarian and did not want to be a subjected province of a gigantic industrial empire.

Hence why Lincoln offered the South the Corwin Amendment (would have forbidden Congress passing any laws about slavery forevermore), and it was turned down. The "revisionist" history is the history that claims the whole thing was about slavery, something barely anyone actually believed during the time in question.

So kys, you thick, uneducated and indoctrinated fgt.

Americans as a whole don't have any interest in history, which is why everything they teach in school is wrong and no one notices.

If slavery wasn't at all an issue or one so small on the radar, why all the hooplah over free and slave states leading up to the war, user? I mean, nobody believed in it by that point right? Why were southern states so obsessed with keeping free and slave states even in number?

Just a reminder that nobody here in the UK really knows who this guy is. He's one of those rare breed of comedians that somehow manages to fail here but becomes beloved by Americans.

We're suckers for your weird accent. For some reason intelligence is associated with it, even your gutter trash accents.

they want to kill us

Inferiority complex. Deep down most Americans know they're stupid as fuck.

At no point did i say economic had no influence on the civil war. But to imply thanks slavery was somehow a trangential issue is intellectually dishonest. A number of issues ignited
the Civil War: states’ rights,
the role of the federal government,
the preservation of the Union,
the economy; but all were
inextricably bound to
the institution of slavery.

In March 1861,
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederates States
of America, was quoted in the Savannah Republican:

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
exists amongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as
the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split.’ He was right. What
was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
“[Our] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great
truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery,
subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal
condition.”

OP has nothing interesting to say and oliver is trash

>implying you don't also see what the retards there say or do

Oh yeah okay, buddy.

What are you even talking about? The Nullification Crisis wasn't about slavery and yet it was from this point that relations between the South and the Federal Government started to really become inflamed; the Republican Party was a sectional party that organised overtly against southern interests, and wasn't even on the ballot in the South--at this point the entire foundation of the US became downright farcical, because localised self-governance had been effectively eradicated (or on the path to eradication) through centralised power and its utilisation in favour of one section of the "country"--the Federal Government was never meant to have any control over the domestic affairs of the States--there is a direct line from these usurpations to the criminal sink-hole that Washington DC is today--the South was right, and the fact the US is a worldwide criminal Empire run by unaccountable mass-murdering elites with a penchant for constant war proves it.

Founding States, like Virginia--who secured the nation and gave up territory--were generally appalled by the fact that agitators in the North used the acquisition of new territory to undermine the very principle for which they did so (self-governance).

You should read a book written before the 1960s some time: none of them really think the whole thing was merely about slavery, and neither did the key players at the time in question. Calhoun proposed a simple solution, and the North rejected it.

Nope, you forgot entirely the primary reason: tariffs. It's why there was almost a Civil War in the 1820s. The tariffs were lowered, but then Lincoln put them at the high levels they were before. The South made a symbolic gesture by firing on Ft. Sumter (a tariff collection point), as no one was injured. Lincoln's response was to invade.

(((British Man)))

>Primary reason
These historic events don't happen in a vacuum. I seriously doubt that tariff was the sole reason the South untied against the North fort the purpose of war. It was many interconnected events, of which include unfair economic policies and slavery.

Call it "slave pride" then.

Who provided you with that selective quotation? The ADL? The SPLC? NYTs? I've read the Congressional speeches given by people like Jefferson Davis at the time in question, and it was framed as a necessity spawned by incessant provocation and sectional attacks upon the South--and quibbles over slavery were simply an excuse, a mask, for that. Most people in the North did not give a fuck about slavery aside from having to compete with slave labour, as instantiated in the Wilmot Proviso; southerners, for the most part, actually had more of a concern for the wellbeing of blacks (in a paternalistic way), then did the northerners, who were simply jealous of the existence of a quasi-aristocratic and commercial/materialist society--the incarnation of mass democratic ressentiment.

And I notice you ignored the Corwin Amendment, which retarded left wing revisionists like yourself always do, whenever this question comes up (most have never heard of it, and because its existence makes your assertions completely ridiculous, you ALWAYS IGNORE IT).

And btw, everything is interrelated, so obviously everything is "inextricably bound to the institution of slavery"--that is basically a tautology, and completely meaningless--I could just as easily say that all those differences were inextricably tied to differences in climate, and be more accurate in doing so.

