Confederate Streets and Monuments

[Thalmor]

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

The events in Charlottesville should close this argument. The statue of Robert E. Lee now promotes violence and extremism. It is a rallying sign for neo-Nazis and racial supremacy groups. 

Liberals have kowtowed to terrorism long enough. These terrorists should be deported back to Hungary. 

I'm not entirely sure how serious you are, but I'm going to pretend you're 100% serious for the sake of argument.

Pushing to remove monuments and statues now post-Charlottesville only verifies what the people at the UTR were saying, thus making them credible. They rallied in the first place because the monuments were being taken down. Taking down more monuments only makes it worse.

I'm also not upset about the counter-protestors being run over. The guy who did it was crazy and I hope he gets the help he needs while also facing justice. However, after spending several months saying political violence is okay (and actually carrying it out, like at Berkley and during Trump's inauguration), I'm not sure why they want to act like political violence is oh-so terrible now.

[Caecus]

59 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

I'm not entirely sure how serious you are, but I'm going to pretend you're 100% serious for the sake of argument.

Pushing to remove monuments and statues now post-Charlottesville only verifies what the people at the UTR were saying, thus making them credible. They rallied in the first place because the monuments were being taken down. Taking down more monuments only makes it worse.

I'm also not upset about the counter-protestors being run over. The guy who did it was crazy and I hope he gets the help he needs while also facing justice. However, after spending several months saying political violence is okay (and actually carrying it out, like at Berkley and during Trump's inauguration), I'm not sure why they want to act like political violence is oh-so terrible now.

I'm 100% serious. 

So let me get this straight: when issues turn to political violence, we should appease the aggressors? Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument here is essentially "People feel so strongly about these monuments that they are willing to commit ISIS-with-a-car-and-a-crowd level of terrorism, so we should bow to their demands and not take them down."

Sure, you could say that the one alt-right terrorist doesn't speak for all of the KKK and the neo-Nazis (I sincerely, desperately, hope you see the irony in this statement), but seeing as how there aren't any history buffs/teachers marching among the grand wizards and the brownshirts making the case that we need to remember our history, perhaps we should take another look at the argument that somehow these monuments contribute to better understanding of our (dark) history of racial divide. 

Who is "they," in this context? From my understanding, the UTR movement (due to its small size and relative unpopularity) had people from multiple states arrive for the protest of the monument removal. There were very few people on the anti-Nazi protesters who were out of state due to how distasteful the KKK and Nazis are today. The probability of protesters from Berkley being at the same counter protest today is extremely slim. If "they" is a generalization of people with liberal political leanings, that's a bit of a mischaracterization. That's like saying all Trump supporters are neo-Nazis and Klan members, and I know for a fact that the helmet in your profile picture is round at the top. 

Besides the "them" in your post, I'm pretty sure we can all condemn violence as a political means in a democracy. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Caecus

[Rozalia]

On 12/08/2017 at 2:56 AM, ComradeMilton said:

A lot of people realize how pointless forums discussions are with people like you and opt out. At least the last sentence has the lie you argue with as if I'd said it so you appear to have safely and fully escaped from your captors.

I've seen you trip up before, but yeah, evidence that Milton's response within quotes is nothing but a gimmick.

You're a sad, sad, little man Milton.

[Caecus]

29 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

The only way the monuments are a calling card to nazis and KKK or whatever you want to call them is by taking them down. If the discussion never occurred there wouldn't have been a rally, or deaths. My two cents.

Yeah, and I'm sure if Poland surrendered its political autonomy to the Third Reich and collectively shoot, displace, or enslave themselves there wouldn't be a Second World War. My two cents. 

Again, what your statement implies is that the US government should kowtow to a minority of violent terrorists and their demands of keeping up figures important to their extremist beliefs. Doesn't that sound like what libtards would do? 

[ComradeMilton]

4 hours ago, Caecus said:

The events in Charlottesville should close this argument. The statue of Robert E. Lee now promotes violence and extremism. It is a rallying sign for neo-Nazis and racial supremacy groups. How will anyone learn about Robert E. Lee without a statue of him?!

Liberals have kowtowed to terrorism long enough. These terrorists should be deported back to Hungary. They're usually very busy attacking random women entering women's clinics.

 

2 hours ago, Thalmor said:

Pushing to remove monuments and statues now post-Charlottesville only verifies what the people at the UTR were saying, thus making them credible. They rallied in the first place because the monuments were being taken down. Taking down more monuments only makes it worse. It'll be great. We'll have tons of new spaces for people who have actually saved the world or made gigantic contributions to the human race. It's awesome.

I'm also not upset about the counter-protestors being run over. The guy who did it was crazy and I hope he gets the help he needs while also facing justice. However, after spending several months saying political violence is okay (and actually carrying it out, like at Berkley and during Trump's inauguration), I'm not sure why they want to act like political violence is oh-so terrible now. The left doesn't do it. The right does.

 

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

I'm 100% serious. 

So let me get this straight: when issues turn to political violence, we should appease the aggressors? Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument here is essentially "People feel so strongly about these monuments that they are willing to commit ISIS-with-a-car-and-a-crowd level of terrorism, so we should bow to their demands and not take them down." If you don't get it we obviously need to install more statues and rename more states; that being the apparent way people acquire any knowledge of history.

Sure, you could say that the one alt-right terrorist doesn't speak for all of the KKK and the neo-Nazis (I sincerely, desperately, hope you see the irony in this statement), but seeing as how there aren't any history buffs/teachers marching among the grand wizards and the brownshirts making the case that we need to remember our history, perhaps we should take another look at the argument that somehow these monuments contribute to better understanding of our (dark) history of racial divide. LOL at the one-time bit.

