New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[BillStime]

[Rob's House]

Reposted with edits:

 

A lot of you have been waiting to hear my take on all the uproar that's been going on lately. No one's actually told me this, but I just know it's true.

 

For the better part of this century I've felt that political correctness was the single greatest threat to our society. I couldn't quite explain exactly why, or how it would manifest, but I felt it in my gut.

 

Last year I spent some time reading up on the Bolshevik revolution and it started to become clear. I began to see the progressive movement as a covert marxist movement masquerading as social justice. It's the kind of statement that elicits eye rolls and allegations of "conspiracy theory," but If you substitute the class divisions of classical Marxism with the group identity divisions of social justice the pieces start to fall into place. 

 

I recall a conversation from several years ago where I was told PC simply means "perfect courtesy." The problems inherent in the demand for "perfect" courtesy aside, that perception illustrates how political correctness acts as a trojan horse.

 

Twentieth century America was too strong for a Bolshevik style revolution to succeed. Communism was highly unpopular and an overt campaign would be futile. Instead they set upon a gradual subversive takeover from within. To succeed it was necessary to sow division, pit groups against each other, tear down the institutions and traditions that have formed our cultural identity, and break the common bonds that unite people and allow us to live in relative harmony as one nation. They've used political correctness to accomplish that.

 

America's historical racial divisions were easy to exploit. The theme of America as a racist and oppressive country with marginalized victim groups struggling under the constant strain of active racism was steadily drummed into the national conscience. Speech codes with select buzz words were put in place to prevent anyone from stating truths that ran counter to the narrative. Swift and harsh retribution, demanded by an intolerant minority with the power of the press, effectively coerced compliance. 

 

The buzz words are associated with concepts that evoke a strong emotional response. Once the association is established in the public psyche, the language is manipulated to expand what falls under the definition of that buzz word. This enables them to deem offensive that which would otherwise be innocuous simply by tying it to a buzz word with a negative association. 

 

The most obvious example is "racism." The working definition has evolved from something along the lines of unfairly discriminating against others based on race, to believing in one's own racial superiority, to white recognition of racial differences (unless admiring the superiority of the minority), to the state of being white. 

 

That last example is not hyperbole. In woke terms, racism is inherrent to whiteness and cannot be avoided. The only path to redemption is to admit one's own racism and actively work to compensate for it. Consider this against the backdrop of a world where a "racist" is the lowest form of life, and one who must be expelled from society for the betterment of all.

 

One need not actually do anything that is hateful or detrimental to another to be deemed "part of the problem," as long as any action or statement can be interpreted to fit under the broadest definition of "racism," even if only in a very technical way. 

 

This manipulative association applies to symbols of culture and tradition as well.

The Kaepernick movement  is a perfect example of manipulating the perception associated with cultural symbolism to erode the spirit of the country. Whatever Kaepernick's reasoning, those with the power to push the narrative support it because it simultaneously stokes group division (a necessary ingredient) while stripping the flag and anthem (symbols of our national pride and identity) of their sanctity. If you're trying to conquer a society you certainly don't want massive displays of pride and respect to the symbols that represent the system you seek to topple.

 

For years they've gone to great lengths to deter any public expression of Christianity because it creates a common cultural bond among people (and gives them a higher power to look to than the state). This is why they've fought so hard to suppress Christmas. It's the same reason they want to inject political controversies into sports. They want to pervert every cultural tradition that brings people together.

 

This is the real reason why they're so determined to take down Confederate statues. Regardless of one's opinion of the Confederacy, this has nothing to do with eliminating racism or protecting blacks from the trauma of being offended by homages to figures from the distant past.  They need the confederacy to be categorically synonymous with racism and tear down all its remnants. The goal is to eliminate any sense of southern identity, divide people along racial, regional, and cultural lines, and most importantly, to set the precedent for eliminating all historical vestiges of "racism."

 

This sets the stage for the wholesale condemnation of the founding of America. The American people still overwhelmingly respect the founders and the Constitution. Those who seek to rebuild the country in their own image are positioning themselves to jump that hurdle.  

We will soon hear growing cries of sanctimonious outrage over the claim that America was founded by racist slave owners who should not be honored. The ideals of individual liberty on which the country was founded were espoused by those racists and are thus maligned by association. The Constitution is based on those ideals and did not immediately outlaw slavery, and is therefore illegitimate.

 

When that time comes, speaking out in defense of the founders will be politically incorrect. It will be seen as an act of racism. It's entirely likely that failure to actively denounce the founders will put you in company with the untouchables.

 

It's often said, and rarely true, but right now we really are living in dangerous times. The foundation of the amazingly stable system of freedom, equality, and prosperity that we increasingly take for granted is being set ablaze. The useful idiots, with no clear plan or purpose beyond opposing an abstact sense of injustice and a burning desire to be part of a movement, will ride the crazy train right up to the gates of hell. They don't realize that the people who start revolutions are not the ones who take power in their wake. They believe if things go wrong they can simply change their government. They're going to learn the hard way that once you let a fire get out of hand you can't just put it out.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

IT’S HARD TO GO BROKE BY UNDERESTIMATING THE STUPIDITY OF THE WOKE: 

 

WATCH: John Oliver mocked Trump in 2017 for suggesting Washington and Jefferson statues would fall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

Reposted with edits:

 

A lot of you have been waiting to hear my take on all the uproar that's been going on lately. No one's actually told me this, but I just know it's true.

