1 killed, 19 injured as car plows into crowd near Unite the Right rally site

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1978
1 killed, 19 injured as car plows into crowd near Unite the Right rally site

1 killed, 19 injured as car plows into crowd near Unite the Right rally site

Okay, so a bunch of literal white supremacists, complete with Nazi salutes and an occasional swastika, had a rally last night. They were mocked roundly on the left for being rectums and on the right for being idiots, but it was a stupid rally with a few dozen jerks carrying tiki torches and mugging for the cameras. Someone has suggested that protestors are all LARPing for the cameras and there may be some truth to that. 

Bear in mind that it is Very Easy to call conservatives "evil." In fact they are free-speech purists and want everyone to be heard--communist, conservative, libertarian, pro-gun. anti-gun, pro-drug legalization, anti-drug legalization... but when they say even "those people" (whoever it is) should speak, they seem to get tarred with the brush of "oh, then you agree with them."

Whatever happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

Today, things got nasty. Deadly. I understand that the planned Unite the Right rally today was a protest against Cornell West speaking at The University of Virginia. I'm all for peaceful protest but this went off the rails. People with rifles in cammo were facing of with the clergy. A car plowed through the counter protest, killing 1 and wounding 19. 

Let's discuss this, because--to me--it has all the hallmarks of a false flag operation. I'm a conservative and I've been painted with the same brush for so long I can tell you exactly how this incident fits the mainstream "narrative." Every single time there is some sort of terrorist attack or mad gunman, the media assumes it was a conservative and almost always it was either a mentally ill person or  someone who was motivated by leftist ideology or Islam or whatever else. 

I deplore this action, and stand for peaceful protest and the rule of law. But I fear this will be used as an excuse to give people like me an undeserved hard time. 

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1978
This is the kind of image that does not go away.

The men with the guns are not police. 

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1443
Why do you say that Wendy?

It really doesn't a nerve with me.

 

just wondering.

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1978
get that license plate?

 

 

Don't know if this is true yet--all news may be fake news--but here is, possibly, the driver, item (taken down) maybe pulled because of his age. But who knows. Maybe the car is stolen. There are reports are that the driver did not look like him but nowadays I think all news is not trustworthy unless if comes from multiple sources and is verified. Supposedly they driver is in police custody. I hope so. 

This is evil, no matter who did it. 

And--oh, no, a police helicopter at the scene just crashed, killing two officers. 

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1978
perhaps my experiences
LogansRun asked:
Why do you say that Wendy?

It really doesn't a nerve with me.

 

just wondering.

 

In 2015 I was part of a huge defamation in my industry for going against the rather liberal narrative, It was a bunch of us trying to get honesty and fairness --called Sad Puppies 3 (long story). I was demonized along with the rest of us. We were accused of things we did not say or do, worse than the Google memo guy who just got fired, within my publishing genre. Absolute lies were published in coordination in about 15 mainstream publications, one so egregious (in Entertainment Weekly)  we had to threaten defamation suits to get it taken down, the rest using weasel words to avoid lawsuits but with the same content.  One of us (author Larry Correia) was dubbed a rape-apologist (on John Scalzi's blog, which is one of the most-read blogs in the world) . Not true at all. 

Even since then I don't trust the mainstream press. I was on the inside, and the reporting on what I knew was 360 degrees from the truth. I'm not a racist, misogynist, white supremacist and neither is a female black friend they attacked in a similar manner. 

Similarly, when horrible things happen, the knee-jerk first reaction in the mainstream press often is that it must have been Tea Partiers, or Trump supporters. You know, the right. 

  • When Gabby Giffords got shot in Arizona? Sarah Palin somehow had a logo on her website with some map in some crosshairs. That supposedly angered the shooter and he went nuts shooting people at a shopping center. (But the shooter was a leftist. He’d never been to Sarah Palin’s website.) This "crosshairs" thing was recently brought up again by the NY Times and they are getting sued over it. 
  • The Dark Knight Rises shooting in Aurora, Colorado? Brian Ross of ABC News, at first, blamed it on the Tea Party. With no evidence.
  • It's been going on for a long time. The press tried to say it was the right and the climate they created in Dallas that got JFK shot. Lee Harvey Oswald was anything but right wing. 

I could come up with 20 examples, but I'm tired. Sorry if I come across as a little cynical, but I've had cause. 

 

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1136
Facts

another casualty.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2728
Re: LARPing
Wendy S. Delmater wrote:

Let's discuss this, because--to me--it has all the hallmarks of a false flag operation.

What on earth would possibly give you that idea?

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 433
Deja vu, Mein Fuhrer?

Re: Charlottesville:

Trump added: “What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order.”