Who is "they," in this context? From my understanding, the UTR movement (due to its small size and relative unpopularity) had people from multiple states arrive for the protest of the monument removal. There were very few people on the anti-Nazi protesters who were out of state due to how distasteful the KKK and Nazis are today. The probability of protesters from Berkley being at the same counter protest today is extremely slim. If "they" is a generalization of people with liberal political leanings, that's a bit of a mischaracterization. That's like saying all Trump supporters are neo-Nazis and Klan members, and I know for a fact that the helmet in your profile picture is round at the top. 

Besides the "them" in your post, I'm pretty sure we can all condemn violence as a political means in a democracy. 

 

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

It's preference. If you don't like it block/ignore me. I'm going to respond the way I respond regardless of what you say about it.

 

30 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

The only way the monuments are a calling card to nazis and KKK or whatever you want to call them is by taking them down. If the discussion never occurred there wouldn't have been a rally, or deaths. My two cents. Another reason to remove them.

 

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, Gabranth said:

If you want a more accurate comparison it would be keeping giant swastikas in Germany. The US government should do all it can to appease everyone, thats the point of a democracy - to allow everyone's needs and wants to be met. If anything, it is a much smaller minority that wants these statues removed. Majority of Americans couldnt give two shits, its not like everyone is on your side. Honestly, looking at the numbers for the rally, the right seems more interested in keeping the monument than the left seems eager to get rid of it. In simple terms, the wants of the right outweighs the wants of the left in this scenario. Its really that simple. What would be kowtowing would be appeasing the wants of a very very small minority amongst the left. 

Neo-Con alert! Someone get Roz in here and chastise this man for his socialist beliefs. I would slap you across your Russian socialist face with American democracy, but unfortunately it's in the process of dying in darkness. 

Besides the fact that you have essentially advocated for democratic socialism, I'm going to go ahead and continue to point out that it is not the job of the US government to kowtow to violent terrorists, regardless of whether or not you think Sweden has an ideal socio-economic system. Also, you are right. Looking back at polls and studies, the majority of people (at least in Louisiana) in southern states don't want the statues removed. However, I still refer back to my former argument (if the socialist thing doesn't get to you):

On 8/10/2017 at 7:03 PM, Caecus said:

Second, removing these monuments and rebranding these fort and street names do serve a purpose. Besides the fact that some descendants of slaves might find it rather distasteful to serve in a fort bearing the name of a person who decided to kill people in order to preserve the institution of racialized enslavement, these forts [monuments] are implicit reminders that the US government still recognizes a sectionalism that should have died at the end of 1945 and is actively still placating a (in my opinion) dead vision of a divided country and a return to an economy built on the backs of forced laborers.  

Thirdly, and this is super important, these names also serve to sanitize the southern secessionist cause. Seeing as how people can barely remember what year the war of 1812 started, people who are uninformed may (in their continued ignorance) look at these names and think to themselves that they must have been great people who have done significant things for our country. Little do they know, these people represent a fragmented identity of a section of a country built on the backs of forced servitude that actively fought in the nation's bloodiest war in order to retain the profits of owning another human being and is now being represented because there was a need for political correctness and national unity at the beginning of the 20th century;  A political correctness that entirely ignored the trampled civil rights and murdering terrorists that tried to sanitize, justify, and restore a stratified hierarchy centered on the difference of skin color.

And you could argue that the reason why most people in southern states don't want these statues removed is because of reason 3. But that's a chicken or the egg argument that neither of us can prove one way or the other. 

[Caecus]

8 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Lol nice meme, I'm simply saying democracy allows people to have their voices heard and legislation built around their needs. Socialism lol. As far as I'm concerned economics has nothing to do with it, only the representative of the majority opinion, and legislation being carried out as a result, nothing socialist about that - just a strong and active government that carries out the will of the people - and that will is not to take down confederate monuments. If you've tracked my comments over the forums and discord, you'd know I'm a clerical fascist (not the F word!) and advocate for distributism, not socialism. Regardless, the comment still stands and the statues will not go down if the government really is representative of the people. 

So if a majority of the electorate believes that the government should take care of the poor and homeless through a system of government credits to purchase food, that's not socialism? You should totally tell that to Ted Cruz, I'm sure he'll appreciate it. The statement I highlighted is literally word for word what social democracy is:

"Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social democracy

Also, aren't you a Trump supporter? Assuming you really did not mean that the government should provide for the people's wants and needs, you do realize he lost the majority vote by 3 million, polls at around 33% approval with up to 60% disapproval, and his last healthcare bill that barely didn't pass had an approval rating of 12%. Trump's government has not been strong or active, just a lot of fluff. I'm surprised you haven't called for his resignation yet, consider you believe in the majority representation. 

Let's be clear here, the only scientific polling I found was about the inhabitants of the state of Louisiana back in 2014, not the entire US. There is only one specific region (state, really, since we are assuming Louisiana is representative of former confederate states) of this country that still believes these confederate monuments mean something. I'm not aware of any data that shows the entire US population polled thinks that the statues should remain up (or not collectively give a shit like you claim). So without that data, we can only conclude that the state populations, not the US population as a whole, believes it should remain. 

If that's the case, I still refer back to my argument, that the US FEDERAL government should not be leaving up the vestige of PC culture from the beginning of the 20th century that still recognizes a sectionalism that should have died at the end of the Second World War. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Caecus

[Caecus]

4 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

Never said it wasn't, I'm just saying - democracy is the will of the people manifest. If that includes universal basic income, free food and housing then so be it, only I should think that democracy won't last long. "Democratic socialism is still socialism" yeah yeah, but at the same time, you can't subvert the will of the people whilst also championing democracy worldwide. While it might not be socialism, it is not a democracy either. Doing something that the people do not want or agree with is not democratic, simple as that. Couldn't care less for it honestly. Not to mention all the crap about socialist policy is probably unconstitutional in some way, what do I know. 

