Monday, August 21, 2017

Magazine Editor: "Let's Blow Up Mt. Rushmore"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

In the 1920s and 30s, the militant Left who battled fascist dictators in Germany, Italy and Spain were known as "Antifa"---anti-fascists.

Today, under the guise of being the "Antifa" of 2017, they are the fascists---punishing everyone who disagrees with them, destroying public property including statues and monuments---trying to revise history.

The editor of Vice Magazine has advocated, "Let's blow up Mt. Rushmore." That's significant because of who owns the magazine.

Why have they destroyed a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Chicago? Was he a racist or fascist?

And why have they destroyed a statue erected in Atlanta by blacks and whites to symbolize "Peace?"

Nazi and white supremacist groups must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

But the militant Left---the "Antifa"-- seems to be folding several victim groups into what they call the "Resistance"---and that seems to transcend the parts of the movement.

Understanding the movements roots makes today's headlines much more clear.

The so-called "resistance" in our cities transcends anger toward the "Confederacy."

Corporate owned Vice Magazine posted an article urging, "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore."

Wilbert Cooper, a senior editor at the magazine who wrote the article, was in effect calling for Americans' politics, culture, and history to be somehow purified by political fire.

The significance, beyond what he was advocating, is who owns the magazine and media company.

The media company is part-owned by Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, Fox Business channel, and by A&E Networks, which is fully owned by Hearst Communications and Disney-ABC Television Group.

Cooper said, "More than ever, old monuments to famous white American men are being threatened...[because] the only way we can help America fulfill her promise is by shedding the faith and facing the truth. A big part of the process probably involves taking those men we've placed so high and bringing them down to Earth where we can judge them for who they really were...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 their good and all their evil."

The initial headline of the article read: "Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore."

The headline was later changed to "Let's Get Rid of Mount Rushmore," with an explanation that said in part, "We have updated this story. We do not condone violence in any shape or form, and the use of 'blow-up' as a rhetorical device was misguided and insensitive."

He says, "It's hard to be critical of a system when that system becomes an article of faith, filled with myths (the cherry tree) deities (Founding Fathers) and notions of salvation (the City on a Hill). It's going to be impossible to improve America if we can't be honest about its origins and its past. Her fruit is born from violence and greed, watered by the blood of my ancestors."

What Cooper refuses to acknowledge is that one of those men he mentions---Washington---on Mount Rushmore was offered the opportunity to become a dictator following the Revolutionary War. He chose to further lead the new nation toward freedom, not ultimate bondage for the nation and power and additional wealth for himself.

This is the same narrative we heard from Obama during his 8 years in office--- downplay the generosity, creativity, blessing, freedom, etc. and illuminate the imperfections without acknowledging how America has taken action to correct our mistakes.

Mocking the notion of America as a city on a hill, Cooper, Obama and others who share their ideology seek to use their influence to diminish our nation while reaping the rewards of living here.

You can read the link above for more information, but Cooper writes at length downplaying the significance of America in the world and any notion of American Exceptionalism..

If the so-called "Resistance" is about racial injustice, why did the militant Left destroy the statue of Abraham Lincoln in Chicago?

It's tough to cast Lincoln as a racist.

The Washington Times says, "Abraham Lincoln has joined George Washington in a national debate over Civil War era monuments.

The giant bust of Lincoln, that had been erected in the Chicago park on August 31, 1926, was spray painted and ignited with a flammable liquid last week.

One guy, who supports the vandalism, is calling on the city to change the names of Washington and Jackson Park because "Slave owners do not deserve the honor of our children playing in parks named after them."

But how does Lincoln fit into this?

He doesn't.

Neither did the "Peace Monument" in Atlanta's Piedmont Park, but it was vandalized with spray paint with an unsuccessful attempt to bring down the huge monument.

The "Peace Monument" was designed to encourage national healing in the wake of the Civil War---with both whites and blacks participating in its being erected in 1911.

The statue depicts an angel guiding a Confederate soldier to lay down his arms.

Antifa explained later that "it looked like something Confederate."

Hilary McDonald Beckles, now vice chancellor of University of the West Indies, wrote a paper back in 1999 which reveals that New York---the State and the city---were named after an horrendous slave trader.

She wrote:

James Stuart conquered the settlements between the Delaware and the Connecticut rivers from the Dutch in 1664, and the name of the principal port, New Amsterdam, was promptly changed to honor the new master. James’ brother, King Charles II of England, gave the territory to the duke in exchange for four beaver pelts annually.
The Duke of York, who later became King James I of England (and James VII of Scotland), created Britain’s greatest slave empire known as the Royal African Company, which transported between 90,000 and 100,000 African slaves to the Caribbean and American colonies between 1672 and 1689.
King Charles II established the Royal Adventurers company in 1664, which traded in Africa, and put his younger brother James in charge of the operation. When the company went into debt, James and the crown dissolved it and reformed it into the Royal African Company to focus on the continent full of ivory, gold, and the “single most lucrative commodity,” slaves.
The Royal African Company, governed by the brother of the king, enjoyed almost regal power to compete with the Dutch for dominion over Africa’s resources and people.
The company established ports along Africa’s Gold Coast, and “soon became the largest single company involved in the slave trade. Between 1680 and 1700 it supplied some 30,000 Africans to the Caribbean.
Slaves purchased for the Royal African Company of England were branded ‘DY,’ Duke of York, after the president of the company.
The troublesome namesake of New York did not doom the colony to be marked forever as pro-slave. New York State passed a law to gradually emancipate slaves in 1799, following successful abolitionist movements in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, which outlawed slavery in the decades after the revolution.

Will New York City---or State be next? What about Washington DC? Or Washington State?

The "resistance" movement---antifa, and the other resistance movements share a common root.

We know it as Political Correctness, but it is, at its core, "Cultural Marxism.

Today I will be talking about cultural Marxism, its origins, its impact and it's goal on our live radio program.

You may join me live at 9 AM PDT from anywhere in the world. Here's how.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.