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 847
Trump responsible

You can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the war monger in chief, who wants his supporters to think he is 'at war' with the deep state while he pits his more radical supporters against either liberal 'snow flakes' (talk about mischaracterizing the many based on a few) or anyone who isn't from the same teeny tiny white gene puddle as them.

The person who shot Gabby Giffords was not a 'leftist'. He was a radical pro-gun individual with a serious mental problem.  

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3110
Richard Painter

http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/richard-painter-this-is-the-face-of-fa...

Painter's contributions begin about 1:05 in.

Life long Republican and former ethics lawyer for the Bush II administration Richard Painter on what he sees in the White House.  I think he is right and this whole thing was predictable two years ago in general if not in detail.  POTUS and his alt-right advisors have emboldened the white supremacists/neonazis/KKK, etc.  Trump has cleared the swamp and, in the words of one wag, installed it in a golden hot tub in the White House.  This is increasingly dangerous stuff.  The only relevant question is what is to be done.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4851
swamps & hot tubs, and Civil War

From where I sit, we have a choice between voting for upper middle class lawyer-weasels who are looking to make it big after "public service" from jobs at banks, big pharma, or defense-industrial complex (i.e. democrats and republicans) or voting for a billionaire who can't be bribed in that way (to the infinite regret of the bipartisan corruption machine already in place) but who has a whole vast array of other faults.

[Stretch-goal for the aspiring lawyer-weasel: start a foundation, get a high-profile government job, and then solicit foreign governments to shovel money in.]

Perhaps you want to go back to the infinitely-corruptible (bipartisan) lawyer-weasels.  They are comfortingly predictable, at least, so there is that.  [Hello Mike Pence!]

The corruption machine doesn't like Trump, because he doesn't provide them their usual levers of control.  As a result, when the MSM (which appears to be a tool wielded by the corruption machine) heaps blame on Trump for "emboldening neo-nazis" I am unimpressed.

Trump is his own kind of weasel, but suggesting that he be removed from power in some sort of soft coup will make kingmakers of the deep state - who would certainly be happy to step into that role.  Let's say that happens.  How might that work out going forward?

History is a decent guide here.  Reviewing the Roman Empire: once you ask the Praetorian Guard to remove the Emperor once...it happens again, and again, and again...and pretty soon, the leader of the Guard starts promoting himself to Emperor.  Why not?

Endless civil wars are an unpleasant and unintended consequence.

So be careful what you wish for.  You might just get it.

My suggestion: let the cycle play out.  We have Presidential elections every 4 years.  I'd prefer the Praetorian Guard stay in the barracks.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 847
Military intelligence
davefairtex wrote:

From where I sit, we have a choice between voting for upper middle class lawyer-weasels who are looking to make it big after "public service" from jobs at banks, big pharma, or defense-industrial complex (i.e. democrats and republicans) or voting for a billionaire who can't be bribed in that way (to the infinite regret of the bipartisan corruption machine already in place) but who has a whole vast array of other faults.

[Stretch-goal for the aspiring lawyer-weasel: start a foundation, get a high-profile government job, and then solicit foreign governments to shovel money in.]

Perhaps you want to go back to the infinitely-corruptible (bipartisan) lawyer-weasels.  They are comfortingly predictable, at least, so there is that.  [Hello Mike Pence!]

The corruption machine doesn't like Trump, because he doesn't provide them their usual levers of control.  As a result, when the MSM (which appears to be a tool wielded by the corruption machine) heaps blame on Trump for "emboldening neo-nazis" I am unimpressed.

Trump is his own kind of weasel, but suggesting that he be removed from power in some sort of soft coup will make kingmakers of the deep state - who would certainly be happy to step into that role.  Let's say that happens.  How might that work out going forward?

History is a decent guide here.  Reviewing the Roman Empire: once you ask the Praetorian Guard to remove the Emperor once...it happens again, and again, and again...and pretty soon, the leader of the Guard starts promoting himself to Emperor.  Why not?

Endless civil wars are an unpleasant and unintended consequence.

So be careful what you wish for.  You might just get it.

My suggestion: let the cycle play out.  We have Presidential elections every 4 years.  I'd prefer the Praetorian Guard stay in the barracks.