So when Trump was elected with 3 million less votes than Clinton, you must be pretty pissed about that. After all, it's not a democracy when the majority of people don't believe you are the right leader. 

6 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

Perhaps there should be a census before actually taking down monuments? It seems to be such a divisive issue, I should think that some pollsters out there would be asking inhabitants what they think. After all, your republic is meant to be representative of the people, with the information at hand the policy and action can be taken decisively. 

I'm actually surprised there isn't a national census on this issue. I'm pretty sure there are other scientific polling, I just didn't bother to sift through the ungodly shitstorm of conservative twitter poll sites regarding it. "Your republic?" I didn't know you weren't a citizen here. Not that it matters. 

7 minutes ago, Gabranth said:

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you mean to say you think that the state government should decide whether these statues and things should stay up? If so, I'd say I'd agree. After all, a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charleston isn't affecting capitol hill (well, at least not until recently). But judging from the response from the governor of Virginia he's either buckling under the pressure from the Federal Government/media, a "Libtard cuck" as people so eloquently put it these days, or simply not caring about the history of Virginia. Though actually doing a bit of research and finding out he's a Democrat, it's probably all 3. Don't really know where I'm going with this, I really couldn't give a hoot about the whole issue about "whether we should be removing statues of confederates or not". Like who really does. Not affecting anyone, so why care? Idk, any excuse to stir up controversy and division in the nation I guess.

It was the federal government that allowed for these statues to be put up. Before the end of the 19th century, the south was militarily occupied by the north and the federal government prevented people from building those statues and monuments. All of these statues depicting these renegades were allowed by the government to exist in the first place in the name of reconciliation between the north and the south. Again, it is an age-old concession to the south that shouldn't have existed in the first place. 

Speaking of "will of the people manifest," doesn't the governor of Virginia (and the legislation passed which allowed for the monument's removal) represent the will of the people of Virginia? Granted, I haven't seen any scientific polling specific to Virginia, but seeing as how a majority of the UTR movement members came from out of state and most of the counter-protesters were localized, I imagine that's a pretty good indication of what the will of Virginia is. 

[Sketchy]

Its a statue and a street name. The people who want to change it/ tear them down are idiots and the people who care enough about them to rally over it are also idiots.

[Buorhann]

That's interesting Caecus.  So your perspective is "Tear down the statues, let the Right rally, then justify tearing down more statues."  Because that's exactly the order it went in the present day.

It's amuses me how much liberals and allied liberals don't think about the consequences of their actions.  It really does.

 

It's really coming off that the BLM/Anti-FA/etc are really trying to make an enemy to justify their movements.  Well, they got one, and I'm wondering why people are shocked by the (over)reaction they got.

[Ravenclaw]

Hi

Like if you think Alex needs to fix his shit.

 

I really don't know what to think about this...

[ComradeMilton]

19 hours ago, Gabranth said:

If you want a more accurate comparison it would be keeping giant swastikas in Germany. The US government should do all it can to appease everyone, thats the point of a democracy - to allow everyone's needs and wants to be met. If anything, it is a much smaller minority that wants these statues removed. Majority of Americans couldnt give two shits Based on ...?, its not like everyone is on your side. Honestly, looking at the numbers for the rally, the right seems more interested in keeping the monument than the left seems eager to get rid of it. In simple terms, the wants of the right outweighs the wants of the left in this scenario. Its really that simple. What would be kowtowing would be appeasing the wants of a very very small minority amongst the left.  Where are you getting your polling data?

 

14 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Lol nice meme, I'm simply saying democracy allows people to have their voices heard and legislation built around their needs. Socialism lol. As far as I'm concerned economics has nothing to do with it, only the representative of the majority opinion, and legislation being carried out as a result, nothing socialist about that - just a strong and active government that carries out the will of the people - and that will is not to take down confederate monuments. According to ... ? If you've tracked my comments over the forums and discord, you'd know I'm a clerical fascist (not the F word!) and advocate for distributism, not socialism. Regardless, the comment still stands and the statues will not go down if the government really is representative of the people. There's a built-in to prevent raw majorities from causing problems with people who aren't as popular. If all we did was popular we would really have no need of the Constitution because no one would disagree.

 

6 hours ago, Caecus said:

not the US population as a whole, believes it should remain. 

If that's the case, I still refer back to my argument, that the US FEDERAL government should not be leaving up the vestige of PC culture from the beginning of the 20th century that still recognizes a sectionalism that should have died at the end of the Second World War. 

 

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Its a statue and a street name. The people who want to change it/ tear them down are idiots and the people who care enough about them to rally over it are also idiots.

So are the people who oppose abortion. We change street names and statues all the time. Might as well do so in a way that honors people who have actually made great things happen for our country rather than a collecting of hillbilly traitors.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

That's interesting Caecus.  So your perspective is "Tear down the statues, let the Right rally, then justify tearing down more statues."  Because that's exactly the order it went in the present day.

It's amuses me how much liberals and allied liberals don't think about the consequences of their actions.  It really does. Which liberals? Or are we doing collective? if so, it amuses me how they go out of their way to shoot opponents to death and bomb them. Why are conservatives so violent when they don't get their way? There are no consequences for changing statues. Russia did it in the early 1990s and they haven't disappeared or been eaten by a mammoth yet so I think it's safe.