 

For the better part of this century I've felt that political correctness was the single greatest threat to our society. I couldn't quite explain exactly why, or how it would manifest, but I felt it in my gut.

 

Last year I spent some time reading up on the Bolshevik revolution and it started to become clear. I began to see the progressive movement as a covert marxist movement masquerading as social justice. It's the kind of statement that elicits eye rolls and allegations of "conspiracy theory," but If you substitute the class divisions of classical Marxism with the group identity divisions of social justice the pieces start to fall into place. 

 

I recall a conversation from several years ago where I was told PC simply means "perfect courtesy." The problems inherent in the demand for "perfect" courtesy aside, that perception illustrates how political correctness acts as a trojan horse.

 

Twentieth century America was too strong for a Bolshevik style revolution to succeed. Communism was highly unpopular and an overt campaign would be futile. Instead they set upon a gradual subversive takeover from within. To succeed it was necessary to sow division, pit groups against each other, tear down the institutions and traditions that have formed our cultural identity, and break the common bonds that unite people and allow us to live in relative harmony as one nation. They've used political correctness to accomplish that.

 

America's historical racial divisions were easy to exploit. The theme of America as a racist and oppressive country with marginalized victim groups struggling under the constant strain of active racism was steadily drummed into the national conscience. Speech codes with select buzz words were put in place to prevent anyone from stating truths that ran counter to the narrative. Swift and harsh retribution, demanded by an intolerant minority with the power of the press, effectively coerced compliance. 

 

The buzz words are associated with concepts that evoke a strong emotional response. Once the association is established in the public psyche, the language is manipulated to expand what falls under the definition of that buzz word. This enables them to deem offensive that which would otherwise be innocuous simply by tying it to a buzz word with a negative association. 

 

The most obvious example is "racism." The working definition has evolved from something along the lines of unfairly discriminating against others based on race, to believing in one's own racial superiority, to white recognition of racial differences (unless admiring the superiority of the minority), to the state of being white. 

 

That last example is not hyperbole. In woke terms, racism is inherrent to whiteness and cannot be avoided. The only path to redemption is to admit one's own racism and actively work to compensate for it. Consider this against the backdrop of a world where a "racist" is the lowest form of life, and one who must be expelled from society for the betterment of all.

 

One need not actually do anything that is hateful or detrimental to another to be deemed "part of the problem," as long as any action or statement can be interpreted to fit under the broadest definition of "racism," even if only in a very technical way. 

 

This manipulative association applies to symbols of culture and tradition as well.

The Kaepernick movement  is a perfect example of manipulating the perception associated with cultural symbolism to erode the spirit of the country. Whatever Kaepernick's reasoning, those with the power to push the narrative support it because it simultaneously stokes group division (a necessary ingredient) while stripping the flag and anthem (symbols of our national pride and identity) of their sanctity. If you're trying to conquer a society you certainly don't want massive displays of pride and respect to the symbols that represent the system you seek to topple.

 

For years they've gone to great lengths to deter any public expression of Christianity because it creates a common cultural bond among people (and gives them a higher power to look to than the state). This is why they've fought so hard to suppress Christmas. It's the same reason they want to inject political controversies into sports. They want to pervert every cultural tradition that brings people together.

 

This is the real reason why they're so determined to take down Confederate statues. Regardless of one's opinion of the Confederacy, this has nothing to do with eliminating racism or protecting blacks from the trauma of being offended by homages to figures from the distant past.  They need the confederacy to be categorically synonymous with racism and tear down all its remnants. The goal is to eliminate any sense of southern identity, divide people along racial, regional, and cultural lines, and most importantly, to set the precedent for eliminating all historical vestiges of "racism."

 

This sets the stage for the wholesale condemnation of the founding of America. The American people still overwhelmingly respect the founders and the Constitution. Those who seek to rebuild the country in their own image are positioning themselves to jump that hurdle.  

We will soon hear growing cries of sanctimonious outrage over the claim that America was founded by racist slave owners who should not be honored. The ideals of individual liberty on which the country was founded were espoused by those racists and are thus maligned by association. The Constitution is based on those ideals and did not immediately outlaw slavery, and is therefore illegitimate.

 

When that time comes, speaking out in defense of the founders will be politically incorrect. It will be seen as an act of racism. It's entirely likely that failure to actively denounce the founders will put you in company with the untouchables.

 

It's often said, and rarely true, but right now we really are living in dangerous times. The foundation of the amazingly stable system of freedom, equality, and prosperity that we increasingly take for granted is being set ablaze. The useful idiots, with no clear plan or purpose beyond opposing an abstact sense of injustice and a burning desire to be part of a movement, will ride the crazy train right up to the gates of hell. They don't realize that the people who start revolutions are not the ones who take power in their wake. They believe if things go wrong they can simply change their government. They're going to learn the hard way that once you let a fire get out of hand you can't just put it out.