 

Dave

I totally appreciate your sentiments on this. But I want to point out something that so many people seem to miss. The 'deep state' is not a monolithic entity. It is covert and its diverse nature can only be dimly discerned through its surface manifestations. The CIA is regularly described as being the Deep State. Routinely overlooked is military intelligence and the conflicts that have been going on between these clandestine operatives and CIA. I remember about a year before the election reading an article written by a respected journalist, working in Syria. He described how confusing it was for him trying to figure out who the U.S was supporting in the war, as the CIA was supporting one side and the military was supporting the opposite side, at that time. This dude had no left /right axe to grind. He was just trying to figure out what was going on. This was a red flag for me, as my area of study for the last couple of decades has been military intelligence and how it interacts with CIA, NSA and the media. The perception that Trump is outside of the deep state is, IMHO, a misperception. His way to power was paved by military intelligence (and very likely unbeknownst to him) Again, IMHO, the plan and the great deception was always to install military advisors and top dogs around him, impeach him and then have a theocratic figurehead, like Pence in charge. The coup is military and they are winning.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4851
MI vs CIA

agitprop-

Your perspective makes sense to me.  Let's see - Flynn was his primary advisor, and he was head of DIA, but - could Flynn be considered mainstream military thinking?  Maybe he was the only one willing to roll the dice on a flaky-looking Donald Trump.  And the leftover Obama people at the CIA/NSA took him out.

So if we say its Military vs CIA with NSA & homeland security in the mix somewhere, it sure does look confusing.  Flynn was pro-peace-with-Russia, which may have been uncomfortable for the mainstream military who really do need an enemy more interesting than "Terrorism."

But where do we go from here?  It would seem that a Trump Impeachment would be a victory all around for both sides of the deep state.  Which kind of suggests we should leave him in place.

Taking him out really sets a bad precedent - perhaps even as bad as the Kennedy assassination.  If they get away with it once, it will get us all used to the process.  Maybe it will then happen to someone we all like.  And that would suck.

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 847
If Flynn was pro-peace with

If Flynn was pro-peace with Russia, it's no wonder he's gone. The military want plenty of enemies and a big overarching enemy, like Russia, fits that bill. They can leverage off decades of red baiting propaganda, so it's easy. The CIA, don't like the competition -- and they control mainstream media.  Under Obama, the CIA were handed more military power and decision making power and now the military is trying to claw it back. 

There are NO good guys here. If Trump is impeached, Pence gets the job. At that point, you will have a military, chalk full of evangelicals, and a president who claims he has never been alone in a room with a woman, under any circumstances, except his wife. The unaffordable care act will be repealed, which will unleash funds for a great big 'holy' war with Iran.

So yeah, even uglier if the clown is impeached.  I hear you. 

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 847
Wendy S. Delmater
Wendy S. Delmater wrote:
LogansRun asked:
Why do you say that Wendy?

It really doesn't a nerve with me.

 

just wondering.

 

In 2015 I was part of a huge defamation in my industry for going against the rather liberal narrative, It was a bunch of us trying to get honesty and fairness --called Sad Puppies 3 (long story). I was demonized along with the rest of us. We were accused of things we did not say or do, worse than the Google memo guy who just got fired, within my publishing genre. Absolute lies were published in coordination in about 15 mainstream publications, one so egregious (in Entertainment Weekly)  we had to threaten defamation suits to get it taken down, the rest using weasel words to avoid lawsuits but with the same content.  One of us (author Larry Correia) was dubbed a rape-apologist (on John Scalzi's blog, which is one of the most-read blogs in the world) . Not true at all. 

Even since then I don't trust the mainstream press. I was on the inside, and the reporting on what I knew was 360 degrees from the truth. I'm not a racist, misogynist, white supremacist and neither is a female black friend they attacked in a similar manner. 

Similarly, when horrible things happen, the knee-jerk first reaction in the mainstream press often is that it must have been Tea Partiers, or Trump supporters. You know, the right. 

  • When Gabby Giffords got shot in Arizona? Sarah Palin somehow had a logo on her website with some map in some crosshairs. That supposedly angered the shooter and he went nuts shooting people at a shopping center. (But the shooter was a leftist. He’d never been to Sarah Palin’s website.) This "crosshairs" thing was recently brought up again by the NY Times and they are getting sued over it. 
  • The Dark Knight Rises shooting in Aurora, Colorado? Brian Ross of ABC News, at first, blamed it on the Tea Party. With no evidence.
  • It's been going on for a long time. The press tried to say it was the right and the climate they created in Dallas that got JFK shot. Lee Harvey Oswald was anything but right wing. 

I could come up with 20 examples, but I'm tired. Sorry if I come across as a little cynical, but I've had cause. 

 

 

Wendy, Nobody pays attention to the mainstream anymore. People are reading right wing alternative media now. It is just as biased.  And the official mainstream explanation of Lee Harvey Oswald's as assassin has been handily destroyed by those who have given the subject more than a cursory glance. 

 

And, as I mentioned in another post, there is no way the fellow who shot Gabby Gifford is a 'leftist.'  He was a pro-gun individual who had a mental problem.