 

It's really coming off that the BLM/Anti-FA/etc are really trying to make an enemy to justify their movements.  Well, they got one, and I'm wondering why people are shocked by the (over)reaction they got. They probably expected more extrajudicial police executions. GJ on supporting the actions of a bigot using methods created by ISIS. Just an excellent thing to have done.

 

[Caecus]

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

That's interesting Caecus.  So your perspective is "Tear down the statues, let the Right rally, then justify tearing down more statues."  Because that's exactly the order it went in the present day.

It's amuses me how much liberals and allied liberals don't think about the consequences of their actions.  It really does.

 

It's really coming off that the BLM/Anti-FA/etc are really trying to make an enemy to justify their movements.  Well, they got one, and I'm wondering why people are shocked by the (over)reaction they got.

"let the Right rally" is a great euphemism for "Have a Nazi run over a libtard cuck who deserved to die." But let's not pretend you actually read all of my posts and know what my perspective is, because if you boiled it down to those few words, you are wrong. I could try and boil it down to a sentence or two if you would like. 

To be entirely fair, most liberals didn't expect to get hit by a !@#$ing car when they decided to counterprotest white nationalists and neo-Nazis. But then again, why people didn't realize that the KKK and Nazis aren't really known for their peaceful protests is beyond me. That is actually pretty damn stupid. 

I love this narrative of Donald Trump. His statement today essentially states that if you are against white supremacy and Nazis, you are part of an "alt-left" or a liberal extremist group. Which is funny, because last I checked, the last 40 or so presidents were openly against the KKK and Nazis. I suppose FDR would be considered an alt-left terrorist that killed a shit ton of Nazis by that dumbass standard.    

[ComradeMilton]

Those racists lobbied hard for Trump and endorsed him.

[WISD0MTREE]

On 8/12/2017 at 11:35 PM, ComradeMilton said:

So teaching history of .... something is found by looking at the Statue of Liberty?

Wall Street history is contained in a meaningful way by knowing a street that was used so much it became slang?

These are all pretty dumb.

Yes, that something being the friendship between the French and US in the Revolutionary War, and the legacy of The American Dream. 

Wall Street had a *wall* at one point to defend New Amsterdam. George Washington was inaugurated on Wall Street. In the late 1700s, traders traded securities under a tree which later led to the creation of the New York Stock Exchange. In 1920, the Wall Street Bombing killed 38 people. Charles Dow created the Dow Jones Industrial Average there. The Wall Street Journal was (obviously) started there. The Federal Hall (the first capital of the US, also where the Bill of Rights was introduced), 40 Wall Street (the world's tallest building for one month in 1930), are all located there. 

You'll appreciate history later in life. 

6 hours ago, Buorhann said:

It's really coming off that the BLM/Anti-FA/etc are really trying to make an enemy to justify their movements.

Semi-unrelated: Some of the pictures from Charlottesville ics look like some kind of wimpy WWII Eastern Front battle. 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Yes, that something being the friendship between the French and US in the Revolutionary War, and the legacy of The American Dream. I have no idea how the American Dream would be included. Russia's sent us big monuments too so if you're educating yourself based on statues are we deeply friends with Putin? I can't find a statue t answer.

Wall Street had a *wall* at one point to defend New Amsterdam. George Washington was inaugurated on Wall Street. In the late 1700s, traders traded securities under a tree which later led to the creation of the New York Stock Exchange. In 1920, the Wall Street Bombing killed 38 people. Charles Dow created the Dow Jones Industrial Average there. The Wall Street Journal was (obviously) started there. The Federal Hall (the first capital of the US, also where the Bill of Rights was introduced), 40 Wall Street (the world's tallest building for one month in 1930), are all located there. Let's quote which part is even in question from your paragraph here: Wall Street. Nothing else you've provided is going to come from a street name.

You'll appreciate history later in life. I appreciate it as is, am likely older than you think. I see no reason to change out some street names and statues to honor actual people who've helped, even indirectly, the United States. Confederates don't fit.

Semi-unrelated: Some of the pictures from Charlottesville ics look like some kind of wimpy WWII Eastern Front battle. 

 

[Caecus]

Are there any more arguments left for keeping the statues up? I believe we have "it should not be taken down because it already exists," "it's part of history and we will forget it if we take them down," "leaving them up is popular," and "people are willing to commit acts of terrorism to keep them up, so let's placate the terrorists." 

Anyone want to make the argument that Robert E. Lee was a great person and should be celebrated in American history? Anyone want to make the argument that the confederacy was a good part of American history that should be celebrated? Anyone want to make the argument that they are a neo-nazi and that the confederacy represented a government that would have created their ideal utopia based on their superior race ruling over enslaved masses of genetically inferior black people?

Come on, spice up this debate. I honestly don't know why neo-Nazis hide their identity online when they are so open and public about it in rallies. Be proud of what you are, don't be a coward and feel like you need to stand behind a group of tiki-torch bearing idiots to express what you truly believe. The only thing worse than Nazis are !@#$-ass nazis who can't even defend their own arguments. 

[Rozalia]

19 hours ago, Caecus said:

"let the Right rally" is a great euphemism for "Have a Nazi run over a libtard cuck who deserved to die." But let's not pretend you actually read all of my posts and know what my perspective is, because if you boiled it down to those few words, you are wrong. I could try and boil it down to a sentence or two if you would like. 

To be entirely fair, most liberals didn't expect to get hit by a !@#$ing car when they decided to counterprotest white nationalists and neo-Nazis. But then again, why people didn't realize that the KKK and Nazis aren't really known for their peaceful protests is beyond me. That is actually pretty damn stupid. 

