Charlottesville, Va Blut Und Boden

There are plenty of people protesting these monument take-downs who aren't white supremacist. The media just won't give them any attention.

 

I mentioned this in another thread already, but I think it's pertinent here as well. These statues may not be racist in and of themselves, but they may be cultural symbols to the racist subculture, and as such I can see the message that could be sent by removing them. There are other ways to remember the better intentions of our forefathers, for instance by reading about them in a history book.

 

Maybe the USA will go the way of the USSR.

 

Yeah. That is probably very true

 

Many would disagree with me but I'd be okay with moving all theses statues and monuments to museums. Rather than display them in public let each southern state have a museum of the confederacy where these things can be looked at without being glorified, they would be presented with plaques simply stating who they were and what they did. Throughout the museum will be other displays with plaques and posters accurately telling the history of the civil war, what led up to it and the aftermath. You say you want to preserve your history? Well that's what museums are for.

 

My issue with the post by autophobe was because he accused white supremacists, right wing people of all those crimes he listed, and supposed racist events. In the first 5 links , 4 of his statements about the link were completely false, yet he attributed it to white supremacy. It was not even racist acts, he even said an article stated the gun man said get out of my country before shooting, called all victims middle eastern in another, another lie. I

Lies like this are used by the opposition to draw people over to their side. It inflates a supposed threat that is not there. This is what autophobe did. This is what ANTIFa and BLM do intentionally, as do the KKK. To prove that their existence is in danger. Just look at the response to autophobe's false statements. He became the one in the right simply because he told you lies about article link and people believed it. "Wow the right really are bad people and white supremacist because there are a lot of links with dates and autophobe said that they were white supremacy acts, so it is true". "oh look since trumps inauguration judging by the lies and dates he supplied the right is to blame for all that.

Without people bothering to click the links they thought this. It was even seen in the responses to autophobe, they read his synopsis of each link, you and others simply took his word for it, when they were lies. Giving him checkmarks for links he said were because of white supremacists, which many are in fact not such events.

This inflates racism and causes more racism when false accusations like this are thrown around.

This brings about more hatred and lies like this attribute to it.

Language is suppose to convey reality, antifa & BLM use it to cloak reality.

 

Yes that is what I am saying, people join and numbers increase for reason of feeling their lives are threatened, they fear for it because people have mislead and lied. This causes an automatic dislike and stereotyping of the right which is equally as wrong and to serve the same purpose. Sorry for saying you checked it up when you did not. If posts like his are not addressed people will believe the lies he posted.

What other purpose could antifa have for lying about these things other than to increase their numbers for violence to increase. I was outraged by the reasons he gave for things and disgusted. So I checked the links and read.

Link to his article: http://jezebel.com/seventeen-year-old-muslim-girl-captured-and-beaten-to-d-1796213476

Another one that autophobe attributes to white supremacy. I am pretty sure that Darwin Martinez Torres is not a white supremacist. He is brown skinned, curly short black hair and dark brown eyes as you can see on the link he provides. I can not speak for how he might have voted, but I am sure autophobe, ANTIFA! And BLM can answer this.

Pretty much every link I click of his is like this. Claims one thing in the synopsis but is actually not as it leads people to believe .

 

I'm against the removal of these statues.

It gives the public eye a reminder of our liniage and culture. Not all monuments have to signify something positive in our nation's history. For example, in the waterfront park in downtown Portland OR there's a monument for those who suffered the WWII Japanese Internment camps. They give the public a reminder of how evil our government can be if we allow it.

The union army was evil in its own way. But that doesn't mean I am a full blown confederate sympathizer. I don't wanna get into all that. But I'll be willing to compromise by constructing monuments to those who suffered under slavery in close vicinity to confederate monuments.

The only reason, I feel, that the media is hyping up the destruction of confederate monuments in the name of slavery is that it is their goal to remove the monuments of our founding fathers merely for the fact that they owned slaves too. They seek to transform the culture of America from a culture of pride and freedom, to a culture of guilt and shame. The ruling class despises the culture of freedoms and independence, that why they wanna revise history.

Vice published an article advocating blowing up Mt. Rushmore for that very reason. Tearing down confederate monuments is a very slippery slope.

 

When attempting to accomplish something through protest, it's smart to study the methods of those who have succeeded in the past. Martin Luther King copied Gandhi, and achieved similar results. It's increasingly important to be nonviolent in the modern media age. If our side does anything that looks bad, you know that Fox News is going to play the footage endlessly, attempting to sway public opinion against us.

The Kent State massacre was a key factor in turning public opinion against the Vietnam War. Would the impact have been the same if the protesters had been shooting back at the National Guard? Not a chance. The NG would have appeared to have been merely defending themselves.

Fighting back, or even showing up with helmets and baseball bats, might make some individuals on our side feel better about themselves for the moment, but it works against achieving our long term goals.

Having said that, I have to say that I don't think that saving or removing statues of dead men on horses changes anything that matters. I'd bet serious money that 95% of the people who pass by a Lee statue every day give no thought at all to who he was or what he did, or why.

Lincoln said otherwise. Was he wrong? If so, why?

 

You are not from the South, so it has nothing to do with you. John Reynolds is an outstanding representative of your state, from the CW era. He is honored in the Lancaster cemetery, as he should be.

Why aren't you hating on Jefferson Davis instead of Lee? Politicians are at the root of every political evil in the world, not military men. Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do.

 

You told us a long time ago.

He was also one of the finest men produced by Pennsylvania, maybe the best of his generation. One of the highest ranking officers to ever die in combat for the US. In many ways, he's your Robert E. Lee. I can't think of any reason why a Pennsylvanian would have a deep personal interest in somebody like Lee, from a completely different culture.

Nearly everybody on both sides went with their home state. Fight against your own hometown and relatives, and you can never go home again.

 

^^^ This I agree with ^^^