 

Those claiming victim hood based on race or class or political orientation when they are white, middle class and Christian are a curiosity.  Perhaps seeing the world as a black man, forced to accept a plea bargain, through the bars of a private prison, would help.  Maybe get to know some prisoners or their spouses and they can fill you in on what real injustice looks and feels like.  

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1688
Bad day in C'ville

One person's perspective on this last weekend--

---------------

It is pretty easy to see the "hate" in the KKK faction that came into town to protest naming themselves as the "alt-Right."  They were itching for a fight and p*ssed off.  (It looks to me that this was not simple 'white pride' or 'conservatives.'  --my impression--admittedly mostly gleaned from TV news!!  if anyone actually present saw something different, please correct me.)

What is less obvious is the fury of the counter-protestors (the Left, GREEN Meme) and the role that the counter-protester's fury played in ramping up the conflict energies.

Below is a not often seen view of the moments the car plowed into the counter-protestors.  Notice the the way that the Left counter-protestors jumped on the car and began beating the car with clubs.  The counter-protestors already had these clubs in their hands

 

We C'ville people are feeling pretty traumatized by the events of the last weekend.  My GREEN Meme co-workers and friends (almost everyone I know) lament how the alt-Right "brought hatred to our town" and how we (the overwhelmingly GREEN Meme C'ville) "stood up for love."  But this is an oversimplification that misses the way that the fury of GREEN contributed to the fighting.

I heard the Dali Lama speak many years ago on his view of where wars come from. The Buddhist view was that wars were a "mutual arising." The fight grew from an amplifying resonance of anger energies between two parties.

The Left could have organized its counter-rally in a different location or on a different day, finding a way to speak its mind while not precipitating head bashing.

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1414
Re: Bad Day In C'ville

And most of the those hurt where the ones jumping on the car as it speed backwards?  Going forward did not look very fast.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1443
Wendy S. Delmater
Wendy S. Delmater wrote:
LogansRun asked:
Why do you say that Wendy?

It really doesn't a nerve with me.

 

just wondering.

 

In 2015 I was part of a huge defamation in my industry for going against the rather liberal narrative, It was a bunch of us trying to get honesty and fairness --called Sad Puppies 3 (long story). I was demonized along with the rest of us. We were accused of things we did not say or do, worse than the Google memo guy who just got fired, within my publishing genre. Absolute lies were published in coordination in about 15 mainstream publications, one so egregious (in Entertainment Weekly)  we had to threaten defamation suits to get it taken down, the rest using weasel words to avoid lawsuits but with the same content.  One of us (author Larry Correia) was dubbed a rape-apologist (on John Scalzi's blog, which is one of the most-read blogs in the world) . Not true at all. 

Even since then I don't trust the mainstream press. I was on the inside, and the reporting on what I knew was 360 degrees from the truth. I'm not a racist, misogynist, white supremacist and neither is a female black friend they attacked in a similar manner. 

Similarly, when horrible things happen, the knee-jerk first reaction in the mainstream press often is that it must have been Tea Partiers, or Trump supporters. You know, the right. 

  • When Gabby Giffords got shot in Arizona? Sarah Palin somehow had a logo on her website with some map in some crosshairs. That supposedly angered the shooter and he went nuts shooting people at a shopping center. (But the shooter was a leftist. He’d never been to Sarah Palin’s website.) This "crosshairs" thing was recently brought up again by the NY Times and they are getting sued over it. 
  • The Dark Knight Rises shooting in Aurora, Colorado? Brian Ross of ABC News, at first, blamed it on the Tea Party. With no evidence.
  • It's been going on for a long time. The press tried to say it was the right and the climate they created in Dallas that got JFK shot. Lee Harvey Oswald was anything but right wing. 

I could come up with 20 examples, but I'm tired. Sorry if I come across as a little cynical, but I've had cause. 

 

thank you!  I understand now.:)

Mohammed Mast's picture
Mohammed Mast
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 17 2017
Posts: 84
Stef

Barnbuilder's picture
Barnbuilder
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 7 2014
Posts: 56
Mohammed Mast
Mohammed Mast wrote:

 

Stefan gets it exactly right as usual. Pity more people don't understand that you don't throw a brick into somebody's head just because you don't like their beliefs,speech or their skin color.

kelvinator's picture
kelvinator
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 25 2008
Posts: 197
I Don't Need the Snottiness of People Like Stefan

I can listen to the first 3 minutes of what he has to say and know he has nothing worthwhile to say to me, as far as I can tell.  I don't need that kind of smugness.