I love this narrative of Donald Trump. His statement today essentially states that if you are against white supremacy and Nazis, you are part of an "alt-left" or a liberal extremist group. Which is funny, because last I checked, the last 40 or so presidents were openly against the KKK and Nazis. I suppose FDR would be considered an alt-left terrorist that killed a shit ton of Nazis by that dumbass standard.    

If you let them rally they'll do an anemic rally, go home, and nothing will come of it. Block them and it gets them much more attention.

Antifa and the like was a bother in Europe before it was in America so I can say that in reality, yes, those bad characters on the right can in fact do marches and the like without killing/hurting people. Antifa and the like show up of course looking for a fight and they create one. The other side already seeing themselves in a culture war is happy to play the game.

Except that isn't what he said at all. He pointed out that the other side, the usual nasty characters on the left, were also causing trouble. True, you can point to the death in this case and say the right wing extremists did worse. However there have been plenty of previous encounters where the left wing extremists did worse. As he said, plenty of good people on both sides in these matters. However these Nazis, White Supremacists, Communists, and Anarchists are bad dudes. Also keep in mind this may well be his effort to turn it back around on his opponents. Remember that he turned around FAKE NEWS so I wonder if he can turn around the Alt- label that the MSM has promoted as negative. 

 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

If you let them rally they'll do an anemic rally, go home, and nothing will come of it. Block them and it gets them much more attention. Yeah, if people hadn't been told of ISIS and their activities without attention who would know to come out to block fascists?

Antifa and the like was a bother in Europe before it was in America so I can say that in reality, yes, those bad characters on the right can in fact do marches and the like without killing/hurting people. I'm not sure that's true. Antifa and the like show up of course looking for a fight and they create one. The other side already seeing themselves in a culture war is happy to play the game. Nice anecdotal evidence (is there a special word for when it's anecdotal to this extreme level?)

Except that isn't what he said at all. He pointed out that the other side, the usual nasty characters on the left, were also causing trouble. True, you can point to the death in this case and say the right wing extremists did worse. However there have been plenty of previous encounters where the left wing extremists did worse. As he said, plenty of good people on both sides in these matters. However these Nazis, White Supremacists, Communists (who are the communists?), and Anarchists (anarchists are really relaxed people, actually) are bad dudes. Also keep in mind this may well be his effort to turn it back around on his opponents. Remember that he turned around FAKE NEWS so I wonder if he can turn around the Alt- label that the MSM has promoted as negative. The people included use it among themselves since it's easier than saying "We love Hitler and could do with the return of slavery, lynchings, bombings, assassinations, torture and so forth.

 

[Caecus]

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

If you let them rally they'll do an anemic rally, go home, and nothing will come of it. Block them and it gets them much more attention.

"It gets them much more attention" is a great euphemism for "Have a Nazi run over a libtard cuck who deserved to die."

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Antifa and the like was a bother in Europe before it was in America so I can say that in reality, yes, those bad characters on the right can in fact do marches and the like without killing/hurting people. Antifa and the like show up of course looking for a fight and they create one. The other side already seeing themselves in a culture war is happy to play the game.

Yeah, I'm sure Heyer was looking for a fight, that's why she was armed with body armor, assault weapons, and clubs. Oh wait. 

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Except that isn't what he said at all. He pointed out that the other side, the usual nasty characters on the left, were also causing trouble. True, you can point to the death in this case and say the right wing extremists did worse. 

No, that's exactly what he said. His statement essentially equates neo-Nazis and white supremacists to counterprotesters. 

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

However there have been plenty of previous encounters where the left wing extremists did worse. As he said, plenty of good people on both sides in these matters. However these Nazis, White Supremacists, Communists, and Anarchists are bad dudes. Also keep in mind this may well be his effort to turn it back around on his opponents. Remember that he turned around FAKE NEWS so I wonder if he can turn around the Alt- label that the MSM has promoted as negative. 

My memory is a bit foggy, when was the last time an anti-Nazi protester ran over a fascist? I think it was back in 1945. Those damn soviet and American extremists, killing Nazis by the thousands. You'll have to remind me, were there any history buffs protesting the monument removal who weren't white supremacists or Nazis? Or are you saying that some Nazis and white supremacists are good? 

I think it's funny how people think there are just a bunch of normal, non-racist dudes out there with moderate views who want to preserve history so badly that they would show up at a KKK/Nazi rally to prevent statues of a leader who is best known for trying to tear America apart by killing half a million people (again, and I can't stress this enough, on the really really low end of the estimate). 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Caecus

[Rozalia]

How cute, Milton having to play dumb. Well... perhaps it is real considering it is him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

"Antifa is a left to far-left, anarchist political movement of autonomous, self-described anti-fascist groups in the United States.[2][3][4] The term is loosely used with anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, as well as Anarchism and anti-capitalism.

They've been categorized as anarchist extremists by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.<sup>[12]





Pictured: "Really relaxed people"</sup>

2 hours ago, Caecus said:

"It gets them much more attention" is a great euphemism for "Have a Nazi run over a libtard cuck who deserved to die."

Yeah, I'm sure Heyer was looking for a fight, that's why she was armed with body armor, assault weapons, and clubs. Oh wait. 

No, that's exactly what he said. His statement essentially equates neo-Nazis and white supremacists to counterprotesters. 

My memory is a bit foggy, when was the last time an anti-Nazi protester ran over a fascist? I think it was back in 1945. Those damn soviet and American extremists, killing Nazis by the thousands. You'll have to remind me, were there any history buffs protesting the monument removal who weren't white supremacists or Nazis? Or are you saying that some Nazis and white supremacists are good? 

I think it's funny how people think there are just a bunch of normal, non-racist dudes out there with moderate views who want to preserve history so badly that they would show up at a KKK/Nazi rally to prevent statues of a leader who is best known for trying to tear America apart by killing half a million people (again, and I can't stress this enough, on the really really low end of the estimate). 