 

 

 

Was this a conscious decision by some one or group to do this?  If so, who?

[Rob's House]

11 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Was this a conscious decision by some one or group to do this?  If so, who?

 

It's not so cut and dry and I really don't have the exact answer. I have some theories, but nothing I'd lay out as definitive.

 

It's important to remember that they don't have to all be in it together. They just have to share the same vision. 

 

Academia is filled with Marxists - the overwhelming majority of the most prestigious universities are run by Marxists. Most major media outlets are run by Marxists. The Democrat party has been largely taken over by Marxists.

 

They're not a monolithic group, and there is infighting among the factions, but the proof is in the proverbial pudding.

 

Bernie Sanders, a life-long Marxist, nearly won the Democrat nomination. He was only thwarted because he was too open about it and threatened to hurt the cause. It has to be subversive to work.

 

Socialism has become openly accepted by the msm. Chris Matthews was cancelled for pointing out that actual socialism, as opposed to the watered down version that amounts to a market economy with extensive social programs as is popular in Europe, is tyrannical and dangerous.

 

Antifa and BLM are self-avowed Marxist organizations, and they are the media darlings spearheading this movement. People didn't organically rise up and riot in every major city across America because a cop killed a guy in Minnesota. It was clearly orchestrated by the aforementioned organizations (I would like to know exactly who is funding them), and facilitated by the media.

 

Ultimately it's people with money, power, and influence who desire a strong ruling class because they believe they will be part of the ruling class. It's hard to identify them specifically because they are a disparate groups that operate behind the scenes. 

 

There are others on this board that can explain this better than I.

 

 

[Reality Check]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/german-communist-party-unveils-statue-freedom-fighter-vladimir-lenin

 

The Germans have the right idea.

[Rob's House]

"Protestor" in Fredericksburg smashes window of a car with a baby inside.

[Chef Jim]

18 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Depends.  How much did they get for them and what was my commission?  

[B-Man]

THOUGHTS FROM A CONGRESSMAN:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

THOUGHTS FROM A CONGRESSMAN:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well reading the responses that tweet didn’t go over so well. ?

[B-Man]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Well reading the responses that tweet didn’t go over so well. ?

 

 

Not new..................but it explains those responses.

 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

Not new..................but it explains those responses.

 

Well I think it’s wrong to say people are blaming their problems on a statue. 
 

What Conservatives think the answer will be to this question:

 

Why are you tearing down these statues?

 

”Because they’re oppressive!!”

 

When the answer will likely be:

 

”I dunno.”

 

 

[GG]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Not new..................but it explains those responses.

 

 

Not for nothing, but I doubt those labels existed when Teddy was alive.

[B-Man]

 

ARMED DEMONSTRATORS LEAVE RICHMOND MAYOR WITH TOUGH DECISION: 

A .45-caliber handgun was tucked in the waistband of Jasmine Kelley’s shorts Sunday night as she stood outside the Robert E. Lee statue on Monument Avenue. She purchased it for about $475 last week, and it hasn’t been fired yet.

 

As the protests against racial prejudice began three weeks ago, Kelley, 29, quickly decided her role would be to protect others. She started by calling other protesters to check on their safety. Then, they were given walkie-talkies so they could communicate faster. Then, other protesters started showing up with guns in an effort to protect others.

 

Now, as groups assemble around the Lee statue every day in what has become a campground-like environment, a loosely organized group of men and women with handguns and rifles patrol the area, intent on keeping visitors safe. They chose not to divulge how many armed participants they have, except to say there are “plenty.”

 

Now, I don’t have a problem with this, but I’m not the city’s anti-gun mayor or a member of its anti-gun city council. They clearly do have issues with citizens lawfully carrying firearms in parks and other public places, so what happens on July 1st when their gun ban takes effect? Will they start arresting the armed protesters at the Lee statue? Or will they decide that even though the law is now in effect, there’s no need to enforce it?

 

 

 

As Cam Edwards writes, much like Mayor Jenny Durkan ignoring the guns being brandished in Seattle’s CHAZ, “I suspect that [Mayor Levar Stoney (D)] will develop a sudden case of amnesia in the coming days and forget all about the city council’s actions last year.”

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

And, as predicted, they are now coming for statues of Jesus, and stained glass windows depicting Him.

[B-Man]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

And, as predicted, they are now coming for statues of Jesus, and stained glass windows depicting Him.

 

 

I (for one) will be ready.

 

 

 

 

 

'.

[GG]

16 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

And, as predicted, they are now coming for statues of Jesus, and stained glass windows depicting Him.

 

I thought Jesus was brown?  I'm so confused now.

[TakeYouToTasker]

16 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I thought Jesus was brown?  I'm so confused now.

That’s why they want to tear down the statues.

 

They want to destroy any traces of a European depiction.

[B-Man]

 

[B-Man]