People that come looking for violence can usually find it if they work at it, whether they're Nazi KKK types or antifascist fighters.  The people that think that black people aren't leaned on by police in this country in an unconstitutional and undemocratic way are lying to themselves and others.  I haven't followed Chris Martenson's comments in this regard enough to know whether he is among this crew of not.  I hope he is not, and I think he has spoken up for black rights at times - I hope so.  Trump is a dumpster fire that should be put out.  He's not "the best we can do" or even remotely close to it.   Even though some things he says are true now and then, he's clearly a huge fool, and I'm amazed that this country puts up with him for a single minute.

Edwardelinski's picture
Edwardelinski
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2012
Posts: 309
Hey Mohammed

For another point of view check out the 20 minute clip over at Vice...

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3110
VICE video

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1482
Monument trends 8/16/17

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/

A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.

A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park.

Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.

“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said. “Some people out here ask me, say ‘Well, you know, he taught his slaves to read.’ That’s almost sad; the equivalent of someone who kidnaps you, that you gave them something to eat.” 

Dukes said, even though Washington was the nation’s first president and led the American army in the Revolutionary War, he’s no hero to the black community.

“There’s no way plausible that we would even think that they would erect a Malcolm X statue in Mount Greenwood, Lincoln Park, or any of that. Not that say Malcolm X was a bad guy; they just would not go for it,” he said. “Native Americans would not even think about putting up a Custer statue, because of the atrocities that he plagued upon Native Americans. And for them to say to us ‘just accept it’ is actually insulting.”

The pastor also said President Andrew Jackson’s name should be removed from nearby Jackson Park, because he also was a slave owner. He said he’s not necessarily asking the city rename the parks altogether. He suggested Washington Park could be named after former Mayor Harold Washington, and Jackson Park could be named after civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson or singer Michael Jackson.

https://squawker.org/culture-wars/4chan-strikes-back-against-antifa-with-operation-lenin-down/

While the AntiFa armies of the left continue to target confederate statues, those miscreants over at 4Chan have come up with a plan of their own.  Operation Lenin Down as it’s become known is an attempt to target Lenin or other Communist statues across America just as AntiFa is targeting Confederate ones.

Arguing that if the left is saying we shouldn’t be allowed statues celebrating parts of our own actual American history and heritage because they have potential negative connotations. Then why in the world should we allow statues in America of a mass murdering Russian tyrant to keep standing? With this in mind 4Chan has begun plotting how to remove or at least best alter these glorifications of Communism standing on American soil. 

This statue in liberal haven Seattle has already been singled out as a high value potential target.  It has been on display in the city since 1995 and was actually made by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia before they rightly dumped it into the trash following the Velvet Revolution in 89.  Eventually it was found and restored by a Communist sympathizing Washington State English teacher and taken up residence in the city ever since.

Right at this moment plans are being hatched, and debates waged online over how best to deal with this blight on the Seattle landscape.  Some are advocating fighting fire with fire, and simply bringing the statue down just like AntiFa did with the Confederate one.  While others are advocating more legal methods like simply grouping money to buy the piece as its been up for sale for years.  At the oh so reasonable price of 250 thousand however, that doesn’t seem the likeliest of options. 

A general consensus that whether through legal means or not altering the statue might be more effective than simply destroying it seems to be taking hold.  Some have even suggested painting it green in honor of the great god Kek. 

Still others wants to mimic what the residents of Ukraine did to their Lenin statue some time ago.  Turning it into Darth Vader.

 

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1207
Re: Lenin Statue

Here in Ulaanbaatar Mongolia, the city center still has a statue of Lenin (leftover from the Communist period that ended 27 years ago) standing between the school and the street. The vast majority of citizens have zero desire to go back to any Communist system, and so not many care about Lenin or what he stood for anymore.  Despite the fact the Communist system brought on a number of atrocities and injustices here (admittedly they pale in comparison to what Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe suffered) the statue remains standing there.  Nobody seems to get all butt-hurt about it being there, and people appear to either ignore it or regard it as a quaint curiosity.  My guess as to why?  The mass media here is not nearly so pervasive or keen on creating/exacerbating minor controversies, and perhaps even more importantly I think people here have more important shit to do than getting upset about a statue whose presence that doesn't affect their daily life one iota.

Now I certainly think a community has a right to decide whether they want to remove a statue from their area (I particularly dig that Ukrainian transformation of the Lenin statue to Darth Varder).  But the level of attention and energy the news media and some people from both sides of these monument debates are putting into it is ridiculous.  What can I say... as a strategy, distraction and divide-and-conquer still works amazingly well. 