Your offensiveness is disgraceful. In trying to mock others you mock the dead. Check yourself. 

I said that where? You know full well who I was referring to so don't waste my time with these petty asides. As for body armour and assault weapons, even the Guardian has reported a defense of the militia that was present, who have stated they were there to protect free speech and decry racism, violence, so forth.

When said counterprotesters are Antifa and similar groups, yes. Both are forces involved in their glorious culture war. One sees America as having been taken over by the Jews so they fight the "good fight" against them and their "tools" such as all the other minority groups. The other thinks the country has been taken over by Nazis (who came out of hiding in their millions apparently) and so attack anyone vaguely too much to the right, like the good people they see themselves as. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/15/charlottesville-militia-free-speech-violence

Look. You can try that with the rest but just don't bother with me. I'm a Nationalist. If I so wish to I can make arguments like that. Neo-Liberals, Globalists, One-worlders, Internationalists, whatever you want to call yourselves cannot. Not for one second can I believe any of such a sort are concerned about national loyalty or any such thing. It is a cover pure and simple. These people want to destroy statues of Confeds today which once done as their war against racism is one that is endless (what is the point of them if there is no fight to fight after all), they will simply move on to Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will get the same treatment. The statues of course are small time ultimately, censorship is the holy grail in these sort of things. You move towards that inch by inch of course. Slippery slope you say? Doesn't make it wrong.

[Caecus]

29 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Your offensiveness is disgraceful. In trying to mock others you mock the dead. Check yourself. 

I said that where? You know full well who I was referring to so don't waste my time with these petty asides. As for body armour and assault weapons, even the Guardian has reported a defense of the militia that was present, who have stated they were there to protect free speech and decry racism, violence, so forth.

When said counterprotesters are Antifa and similar groups, yes. Both are forces involved in their glorious culture war. One sees America as having been taken over by the Jews so they fight the "good fight" against them and their "tools" such as all the other minority groups. The other thinks the country has been taken over by Nazis (who came out of hiding in their millions apparently) and so attack anyone vaguely too much to the right, like the good people they see themselves as. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/15/charlottesville-militia-free-speech-violence

Those are the words of Nazis and White Supremacists, and the fact that you are trying to downplayed what happened is disgraceful in itself. Say it like it is, a Nazi got too emotional over a statue of their dear terrorist leader getting torn down and ran someone over because he thought she was a "libtard cuck who deserved to die." Don't run around with "they rallied" or "they got attention." 

Ah huh. Go ahead, tell me which poor Nazi got ran over. I'm sure that when workers wear body armor to take down these statues, they are trying to protect themselves from the "alt-left."

Oh? Was Antifa present at the counterprotest? Did they destroy property, or kill people? Did they burn the city? Did they rob the banks while chanting socialist slogans? Why the &#33;@#&#036; do you think there was any "alt-left" radical person at the counter protest? Do you have to be a radical to be anti-Nazi and anti-confederacy? This is what I mean by Trump and morally equating Nazis and anti-Nazis. 

37 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Look. You can try that with the rest but just don't bother with me. I'm a Nationalist. If I so wish to I can make arguments like that. Neo-Liberals, Globalists, One-worlders, Internationalists, whatever you want to call yourselves cannot. Not for one second can I believe any of such a sort are concerned about national loyalty or any such thing. It is a cover pure and simple. These people want to destroy statues of Confeds today which once done as their war against racism is one that is endless (what is the point of them if there is no fight to fight after all), they will simply move on to Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will get the same treatment. The statues of course are small time ultimately, censorship is the holy grail in these sort of things. You move towards that inch by inch of course. Slippery slope you say? Doesn't make it wrong.

Lol. 

Seeing as how you don't know jack shit about American history, let me get some facts straight for you: 

1. The Confederacy was an enemy of the Republic, and it dedicated itself solely to preserve the institution of slavery by tearing apart the democratic experiment. In doing so, it killed close to a million Americans and nearly destroyed America in its infancy. Were it up to me, every single leader of the confederacy should have been shot, their names eternally damned in history. I would have salted the &#33;@#&#036;ing lands in the south for their stupidity and hunted the KKK down like the white trash dogs they are. But no, political correctness dictates we need to reconcile and hold hands and sing. 

2. Lincoln was not a slave owner. 

3. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, yes. But unlike Robert E. &#33;@#&#036;ing Lee, they didn't try to destroy this country. And unlike the confederacy, the progression of equality in this country was assumed to be more encompassing, even Washington and Jefferson knew that. To even equate Washington and Jefferson to Lee is a &#33;@#&#036;ing disgrace, and shows that you don't know a damn thing about American history. 

4. LINCOLN WAS NOT A &#33;@#&#036;ing SLAVE OWNER. 

5. If you are a nationalist (not that you live in the US), then you would be as equally offended by the fact that the south still putting up monuments that celebrate people trying to tear apart the country. That's not nationalism, that's called being seditious. It's the exact &#33;@#&#036;ing opposite of nationalism and patriotism. The only way celebrating the confederacy could be considered "nationalist" is if you add "white" in front of it. You are not a nationalist. You are either a white nationalist or an anarchist.

6. LINCOLN WAS NOT A &#33;@#&#036;ing SLAVE OWNER!!!! 

 

[Rozalia]

Just now, Caecus said:

Those are the words of Nazis and White Supremacists, and the fact that you are trying to downplayed what happened is disgraceful in itself. Say it like it is, a Nazi got too emotional over a statue of their dear terrorist leader getting torn down and ran someone over because he thought she was a "libtard cuck who deserved to die." Don't run around with "they rallied" or "they got attention." 

