What's with this global penchant for destroying history

Global Agenda to Destroy Monuments: US, Syria, and Poland

There is a Global Agenda to Destroy Monuments to Destroy History: US, Syria, and Poland. Why to rewrite history it is a New World Order Agenda. Now more than ever the agenda to rewrite history has started. I did not see it until it came to America then I saw the global agenda and we are duped into thinking this is just racial divide.

Links:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-ange...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/gallery/...
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-punish...
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hi...

ANTIFA ALERT: VANDALS DESTROY 90-YEAR-OLD LINCOLN STATUE IN CHICAGO 

Smashing Statues, Seeding Strife

By Moon Of Alabama

Moon Of Alabama,

August 16, 2017

"Information Clearing House" - In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore took down four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors, another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were toppled or defiled.

The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses quoted in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.

In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But they were mere actors within a U.S. propaganda show. Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under, worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the U.S. occupation.

The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate government of Ukraine pulled downhundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the Soviets in the second world war took this as a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and protected them. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:

“It’s not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,” Mr. Gobert said. “These differences don’t only go through geography, they go through generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural.”

Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:

“One guy said he didn’t really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time,” Mr. Gobert said. “When the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away.”

(People had better sex under socialism. Does not Lenin deserves statues if only for helping that along?)

Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues. Should those also be taken down?

As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a certain ideology or concept in mind, the view on it will change over time:

[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee’s great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May 1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied “the moral greatness of the Old South”, and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself was remembered as a conflict between “interpretations of our Constitution” and between “ideals of democracy.”

The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all for protesting against them.

But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and messages. Lee was also the man who wrote:

What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.

That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between it and the new park name. 

Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of reflection.

George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” People do not want to be destroyed. They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even more. 

That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.

Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish for.

This article was first published by Moon Of Alabama -

"Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" Says Vice

Zero Hedge,

17 August, 2017

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 i

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
.

Cooper further (not so) eloquently calls for leveling the whole place, and 

presumably all monuments devoted to past US "cults of personality" (as he calls 

them):

Demystifying the historical figures of the past, pulling them off the great mountain 

top back down to Earth where they shat, farted, spit, pissed, fucked, raped, 

murdered, died, and rotted seems like important business for this country. As long 

as we allow those men to be cults of personality who exist beyond reproach, 

we're never going to be able to see them for all of their good and all of their evil.

Disturbingly, the call for leveling such monuments is contained in the conclusion 

of an article with repeat references equating President Trump with neo-Nazis:

Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans 

have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is 


tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook.

Ironically, the article does acknowledge the truthfulness of Trump's recent words 

that we are headed towards a dangerously iconoclastic slippery slope set to end i

n the demolishing of American history. But the Vice article at the 

outsetessentiallysays... yes! Let's do just that:

Donald Trump says removing confederate statues is a slippery slope that could 

get out of control. Maybe he's right—would that be such a bad thing?

And if a private citizen said "let's blow up Mount Rushmore" and published an 

article which seriously explored destroying the site - an article which was clearly "

pro" dynamiting the monument? It doesn't take much imagination to know who 

would come knocking if this were anything but a $5.7 billion news organization.

AbeLincoln Statue Vandalized In 

Chicago – Locals Take To Social 

MediaTo Call Him Racist

A bust of Abraham Lincoln was vandalized on Wednesday.

Abraham Lincoln Statue Vandalized

Chicago, IL – In the most dumbfounding vandalism of the year, somebody set an Abraham Lincoln statue on fire in Chicago on Wednesday, according to 15th Ward Alderman Raymond Lopez.

The monument has stood near 69th & Wolcott St since it was erected in 1926. It is now blackend by fire.

By all appearances, somebody dumped accelerant on the bust and then lit it on fire.

According to Alderman Lopez, Chicago PD is investigating who committed the act and what their motivation was.

Abraham Lincoln, who led the Union to victory in the civil war and ended slavery, appears to be an unlikely target for vandalism. At least, that’s what I would think. Based off of the comments of some locals, Abraham Lincoln was a racist who said a lot of “racist shit.”