 

EDIT:  Turns out I was wrong... I haven't been to that part of town in about 5 years, and it appears it actually WAS removed shortly after I left the country that time (though the public reaction to it and its removal appeared to be limited a few hundred people watching with some of them throwing old shoes at it):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19940437

I guess that diminishes my main point somewhat, but at least it's still interesting to note there wasn't much controversy or public reaction over its removal.  One related point though... there does still exist the Zaisan Memorial whose murals and structure are meant to honor the history and partnership between Communist Mongolia and the Soviet Union.  It's pretty much treated as a historical curiosity and popular viewpoint to see the city, and as far as I know no one's lobbying to get rid of that.

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1414
nickbert wrote: Here in
nickbert wrote:

Here in Ulaanbaatar Mongolia, the city center still has a statue of Lenin (leftover from the Communist period that ended 27 years ago) standing between the school and the street. The vast majority of citizens have zero desire to go back to any Communist system, and so not many care about Lenin or what he stood for anymore.  Despite the fact the Communist system brought on a number of atrocities and injustices here (admittedly they pale in comparison to what Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe suffered) the statue remains standing there.  Nobody seems to get all butt-hurt about it being there, and people appear to either ignore it or regard it as a quaint curiosity.  My guess as to why?  The mass media here is not nearly so pervasive or keen on creating/exacerbating minor controversies, and perhaps even more importantly I think people here have more important shit to do than getting upset about a statue whose presence that doesn't affect their daily life one iota.

Those who erase history are doomed to repeat it.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3110
statues

I've long felt that military history should be distinguished from political history.  The history books honor outstanding military figures based on their feats on the battlefield, less on their political beliefs or even the causes that they represent.  Its been long said that a soldier fights for the guy (usually) next to him in the foxhole.  Once removed from that, soldiers fight for their commanders on the battlefield.

I highly recommend a visit to Gettysburg at some point in people's lives.  There is probably no battlefield so well marked with monuments representing the officers, enlisted men, their positions and the ebb and flow of battle over the three days of the battle.  I've visited a couple times and spent a good bit of time wandering the park tracing the events of the battle that I have read about.  In doing so I frequently encountered and talked with people who were doing the same.  Many of those I met could be characterized as experts on the battle.  In those discussions the people I spoke to never mentioned whether they favored the north or south and slavery was never brought up.  IOW, it was all about the battle and the war, not the politics or issues over which the war was fought.

So, to a very large extent, I have no problem with statues and monuments honoring those who fought and died no matter the causes for which they fought.  I think there are legitimate exceptions when the monuments serve more as a stick in the eye of the descendants of slaves than tributes to those who fought and died.  Having said that, I admit to a very small stake in the discussion.  A relative of mine was Stonewall Jackson's cavalry general before he was killed during the Valley Campaign.  There is a small monument to him in Harrisonburg VA on the spot where he was killed.  It's in a small park setting.  The family was among the Virginia aristocracy dating back well into the colonial era.  There are streets, schools and other monuments honoring various members of the family and the deeds they did over the years.

All that said, it needs to be pointed out that in Charlottesville the statue of Robert E. Lee only served as a focal point around which the white supremacists, KKKers, neonazis, antisemites and other malicious malcontents rallied to spread their hate.  They should be the focus, not the statues.

Broadspectrum's picture
Broadspectrum
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 14 2009
Posts: 85
Stonewall Jackson's Great Great Grandsons

Hi Doug,

I just finished listening to Democracy Now on which Amy Goodman just interviewed Jack & Warren Christen (surname may not be spelt correctly), the great great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson.  They have written a letter to the mayor/city council of Richmond, VA to take down Stonewall's statue that is a park there.

Broadspectrum  

Hotrod's picture
Hotrod
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 175
Gettysburg

Hello Doug,

My own trip to Gettysburg evoked an intense feeling of sadness that poor, downtrodden farm boys could be coerced into slaughtering each other for absolutely no benefit to themselves. The monuments to courage, bravery, dedication to whatever cause all rang hollow to me.  Maybe that's just my left-handed thinking.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1482
There are much larger issues in play than monuments

I, for one, think a vicious civil war without front lines has begun.  I believe this is being caused partly because of the decay in The Three E's we discuss here, but I also believe the oligarch's are encouraging and funding the hatred and violence because they somehow believe it further's their agenda.  The issues on the surface have already been solved in our history, but instead of giving me hope I am filled with despair because it seems to me that some of our most important values and principles are being intentionally undermined to intensify the division and violence, not resolve it.  We're being driven like unthinking sheep to a slaughter.  Besides sociopaths, who does that?

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232302

To suggest, state, or advocate that such is the case, or to promote the premise that violence is an appropriate remedy for speech you find vile and outrageous is to declare civil war, because there are others who will likely find your speech vile and outrageous and by your statement you have made the claim that just punishment for speech you deem vile is to be found at the hands of a mob.