Ah huh. Go ahead, tell me which poor Nazi got ran over. I'm sure that when workers wear body armor to take down these statues, they are trying to protect themselves from the "alt-left."

Oh? Was Antifa present at the counterprotest? Did they destroy property, or kill people? Did they burn the city? Did they rob the banks while chanting socialist slogans? Why the &#33;@#&#036; do you think there was any "alt-left" radical person at the counter protest? Do you have to be a radical to be anti-Nazi and anti-confederacy? This is what I mean by Trump and morally equating Nazis and anti-Nazis. 

Lol. 

Seeing as how you don't know jack shit about American history, let me get some facts straight for you: 

1. The Confederacy was an enemy of the Republic, and it dedicated itself solely to preserve the institution of slavery by tearing apart the democratic experiment. In doing so, it killed close to a million Americans and nearly destroyed America in its infancy. Were it up to me, every single leader of the confederacy should have been shot, their names eternally damned in history. I would have salted the &#33;@#&#036;ing lands in the south for their stupidity and hunted the KKK down like the white trash dogs they are. But no, political correctness dictates we need to reconcile and hold hands and sing. 

2. Lincoln was not a slave owner. 

3. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, yes. But unlike Robert E. &#33;@#&#036;ing Lee, they didn't try to destroy this country. And unlike the confederacy, the progression of equality in this country was assumed to be more encompassing, even Washington and Jefferson knew that. To even equate Washington and Jefferson to Lee is a &#33;@#&#036;ing disgrace, and shows that you don't know a damn thing about American history. 

4. LINCOLN WAS NOT A &#33;@#&#036;ing SLAVE OWNER. 

5. If you are a nationalist (not that you live in the US), then you would be as equally offended by the fact that the south still putting up monuments that celebrate people trying to tear apart the country. That's not nationalism, that's called being seditious. It's the exact &#33;@#&#036;ing opposite of nationalism and patriotism. The only way celebrating the confederacy could be considered "nationalist" is if you add "white" in front of it. You are not a nationalist. You are either a white nationalist or an anarchist.

6. LINCOLN WAS NOT A &#33;@#&#036;ing SLAVE OWNER!!!! 

 

I love how I dropped the word cuck a couple of times a year back and it has lead to possessing 3 different people to spam it all over the place. When those other guys do it, no effect. When the Roz does it he gets results and people making fools of themselves. Thankfully like one of those other people you will soon be deported as you deserve. 

1: I love your always pathetic attempts at trying to use such things yourself. No one buys it mate, please do stop wasting time with it. Let me tell you a story. A man opposed the government, killed the king, and ruled with absolute power over parliament. Along the way he is considered to have genocided the Irish though some claim it wasn't genocidal in nature (which is irrelevant to people such as the ones involved here). Once he died and his government quickly fell apart the King's son took over and ordered the man's body dug up, judged (a corpse can offer no defense of course), and then beheaded. Who was the man? Guess who also has 4 statues of him in the country.

3: Hehehe. The President of America himself does it. Lets me very clear here. They were racists. Like the other racists their statues will be in the cross hairs of these people. 

5: Not at all. Different parts of the country have their own heroes, many of which fought against other parts of it. There are Scottish, Welsh, Irish heroes who fought against the English/British and in reverse. Does that mean I should want all their statues smashed now? Of course not. 

2& 4 & 6 (cute): Excuse me? Lets see what wording I used: "they will simply move on to Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will get the same treatment". I referred to a very wide group, of which many did not own slaves. Washington being an example of a slave owner and Lincoln simply of a racist. Nothing wrong with what I said even if it can be easily misunderstood for cheap pops by people such as yourself.

[ComradeMilton]

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

How cute, Milton having to play dumb. Well... perhaps it is real considering it is him. <--- no idea what you're talking about here, but perhaps you don't either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

"Antifa is a left to far-left, anarchist political movement of autonomous, self-described anti-fascist groups in the United States.[2][3][4] The term is loosely used with anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, as well as Anarchism and anti-capitalism. If they're autonomous as your source (haha) says how have you decided which of them is the Antifa menace? As autonomous groupings of unknown political beliefs that's likely to take a good deal of time.

They've been categorized as anarchist extremists (good for NJ, I guess?) If you pay attention to how our country works you might find how a state's classification of a group has in no way an effect on how they're classified since that's a federal power, not a state one. by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.<sup>[12]





Pictured: "Really relaxed people"</sup>

Your offensiveness is disgraceful. In trying to mock others you mock the dead. Check yourself. 

I said that where? You know full well who I was referring to so don't waste my time with these petty asides. As for body armour and assault weapons, even the Guardian has reported a defense of the militia that was present, who have stated they were there to protect free speech and decry racism, violence, so forth.

When said counterprotesters are Antifa and similar groups, yes. Both are forces involved in their glorious culture war. One sees America as having been taken over by the Jews so they fight the "good fight" against them and their "tools" such as all the other minority groups. The other thinks the country has been taken over by Nazis (who came out of hiding in their millions apparently) and so attack anyone vaguely too much to the right, like the good people they see themselves as. lol, you're so bad at this.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/15/charlottesville-militia-free-speech-violence

Look. You can try that with the rest but just don't bother with me. I'm a Nationalist (fits. most nationalists are far-right). If I so wish to I can make arguments like that. Neo-Liberals, Globalists, One-worlders, Internationalists, whatever you want to call yourselves cannot. What would give you that idea? Not for one second can I believe any of such a sort are concerned about national loyalty or any such thing. It is a cover pure and simple. These people want to destroy statues of Confeds traitors today which once done as their war against racism is one that is endless (what is the point of them if there is no fight to fight after all), they will simply move on to Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will get the same treatment. The statues of course are small time ultimately, censorship is the holy grail in these sort of things. You move towards that inch by inch of course. Slippery slope you say? Doesn't make it wrong. Better to honor deserving people with public land than people who've attacked the United States.

