Dave’s Greatest Speeches
Actually the speeches that Dave Schuler of The Glittering Eye considers the greatest – not speeches made by Dave himself. Though, being an erudite fellow, he probably can give a good speech.
…..Another reasonable criticism is that some of the speeches, in my view probably anything from before about 1500 CE, are fictional.
But it’s a good, interesting, thought-provoking list that includes George Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, his Gettysburg address, several memorable speeches from Theodore Roosevelt, FDR’s first inaugural speech, several of Churchill’s wartime speeches, Douglas MacArthur’s farewell address, several of John Kennedy’s speeches, and several of Ronald Reagan’s speeches.
Ignoring speeches less than twenty years old which can reasonably be thought not to have withstood the test of time and just off the top of my head, here are several speeches in chronological order that I think are worthy of consideration in a “best” list:
- Elizabeth I’s Golden Speech
- Napoleon’s farewell to the Old Guard
- John Quincy Adams’s speech on the Fourth of July, 1837
- Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman” speech
- Garibaldi’s speech of 1860 to the troops
- Bismarck’s “Blood and Iron” speech
- Lenin’s speech on the Soviet power
- Nehru’s “Tryst With Destiny” speech
- Mao’s speech of June 30, 1949, the 28th anniverary of the Chinese communist party
- Khrushchev’s “We will bury you” speech
I think Dave’s criticism of the ancient speeches in the Art of Manliness list is reasonable, though saying they are entirely “fictional” might be going too far ( though in some cases that might be true). Real events often become “mythologized” and accrue a thick crust of romanticism but attain a historical staying power because, unlike with pure fiction, there was a real event underneath acting to legitimize the story. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address will probably still be remembered in 2500 AD by someone, even if we Americans have vanished but how they reconstruct it may involve some invented context.
ADDENDUM:
On a humorous note, Schmedlap points to Peter’s Evil Overlord List
… 55) The deformed mutants and odd-ball psychotics will have their place in my Legions of Terror. However before I send them out on important covert missions that require tact and subtlety, I will first see if there is anyone else equally qualified who would attract less attention.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Just to be clear, I think that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural is the greatest speech of all time. My suggestions are potential additions to the list rather than my picks to replace those on the list..
December 30th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
– Johnathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
– Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins speech to his Battalion of quarrelsome Irishmen, prior to the invasion of Iraq
– George W. Bush addressing the crowd from the ruins of the World Trade Center
December 31st, 2009 at 3:53 am
Hitler obviously did some intense speeches. His speeches create emotion in the listener regardless of whether one understands German or not. In fact, listening to Hitler’s speeches while not understanding German allows the listener to just feel the power of the oratory without dealing with the message. He could be reciting a recipe for cookies and it would sound powerful.
.
Most people’s understanding of Hitler’s oratory comes from little segments on the History channel. And they usually play really scary music when they do these segments. That website can’t be that "manly" if Hitler didn’t even get on the list? Of course, we are socialized to see Hitler as the worst person to ever live, but I’d expect those "manly guys" at that website to acknowledge this?
.
Hitler did some big rock star speeches that were highly choreographed, but I bet his best venue was the packed beer-hall in the mid 1920’s.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:29 am
"Of course, we are socialized to see Hitler as the worst person to ever live"
.
Industrial mass-murder programs will do that, yes. Hitler, Stalin, Mao is a democidal trifecta.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:32 am
Industrial mass-murder programs will do that, yes. Hitler, Stalin, Mao is a democidal trifecta. (zen)
.
Your model is fair, but doesn’t explain why is "OK" for top Obama Administration officials to admire Mao while the same admiration for Hitler is unacceptable? And becuase I feel that I must, I’ll qualify my statement by saying I don’t support mass murder or Nazism in general.
.
My explanation for this fits other observations I’ve made regarding the historical narrative we’re presented in the media, education, and arts. It comes down to this: The people who control the discourse/narrative/myths fear the feelings, ideas, and characteristics of the Right more than they do for the Left. The Left is even somewhat useful for them, but the Right getting uppity is a very uncomforting thought for whoever create our news, runs our education system, and creates our entertainment.
.
The only kind of Right that middle America is authorized to support involves unlimited support for military action and a religious devotion to "free markets." When military action is needed for the transnational elite’s geopolitical goals, American Nationaltardism gets relied up. The most "respectable leaders" on the Right are people like George Will, David Brooks, or the Weekly Standard bunch. Meanwhile the Obama administration has hardcore Maoists and other assorted whitey haters who believe they can do anything to meet their goals. And then tomorrow George Will complain that not enough kids know who Edmund Burke is.
.