The press and now lawmakers are openly advocating for the complete breakdown of civil society -- they are stating by the droves that violence in response to mere speech that one finds offensive yet has the protection of the First Amendment is not only worthy of said violence the person uttering same is not worthy of having their assailants prosecuted or the protection and investigation of the police forces to interdict violence intended for or served upon them.

These people are explicitly refusing to call on the carpet Governor McAuliffe and everyone in the chain of command from the Charlottesville PD upward who were involved in any way in intentionally funneling opposing protesters into each other, knowing that some of them were armed and then allowed said PD to sit back and withdraw when violence occurred.

Let me remind you that not only did the "alt-right" people have a permit the city attempted to revoke it and their action was struck down by a Federal Judge who granted an injunction against the city.  The organizers not only requested and received the promise of public law enforcement support a judge signed an order demanding same -- an order that was then intentionally disobeyed by everyone from McAuliffe on down and, as a direct and proximate result, multiple deaths and myriad injuries occurred.

In fact these same members of the press and lawmakers, who I have now lost count of, are in fact stating that it is perfectly acceptable for the police to intentionally ignore persons initiating and committing violence against those who speak in a way that someone finds offensive, and even worse, to intentionally foment violent confrontations between these groups due to their direct actions and deliberate inactions, and further it is completely acceptable for all of the above law enforcement and civil officials to ignore the lawful orders of a Federal Judge.

May I remind said members of the press, politicians and others that their speech is often found offensive by someone, and that if they advocate for and promote this rank lawlessness and blatantly unconstitutional behavior they will have nobody but themselves to blame when, not if, the nation erupts into violence on a level not seen in America since the 1860s and their homes, businesses and entire cities are sacked by persons who are aggrieved by their mere speech.

I have never in my life believed -- until today -- that we would see such an event in this nation again.

Today I fully expect it to happen and when this outcome occurs it will lay at the feet of the press and lawmakers.

There has only been one person thus far -- President Trump -- with the balls to make the statement in public that violence in response to speech is never acceptable.  For this you excoriate him.

He's right, you're wrong, and your course of action is begging for the literal destruction of our society.

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/08/14/a-few-thoughts-on-charlottesville/

Specifically, we need to review some obvious facts. Neo-nazis and antifa didn’t destroy the middle class. They didn’t start an unnecessary and barbaric war in Iraq either. Neither of these groups jack up prescription drugs, nor do they poison your water or food supply. Oligarchs and their political minions do that. Violent Americans dressing up in Halloween costumes aren’t the real threat, oligarchs are, but the corporate media doesn’t want to talk about that. This is precisely why they focus so heavily on clueless protestors and counter-protestors punching each other. It benefits the true power structure in America.

I’ve got no affinity for neo-Nazis or antifa, but I also recognize them to be a relative sideshow compared to the far more pressing threats we face today. You can discern where the true power lies based on what the corporate media chooses to focus on, and what it chooses to ignore. An obsession with useful idiot American protestors punching each other is very similar to the 9-month incessant focus on Russia election conspiracy theories. It perfectly aids the agenda of the real power structure in this country. Creating outrage about neo-Nazis and Russia doesn’t hurt oligarchs; in fact, it helps their cause. It diverts attention and energy away from the true cancer destroying society, and provides the added benefit of allowing terrible people to get up on soapboxes. Condemning neo-Nazis is easy and takes no real courage, which is why oligarchs and their spokespeople salivate at the opportunity to use it to advance their own unrelated interests. Here are two examples of what I mean.

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/smoke-and-fire/

There’s a depressingly tragic overtone to this whole affair that suggests the arc of history itself is driving this story — a dark animus in the national soul struggling to resolve its contradictions. And the Charlottesville incident, which left a woman dead and many others badly injured from a car-ramming, has the flavor of a “first shot” in a new civil war.

The echo civil rights campaign of the moment — a strange brew of Black Lives Matter, “Antifa” (anti-fascist), latest-wave feminism, illegal immigrant sanctuary politics, and LGBTQQ agitation — emanates from the college campuses and creeps through the culture-at-large like a miasma, poisoning group against group, in an orgy of victimization claims of the sort that inevitably lead to violence. This is how tribal and religious wars start in primitive societies.