 

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

Those are the words of Nazis and White Supremacists, and the fact that you are trying to downplayed what happened is disgraceful in itself. Say it like it is, a Nazi got too emotional over a statue of their dear terrorist leader getting torn down and ran someone over because he thought she was a "libtard cuck who deserved to die." Don't run around with "they rallied" or "they got attention." 

Ah huh. Go ahead, tell me which poor Nazi got ran over. I'm sure that when workers wear body armor to take down these statues, they are trying to protect themselves from the "alt-left."

Oh? Was Antifa present at the counterprotest? Did they destroy property, or kill people? Did they burn the city? Did they rob the banks while chanting socialist slogans? Why the &#33;@#&#036; do you think there was any "alt-left" radical person at the counter protest? Do you have to be a radical to be anti-Nazi and anti-confederacy? This is what I mean by Trump and morally equating Nazis and anti-Nazis. 

Lol. 

Seeing as how you don't know jack shit about American history, let me get some facts straight for you: 

1. The Confederacy was an enemy of the Republic, and it dedicated itself solely to preserve the institution of slavery by tearing apart the democratic experiment. In doing so, it killed close to a million Americans and nearly destroyed America in its infancy. Were it up to me, every single leader of the confederacy should have been shot, their names eternally damned in history. I would have salted the &#33;@#&#036;ing lands in the south for their stupidity and hunted the KKK down like the white trash dogs they are. But no, political correctness dictates we need to reconcile and hold hands and sing. 

2. Lincoln was not a slave owner. 

3. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, yes. But unlike Robert E. &#33;@#&#036;ing Lee, they didn't try to destroy this country. And unlike the confederacy, the progression of equality in this country was assumed to be more encompassing, even Washington and Jefferson knew that. To even equate Washington and Jefferson to Lee is a &#33;@#&#036;ing disgrace, and shows that you don't know a damn thing about American history. 

4. LINCOLN WAS NOT A &#33;@#&#036;ing SLAVE OWNER. 

5. If you are a nationalist (not that you live in the US), then you would be as equally offended by the fact that the south still putting up monuments that celebrate people trying to tear apart the country. That's not nationalism, that's called being seditious. It's the exact &#33;@#&#036;ing opposite of nationalism and patriotism. The only way celebrating the confederacy could be considered "nationalist" is if you add "white" in front of it. You are not a nationalist. You are either a white nationalist or an anarchist.

6. LINCOLN WAS NOT A &#33;@#&#036;ing SLAVE OWNER!!!! 

He's still not going to get it. He really just wants a private group forum where no one is permitted to post but Rozalia himself/herself and then make up quotations from other people and dispute them.

 

46 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

I love how I dropped the word cuck a couple of times a year back and it has lead to possessing 3 different people to spam it all over the place. When those other guys do it, no effect. When the Roz does it he gets results and people making fools of themselves. Thankfully like one of those other people you will soon be deported as you deserve. Deported where?

1: I love your always pathetic attempts at trying to use such things yourself. No one buys it mate, please do stop wasting time with it. Let me tell you a story. A man opposed the government, killed the king, and ruled with absolute power over parliament. Along the way he is considered to have genocided the Irish though some claim it wasn't genocidal in nature (which is irrelevant to people such as the ones involved here). Once he died and his government quickly fell apart the King's son took over and ordered the man's body dug up, judged (a corpse can offer no defense of course), and then beheaded. Who was the man? Guess who also has 4 statues of him in the country. He sounds like a Republican (haha, everyone knows who that is, dude.)

3: Hehehe. The President of America himself does it. Lets me very clear here. They were racists. Like the other racists their statues will be in the cross hairs of these people. As one of those people, no he would not.

5: Not at all. Different parts of the country have their own heroes, many of which fought against other parts of it. There are Scottish, Welsh, Irish heroes who fought against the English/British and in reverse. Does that mean I should want all their statues smashed now? Of course not. I don't think the UK had strong feelings on the statues or street names in the United States.

2& 4 & 6 (cute): Excuse me? Lets see what wording I used: "they will simply move on to Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will get the same treatment". I referred to a very wide group, of which many did not own slaves. Washington being an example of a slave owner and Lincoln simply of a racist. Nothing wrong with what I said even if it can be easily misunderstood for cheap pops by people such as yourself. We're so accustomed to you stereotyping so severely it's a fair mistake to make on the other side.

 

[WISD0MTREE]

On 8/15/2017 at 10:54 PM, ComradeMilton said:

I have no idea how the American Dream would be included. Russia's sent us big monuments too so if you're educating yourself based on statues are we deeply friends with Putin? I can't find a statue t answer. 

Let's quote which part is even in question from your paragraph here: Wall Street. Nothing else you've provided is going to come from a street name.

I appreciate it as is, am likely older than you think. I see no reason to change out some street names and statues to honor actual people who've helped, even indirectly, the United States. Confederates don't fit.

A large number of immigrants wrote about the Statue being a symbol of their arrival in America. Sorry your history classes left that out. 

I mean, aside from a wall being on Wall Street at one point, many historical documents referencing the street by name, having the name inscribed in historical buildings, you're right. 

I see no reason to change out some street names and statues which have been in place for over a hundred years just because some people are offended by paint on a sign or metal on a pedestal referencing someone who did horrible things hundreds of years ago and likely have no effect on them today.