>Americans gave John fucking Oliver a job
This is a man whose crowning achievements in comedy include cancelling an eight month tour after four nights because nobody showed up and being on the lowest rated episode of Mock the Week ever broadcast

You fuckers complain about us giving cast-offs like Reg Hunter and Rich Hall spots on shitty panel shows and then give this useless, unfunny pillock an entire show

And then there's James fucking Cordon you can't even begin to justify that

No, the tariffs would have done it all on its own even if the other things (muh slavery) didn't exist. That's why it's the primary reason.

Every war is fought for money. If anyone tells you different, they have an agenda.

The primary reason is that an increasingly democratic and materialistic commercial empire, as the US was rapidly becoming, could not tolerate a quasi-aristocratic and gentlemanly culture right next to it (hence why nearly all the key figures in the American founding were southern, aside from the Adamses--and Hamilton was a philistine and a wretch who doesn't count). The best men in the United States, prior to the civil war, were unswervingly from the South for this very reason--they had not yet entirely succumbed to the democratic/egalitarian virus.

It's the same self-righteous egalitarian mentality that led to America's involvement in WW1, its recent invasion of Iraq, and its continuing need to overthrow dictators under the guise of "muh freedom"

So yeah, the civil war was perhaps as much about slavery as the Iraq war and the Libyian intervention were about "freedom"--see how these things are nothing but a mask for the real interest? That being economic domination, the opening of markets, and the making of the world into one giant coca cola mall.

You burgers are a fucking cancer to this planet. You destroy everything different and diverse to impose your drab commercial uniformity on everyone else.

>Americans gave John fucking Oliver a job
>James fucking Cordon
Don't blame me, nigger. I know they're both shit. It really is curious how failed brit comedians can do well here tho.

no, it's pathetic that you would accept a lesson about the Confederacy from a British man

>Muh Corwin Amendment

Ok lets talk about it. Why did Lincoln support it? Lincoln's public positions on slavery in 1861 were far more pragmatic and far less enlightened than later in his Presidency. Whether that reflected his personal views or whether he was always more pro-abolition but was trying to play peacemaker and tell Southern states what he thought they wanted to hear, his stated position in 1861 was that he was opposed to the expansion of slavery to new territories, but had no desire to get rid of it in states that already had it. Since the Corwin Amendment codified that same view, he saw no reason not to support it.

Southern apologists act like this is some great big "gotcha". Basically, they want to change the conversation to "states' rights", but can't avoid the fact that States' Right #1 was the "right" to own other humans as property, and whatever #2 was, it was a distant second. So they have to try and diminish the moral separation between the Northern and Southern positions; hence the all-consuming passion for "proving" that Lincoln was equally racist and had no interest in freeing the slaves.

And YES, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment in 1861, and supported compensated emancipation (i.e. the government buy the slaves from their owners and free them) in 1862, and supported efforts to colonize freed slaves back to Africa as well. None of which changes the fact that he eventually ran for President in 1864 and won re-election while supporting the 13th Amendment. Making both Lincoln personally (and the Union as a whole) unambiguously in favor of ending slavery. So wherever he may have started, he reached a more enlightened destination eventually.

In the famous 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln lays it out pretty clearly.

>My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

>I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Who is this we? No one here likes these fags, but the faggot kikes in NYC will hire pretty much anyone in order to pander to their faggot kike audience

Has less to do with that and more to do with the fact that most british "intellectuals" speak very quickly, eloquently and fluently like Hitchens, which we subconsciously associate with intelligence.

Closest we've got is Ben Shapiro.

>actual interesting information about a variety of subjects
>makes some good points, although sometimes needs to be taken with a grain of salt
>brings shady and/or important stuff to the attention of normies, even if some of it is old news
but
>wrapped in randumb humor that has no relation whatsoever to the point he's making
>scarce citing of source even though it's evident there has been some serious research
>americlaps
>thinks weird al yankovic is funny or relevant in any way (seriously amish paradise is the only good one and even then...)

this could be such a good show if it didn't cater to a retarded (read: american) audience, but since their audience can't stay focused for more than 1 minute without their dopamine shots, they have to force unfunny jokes and dubious shoops into their narrative, when they could be doing something really educational that doesn't just rely on cheap tricks. then again, americans are incapable of educating themselves, so I guess your best bet is edutainment, as retarded as it is.
in and of itself, LWT contains some really good stuff but I can't watch an entire show in one go because of how aggravating the jokes and the audience are.

tl;dr: fuck america

>0.03$ deposited into your account

...

You've said nothing at all here to contradict my point. All you've done is say Lincoln progressed to a "more Enlightened" position without providing any reason or evidence for why that was "more enlightened"

Your progressive tropes are downright embarrassing to read; I suppose you'll start talking about "the right side of history" next?

Here's a lesson for you, you silly little empty-headed progressive: history is not a morality tale, and if you are looking at it like it is, then you are reading your own a priori prejudices into history, and not examining it for what it is: a constant and continuous struggle for power and supremacy; "moral" arguments have always been covers and masks for the desire to dominate and subjugate others; well done Mr. Enlightened, you traded negro subjection (but not really because they weren't exactly better off), for the subjection of a large section of your supposed "country"--truth is your "country" gave up every pretence of being anything aside from a commerce-based democratic empire with Lincoln, and with all your empty and vacuous moralising, you completely misunderstand and overlook that fundamental reality.

And btw those "enlightened" positions on slavery espoused by the radical republicans would have resulted in the dissolution and break-up of the Union. These were fanatics who had zero support from the population at large and could never have achieved anything meaningful except for destructive war and years internal rebellion and repression that the "Union" could never have survived. You'd have 4-5 countries on the American continent had those people got their way, which might have been a good thing (in my view), but it certainly wouldn't have led to the "enlightened" civil rights and what not that you worship like a kind of religion.

Forcing the south to change certainly brings back memories

Look pr manager, your edgy viral campaign is shit. The guys a red coat commie faggot hypocrite.

Ask him about the glorious state of freedom he promotes back home and stfu

Disagree. My gf worked in an American lab half a year, and she's anything but fast-spoken and quick on her feet, and she still had American dumbasses who knew far more science than she did thinking she was super-smart, for some weird reason.

Nice faggot bait

No, it doesn't, because following the war there was a general reconciliation where both the North and the South recognised the decency and good intentions of their respective sides--a kind of easy ambiguity and understanding that force alone decided a Constitutional point that had no perfect answer.

Progressive retards have ruined the very thing that allowed the places to remain amicable, and part of the same country and general tradition.

I understand that us gooks have really dark skin. But why do I get called a spic instead? I mean I understand wanting to be racist, but it's another thing if you can't be racist correctly.

Why do Americans lap up this weak Leftist rhetoric from "men" the British see as effete and slimy? John Oliver is one of the worst, but I saw some American "liberals" whooping over Russell Howard this week, what do they put in your water?

fpbp. You don't need lessons about Confederacy from a virtue signalling kike.

>Demanding the right to live in peace and safety is racist when white people do it.

Here's your (((You)))

Any British comedian who is successful in the US is normally there because they had fuckall success in the UK.

>make a (((British))) nobody famous in the US
>blame the British for the (((British))) nobody you just made famous

Every time

>"Ad hominem" the post

Are you seriously trying mock me as an "silly little empty-headed progressive" for implying that slavery is textbook example of degeneracy? The West as a whole, not just the US, has moved away from slavery because owning and trading human beings is antithetical to a modern, sustainable society. Rational people on the left and right knowledge this, not just "vacuous moralising" progressives.
Out is curiosity if you believe slavery and civil rights are no big deal, what does an ideal society look like to you?
If the South and North had split and are you implying the South wouldn't have been a commerce-based Democratic state?

I meant to link to this

There have been three national polls about Confederate statues. One by Rasmussen showing 69% want to keep them, one by Marist and commissioned by NPR that says 62% want to keep them (with only 27% wanting to remove them), and one by TIPP, which also shows 62% wanting to keep them. These are national polls too, with California and New York included, and the latter two were conducted in the midst of the post-Charlottesville mainstream media hysteria.

Do not let Oliver's insufferable smugness fool you, his is the minority position (by a long shot) in the United States. Yet he tries to present it as though 90% want them gone, and only a handful of white Southern racists want them there.

Are we putting them there now? All of this whining is fucking retarded. I wonder how Auschwitz is still standing with the triggered crowd of today.

Nigel Farage should have a conservative talk show in the US. I'd watch it

I don't her outcry from the British trying to discredit him. I'll blame Britain all day long.

*hear

can anyone give some proofs that the civil war wasnt about slavery? he says its a fact thats what it was about like 4min in and i know thats not true that that was the sole reason why

...

The south seceded because Abraham Lincoln was elected despite him solidly losing the south. The southern states felt they weren't being represented, that the north had the voting power and thus controlled the south. They seceded for that reason, they may have been afraid Lincoln would free the slaves but as far as I know the slavery issue didn't come up until shots were already fired, years into the war.

The reason liberals love this cunt is that he looks like a 40 year old Harry Potter. You're a faggot Harry!