Back to my point, Hitler is definitely presented as the worst person ever and its not based on empirical reasoning. Hitler fits the role of Satan in the Multicultural religious movement. The Multicult’s basic narrative is one of white on non-white oppression. White people can be "saved" if they commit themselves to service of the Multicult. Popular media captures these "white heroes" as "Neo" in "The Matrix,"or Kevin Costner in "Dances with Wolfs." The Highest good is to be the white hero in service to diversity. The highest evil is white solidarity. White solidarity = Nazism = wants to kill all the Jews. Adolf Hitler wanted European solidarity, therefore European solidarity = all non-white people will die.
.
Anyway, that’s how I see it…
December 31st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
"Your model is fair, but doesn’t explain why is "OK" for top Obama Administration officials to admire Mao while the same admiration for Hitler is unacceptable?"
.
You are starting from a mistaken premise, Seerov. It’s not ok, morally speaking, for Obama administration figures to admire Mao. It’s sickening. But as the Democratic Party’s Left wing contains fellow travellers and actual hard Left marxists , they will appoint people of this ilk. When they do, Republicans and conservatives should hammer them with criticism but the GOP is lacking in leadership and direction these days.
.
That the Democratic Party tolerates authoritarian and totalitarian marxists in their ranks as good Democrats is a moral and political failing on their part. Having the GOP mirror them by similarly embracing/legitimizing the various factions of white nationalists, reactionaries and fascist sympathizers of the pre-1941 Old Right that Buckley drove out of the conservative movement might "balance the scales" but it is a poor policy.
.
"It comes down to this: The people who control the discourse/narrative/myths fear the feelings, ideas, and characteristics of the Right more than they do for the Left"
.
On that point, I think you are correct. Ironically, the ancient Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has been arguing lately that such fears are justified.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:39 pm
"… a moral and political failing on their part."
99% of politicians give the rest a bad name.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:51 am
Having the GOP mirror them by similarly embracing/legitimizing the various factions of white nationalists, reactionaries and fascist sympathizers of the pre-1941 Old Right that Buckley drove out of the conservative movement might "balance the scales" but it is a poor policy. (zen).
.
I want to be clear that I’m not arguing for the GOP to embrace what you describe, I was only pointing out the systemic differences in acceptable discourse between right and left. I have much interest (academically) in the subject of "reality creation" and discourse management by our elites (who I call the ‘transnational elite’). Even if we don’t know how exactly the levers of power operate, we can analyze the discourse they feed us and that can tell us a lot.
.
On that point, I think you are correct. Ironically, the ancient Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has been arguing lately that such fears are justified. (zen)
.
Leftists are always talking about how "dangerous" the right is. The Left will call for "hate speech" laws and advocate violence in their belief of this.
.
Anyway, obviously if you’re a transnational elitist, and you want to build a systems of systems-that puts you and your people at the commanding heights of power-rightwing tribalism is unattractive. You want "citizens of the world," not "Men of the West." But what also scares the elite about the alternative right is that its a real political movement. It features people who will work for free and who are providing an alternative narrative for the growing uncertainty in the globalized world. If we start seeing white nationalism creep through into GOP discourse, it will be becuase they (the GOP) can’t ignore its power any longer. In fact, I predict that every effort will be made to keep white nationalism from the minds of the white public, including losses of freedoms. Internet censorship is definitely coming, no question about that. Back in the 50’s the elite could put a guy like Buckley in as the "filter" for acceptable ideas. They can’t do this anymore with the Internet.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:17 am
Hi Seerov,
.
"I want to be clear that I’m not arguing for the GOP to embrace what you describe, I was only pointing out the systemic differences in acceptable discourse between right and left. "
.
Good. There is a difference in acceptable discourse between Left and Right. However, on the Left the moral difference between a liberal, a Social Democrat and a hard Left Marxist is only one of degree. They are all working from the same paradigm and can embrace each other without a fundamental conflict of values, albeit may be an uncomfortable embrace at times. On the Right, the values of a free market libertarian or a Burkean conservative and a Fascist are as incompatible as the former are with the values of Communism. An individualist who loves liberty betrays his core values by making common cause with racial reactionaries and thus becomes an attractive target for political criticism. Does the GOP and MSM let liberals off the hook in terms of "acceptable discourse"? They do. But that can also be changed.
.
" Back in the 50’s the elite could put a guy like Buckley in as the "filter" for acceptable ideas. "
.
Buckley was not seen as a safe filter initially, that comes later, post Goldwater at a minimum, when conservatism developed a more mainstream appeal. You’re underestimating the degree to which NR type conservatives were outcasts and pariahs among Republicans back then, to say nothing of Democrats.
January 7th, 2010 at 7:57 am
If we start seeing white nationalism creep through into GOP discourse, it will be becuase they (the GOP) can’t ignore its power any longer. (Seerov)
.
By "power" I’m talking about its ability to alter the perspective of the white working and middle classes (WWAMC) on issues related to family, race, ethnicity, security, economics, and geography.