There is also a funk of phoniness about this campaign that should alert the higher centers of judgment in the brain. The Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, MO, that kicked off the BLM movement was never a convincing case of injustice, but has been widely regarded as if it was, despite state and federal inquiries (under Obama’s DOJ), that concluded otherwise. The figment of “white privilege” is not responsible for the extraordinary black-on-black homicide rates in Chicago and Baltimore or the black teen flash mobs in malls around the country. What is suspiciously at the bottom of it all is the spectacular failure of the original civil rights campaign of the 1960s to alter the structures of poverty in black America, as well as the grinding guilt among white Democratic Progressives over the failures of their own well-intentioned policies — converted perversely into racial self-flagellation.

The latest iteration of feminism comes out of campuses that have been largely taken over by female Boomer pedagogues, especially the non-STEM departments, and is now fait accompli, so that the grievances still pouring out seem manufactured and hysterical. It also has a strong odor of simple misandry, and the whole package of ideology is wrapped in impenetrable grad school jargon designed to give it an intellectual sheen that is unearned and dishonest. The grim fact is that sooner or later even some intelligent men might notice this, and get pissed off about it.

The “Antifa” movement would be funny if it wasn’t itself prone to violence, since it espouses exactly the same kind of despotism against free thought that it pretends to fight against. It wants to shut down and stamp out debate in the public arena and trample over principles that make it uncomfortable, for instance, the First Amendment asserting the right to free speech. It makes a mockery of the battle cry for “diversity” (diversity only for Antifa-approved ideas). That so many current college students subscribe to the movement ought to make thoughtful people very uneasy about the politics of the coming generation. In their black battle garb and masks, they resemble the very fascist mobs of the 1930s that the name “Antifa” supposedly evokes as its enemy.

The illegal immigrant sanctuary movement is just plain insane, starting with the refusal by officials to even make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. There is every reason to think that mayors of “sanctuary cities” and administrators on “sanctuary campuses” should be prosecuted under federal law. It has reached such a pitch in California, where state college deans are shepherding “undocumented” students into special programs, that they are sure to provoke the cutoff of funds and perhaps the destruction of their own institutions. The movement is the very essence of lawlessness and a disgrace to the supposedly thinking class.

The LGBTQQ movement, an offshoot of Feminism 3.0, seeks to erase biology itself as applied to human mammalian sexuality, at the same time that it wants to create new special social and political entitlements — based on various categories of sexual desire that they insist are biologically-driven, such as the urge of a man to equip himself via surgery to behave like a woman. The movement has now gone so far as to try to shame people who place themselves in the original biological categories (“cis-gender,” another grad school metaphysical jargon clot), and especially heterosexual men. Everybody else gets brownie points for being “cutting edge.” One really has to wonder how long this nonsense goes on before it provokes a reaction among the biology-literate.

If we’re entering a new civil war, don’t make the mistake of thinking that it is the product solely of extreme right-wing yahooism. These Nazi and KKK bozos are rising up because the thinking-enabled people of the center have been too cowardly to stand up against the rising tide of idiocy festering at both ends of the spectrum, and particularly on the Left with its direct wiring to the policy-making centers of American life, dictating how people must think and act, and what they should care about.

What we can’t really tell yet is whether these battles will remain joined and even escalate after the financial clusterfuck that the nation is sleepwalking into, or if the financial crisis will overwhelm them like a tsunami and leave all the stupid, tattered battle flags washed up on a lonely beach.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1482
A good occasion to consider the source

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-17/lets-blow-mount-rushmore-says-vice

"Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" Says Vice

We may have hit peak media crazy here. A prominent online news publication says, “Let's blow up Mt. Rushmore.” No, this is not al-Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine or the Islamic State's "Dabiq" propaganda publication - it's Brooklyn based Vice News.

On the same day a barbaric terror attack takes place in Barcelona, resulting in 13 deaths and 100 people injured, the popular liberal news org known for its edgy investigative approach and stylistic "cooler than thou" appeal to millennials tweeted out an article which advocates for blowing up Mount Rushmore. 

Vice initially titled the article, authored by Vice Senior Editor Wilbert L. Cooper, as follows:

After fierce online push back on a day there was a literal terror attack unfolding across the Atlantic, Vice hastily deleted the tweet and changed the article title to the toned down, Let's Get Rid of Mt. Rushmore - this time with an editor's note at the bottom of the page attempting to explain the change: 

Editor's note: The headline and URL of this story have been updated. We do not condone violence in any shape or form, and the use of "blow up" in the original headline as a rhetorical device was misguided and insensitive. We apologize for the error.

Rhetorical device? The content of the article still supports destroying America's most celebrated and iconic historic monument dedicated to American presidents. The author literally states he is "onboard" should there ever be "a serious push to blow up Rushmore":

With the president of the United States basically justifying neo-Nazism, it seems unthinkable that we will ever see a day when there is a serious push to blow up Rushmore and other monuments like it. But if that moment ever arrives, I suspect I'd be onboard.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments