The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: DeSantis wants to tear down Confederate statue cap. Hill, replace with activist  (Read 117 times)

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7416

Here we go again.  Is the agenda to rid the country of all traces of the existence of the Civil War so school children can be taught that it never existed in the first place or that the Confederates were so evil that they cannot be memorialised and should be "unpersoned" (just like when Stalin groups of photo' retouchers to remove someone he considered "an enemy" from photographs) or just to "unperson" anyone who is not a liberal democrat?

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=60477

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, once considered a favorite of conservatives and Trump supporters, is now doing the Left’s bidding for them, and targeting a Confederate statue for removal in a gratuitous display of political correctness.

DeSantis is calling to remove the likeness of Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith that represents the state of Florida in the U.S. Capitol at the National Statuary Hall. He wants it to be replaced with civil rights leader Mary McLeod Bethune, in a clear capitulation to the Maoist Left.

snip

Logged

slidemansailor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4177
  • A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves
    • The Bitterroot Bugle

Perhaps replacing it with Epstein, Clintons and Obamanations...
Brave New World
Logged
If you don't work for liberty,  you don't get it.

http://BitterrootBugle.com/

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4892
  • TMM

Well, the dude looks like another suit-and-tie-wearing political statist.
I try to never wear suits and ties, because it's the suits and ties idiots who run the idiocy called Washington D.C.
But that aside, here is a Confederate statue that no-one on the left or the right will dare touch. It's a statue of the founder of the KKK and the author of the book "Morals And Dogma", done by a Confederate General and head of the Scottish Rite FreeMasons --  named Albert Pike.

Our friend, Anton Chaitkin, in Washington D.C. knows all about this. (Chaitkin, btw, is the gentleman who gave me the US Army's 7th Psychological Operations Group white paper entitled "From Psy-Op To MindWar", about ten years ago. He has a landing page at TMM's national website, in the Allied Camps section.)

(PDF)

https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fidelio_archive/1993/fidv02n01-1993Sp/fidv02n01-1993Sp_004-why_albert_pikes_statue_must_fal.pdf

Pike's Statue in WDC:



Salute!
Elias
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33

I was not inspired to join the right against left statute conflict until the link to Pike was added, fortunately.

Why Albert Pike’s Statue Must Fall
The Scottish Rit’s Ku Klux Klan Project
By Anton Chaitkin

In that work are words describing what I see as a written confession. In the words of the authors of these written confessions are found - inculpatory evidence - which constitutes all that an independent individual in a free society needs to get rolling that process often called the law. That process often called the law can be counterfeited; of course.

What warning (cause of action, probable cause to act in defense, etc.) are the following words confessing?

“Magic is the science of the ancient magi….Magic unites in one and the same science, whatever Philosophy can possess that is the most certain, and Religion of the Infallible and the Eternal. It perfectly...reconciles these two terms...faith and reason…[T]hose who accept [magic] as a rule may give their will a sovereign power that will make them the masters of all inferior beings and of all errant spirits; that is to say, will make them the Arbiters and Kings of the World….”

That is a confession of intent to deceive targeted victims - a confidence scheme - so as to overpower and then consume - enslave - those “inferior beings.”

That is in another word a confession of treason, but treason as to what?

The left (Marxists) will convict all those in the right (Fascists) of treason because the left has been conned into believing everyone the the right is inferior (errant spirit) while everyone on the right has been conned into believing everyone on the left is inferior too.

Also in the document that eludes to a confession concerning a specific con-man named Pike are these words:

“President Zachary Taylor faced Quitman down. President Taylor was determined to bring the new southwest into the Union of free states. On June 21, 1850, nine days after the secession convention, Governor Quitman was indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the U.S. Neutrality Laws!”

The whole story-line is false. The law can be expressed this way:

“If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.”
British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance
Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766

What does that mean in context?

How about fast-forwarding the same principle conflict that put in place a false “Federal Grand Jury” System of Plunder Under the Color of Law in 1789, which is the same principle conflict that then inspired the pogrom falsely called The Civil War, and instead of applying the basic principles to history, the idea with the fast-forwarding, is to apply the lawful principles to the current situation.

Those who are inspired to tear down statues of their opponent's sides Con-Men in HIStory can apply the basic principle of law in their partisan way. Those who are inspired to tear down statutes of their opponent’s sides Con-Men in HIStory can apply the basic principle of law in that opposite way; targetting the other side’s Con-Men in HIStory.

Why tear down any of the statutes of any of the Con-Men in HIStory? Why not let them hang themselves (figuratively) with their own words for posterity as a warning that is not to be forgotten; perhaps forgiven, but not forgotten.

Had people been inspired to avoid becoming the enemy of freedom, and liberty, they could have, an can do so now, employ the law power as the law power is intended. The law power is intended to be a deterrence, a sign on the wall that says Keep Out. The sign on the wall says Crime does not Pay here. Crime does not pay in the land where the law of the land is to hold all the Con-Men seeking false Public Office to account for the facts that matter in each case.

Trump can wash his hands of the whole dirty business, as can the members of the Clinton Crime Syndicate (which operates even today under the color of law), as the people themselves take the law into their own hands where it always is in fact.

But that won’t happen until the people crawl out from under the Magic curtain that hides the little man pulling the levers. That won’t happen until the people crawl out from under the Magic that dons the Con-Men with invisible clothes.

Logged

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4892
  • TMM



Quote
Why tear down any of the statutes of any of the Con-Men in HIStory? Why not let them hang themselves (figuratively) with their own words for posterity as a warning that is not to be forgotten; perhaps forgiven, but not forgotten.
 

Well, I must concur.  An overly-impassioned zealousness seems to curse both "sides" in the false "Left vs Right" paradigm which has been fanned into flames by the biased, CFR-controlled mass media.  The dumbing down of the American society across the board for three generations or more has reduced too many people to levels of conflict with opposing views, and our truthful history, the reslity of our history, has been greatly damaged by the whim of misguided activists, such as the Marxists with their NEA and the Christians with their steadfast belief that the very people who murdered God's son on a Roman cross are yet somehow "God's chosen people" and must therefore be obeyed when their "leader" (Netanyahu) pushes the USA into conflict with Iran.  Political circus, religious circus, and an absurdity circus in general seem to be trademarks of today's mis-directed consciousness, at least within notable segments of our society.

So I agree with you. Attacks on the Confederate flag, which push for that flag's eradication, and tearing down Confederate soldiers' statues, and all other similar attempts to re-write history, serve no justifiable purpose. Instead, such idiocy simply enhances the deep state's purpose in psychological warfare, which aims to disintegrate the moral and ethical fabric of American traditional culture. This is a goal of the Marxist movement. I agree with you that all edifices of our past be retained as guideposts to our future as intelligent, observant, and well-learned individuals seeking personal responsibility at the individual level as the proper path to freedom, liberty, and self-government.

I brought up the Pike statue piece because I wanted to add a twist to the theme of this thread. That is to say, I wanted to note that the idiotic progressive drive to get rid of all public evidence that some States dared to opt out (or tried to opt out) of the federalized central government which had been created by control-seeking statists (our Founders) who wanted to establish a more rigid control mechanism than the Articles of Confederation afforded the 13 sovereign nation-state republics, is in fact indicted by their refusal to also demand that Pike's statue be brought down.

To me, that oversight by the statue-crushing drive by leftist zealots indicates that the Masonic power is truly equally dispersed across the plains of both political parties, and so thoroughly so that no one on either side of the debate dares to touch Pike's statue.  The Left is powerless to confront Scottish Rite Freemasonry, and so is the Right.  I find that quite interesting.

Last note for you --  you mentioned Treason in your post above. I mentioned that Anton Chaitkin gave me a document ten years ago. Chaitkin made the famous speech about getting rid of Pike's statue. Chaitkin also wrote a book entitled "Treason In America". You might want to get your copy of that while it's still available.

https://www.amazon.com/Treason-America-Anton-Chaitkin-1998-08-01/dp/B01JXQPZ8S/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Treason+In+America%2C+Anton+Chaitkin&qid=1563695063&s=books&sr=1-1

Anton also co-wrote a book with Webster Tarpley which is a classic "must-have". "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography".

https://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Webster-Griffin-Tarpley/dp/0930852923/ref=pd_sbs_14_2/182-7850042-5576814?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0930852923&pd_rd_r=daba4f15-b23b-44e4-8c94-0039de0c170e&pd_rd_w=BXt8m&pd_rd_wg=UNIrU&pf_rd_p=588939de-d3f8-42f1-a3d8-d556eae5797d&pf_rd_r=C8CZJ0TJ0Z8V966176Q9&psc=1&refRID=C8CZJ0TJ0Z8V966176Q9

Salute!
Elias



Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33

“I agree with you that all edifices of our past be retained as guideposts to our future as intelligent, observant, and well-learned individuals seeking personal responsibility at the individual level as the proper path to freedom, liberty, and self-government.”

What about organized crime? What about organized crime under the color of law?

What warrants action by someone in time and place to act in defense against malicious aggression?

What if the malicious aggressors are constituted by an agreement made by each individual, each individual promises on their honor to aid and abet their fellow malicious aggressors? Each individual constitutes an organized unit of malicious aggressors who put themselves into bondage by that voluntary agreement to aid each other so as to reach the goal of malicious aggression. Is it treason to opt-out of that group once you join it voluntarily? 

What if the cost of failing to be maliciously aggressive is to have your individual body turned out of the protection of the maliciously aggressive group, and turned instead into the targeted victim group? Is that treason?

What if the original definition of treason is an errant will applied to an errant act that disturbs the peace of any individual who vows solemnly to avoid that malicious will and avoid that aggressive act, someone who keeps his promise to avoid those malicious thoughts and those harmful acts? So - in that case - the treasonous criminal is the one who willfully, with malice aforethought, aggressively attacks an innocent individual, and in that individual case, that individual attacker disturbs the peace that is founded upon simple concepts such as to do unto others as one would have others do unto one's self. Is that treason instead of the other definition of treason explained previously?

There, then, are two working definitions of treason.

One definition of treason could work for each individual that constitutes a collection of individuals whose will follows the action that is strictly defensive, and the willful offenders are thereby accurately accountable as those guilty of treason by their willful, malicious, aggression.

Everything in that definition is strictly voluntary as each individual can, at will, remain within that lawful conduct, doing only onto others as each individual would have others do to themselves. Those who don’t agree, go outside that law, and those outlaws commit that treason when they specifically, and with malice aforethought, do onto others what they would avoid at all cost having that same thing done to themselves. The outlaws, outside that law, cut each other’s throats because that is what they choose to do regularly.

A few things are voluntary in the other definition such as when the individual chooses to make a victim out of an innocent individual; of course, the victim does not volunteer to be one. That definition of treason is also voluntary when an individual chooses to join that organized group of willful consumers of innocent victims; assuming of course that the volunteer has any idea as to what is being joined. Once an individual joins that group - voluntarily or by extortion - it is treason to unjoin it.

"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors." Proverbs 1

“If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.”
British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance
Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766’’

“Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.”
Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)

 I looked into Treason in America by Anton Chaitkin and found these warnings:

{Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman}

“The weakness in this book, and to me it’s a considerable one, is the idolization of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.”

I have read my fill of the works that originate from the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. It is the same basic concepts regurgitated, rationalized, apologized, excused, etc. Am I wrong in that case?

Logged

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4892
  • TMM

“I agree with you that all edifices of our past be retained as guideposts to our future as intelligent, observant, and well-learned individuals seeking personal responsibility at the individual level as the proper path to freedom, liberty, and self-government.”

What about organized crime? What about organized crime under the color of law?
We are discussing the push by various societal elements to eradicate evidence of our history, such as seen by movements to tear down statues. We are not talking about organized crime.


Quote
What warrants action by someone in time and place to act in defense against malicious aggression?
Common sense as exercised in self-defense.

Quote
What if the malicious aggressors are constituted by an agreement made by each individual, each individual promises on their honor to aid and abet their fellow malicious aggressors? Each individual constitutes an organized unit of malicious aggressors who put themselves into bondage by that voluntary agreement to aid each other so as to reach the goal of malicious aggression. 
Is it treason to opt-out of that group once you join it voluntarily?       
What if we stay on topic? Abstrsct and oblique meanderings about agreements between would-be aggressors has nothing to do with the removal of statues, at present time in our country. Treason, by the way, has to do with violating a man-made government by someone allegedly within that government.
 

Quote
What if the cost of failing to be maliciously aggressive is to have your individual body turned out of the protection of the maliciously aggressive group, and turned instead into the targeted victim group? Is that treason?
Nope. It's a betrayal of a nefariously-conceived and accepted agreement. That scenario has nothing to do with "treason".

Quote
What if the original definition of treason is an errant will applied to an errant act that disturbs the peace of any individual who vows solemnly to avoid that malicious will and avoid that aggressive act, someone who keeps his promise to avoid those malicious thoughts and those harmful acts?
Irrelevant question. Can you source for us here that "original definition of treason"?


Quote
So - in that case - the treasonous criminal is the one who willfully, with malice aforethought, aggressively attacks an innocent individual, and in that individual case, that individual attacker disturbs the peace that is founded upon simple concepts such as to do unto others as one would have others do unto one's self. Is that treason instead of the other definition of treason explained previously?
I think that you should be able to answer that question for yourself by noting what I've already told you above.

Quote
There, then, are two working definitions of treason.
Not so. There is one definition of treason, and it has to do with government office holders.

Quote
One definition of treason could work for each individual that constitutes a collection of individuals whose will follows the action that is strictly defensive, and the willful offenders are thereby accurately accountable as those guilty of treason by their willful, malicious, aggression.

Treason is an act against a government to which one has sworn an oath of allegiance.

Quote
Everything in that definition is strictly voluntary as each individual can, at will, remain within that lawful conduct, doing only onto others as each individual would have others do to themselves. Those who don’t agree, go outside that law, and those outlaws commit that treason when they specifically, and with malice aforethought, do onto others what they would avoid at all cost having that same thing done to themselves. The outlaws, outside that law, cut each other’s throats because that is what they choose to do regularly.
I repeat. The topic here is the current push by groups within our social order to remove statues honoring significant individuals who demonstrated impactful contributions to our history as Americans.  Your mental meanderings amid tangential hypotheses must be kept in context to the topic of this thread, okay? Thank you.

Quote
A few things are voluntary in the other definition such as when the individual chooses to make a victim out of an innocent individual; of course, the victim does not volunteer to be one. That definition of treason is also voluntary when an individual chooses to join that organized group of willful consumers of innocent victims; assuming of course that the volunteer has any idea as to what is being joined. Once an individual joins that group - voluntarily or by extortion - it is treason to unjoin it.
Nothing in that paragraph alludes to "treason", and "treason" itself is not within the confines of the topic of this thread. What you're talking about is plain old aggression, man to man. Treason is aggression against a government by said government's office holder(s).

Quote
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors." Proverbs 1
Irrelevant to this topic.

Quote
“If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.”
British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance
Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766’’
Was there a statue of Woodfall and/or Strahan? If so, was/is there any movement attempting to tear down such statue(s)?

Quote
“Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.”
Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)
Yet again, another irrelevant insertion. Not on topic.

Quote
I looked into Treason in America by Anton Chaitkin and found these warnings:

{Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman}

“The weakness in this book, and to me it’s a considerable one, is the idolization of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.”

I have read my fill of the works that originate from the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. It is the same basic concepts regurgitated, rationalized, apologized, excused, etc. Am I wrong in that case?
What you are wrong about is when you said you looked into Treason In America by Anton Chaitkin. You did not look into that book. You could not have received the book this soon after ordering it,and you could not have read the book this quickly. Instead, you looked into at least one review/comment on that book by someone else who did read the book, or who implied that he had read it.
I know Anton personally. He is definitely not an advocate for the "Cult of Might Makes Right".
So here's one for you to ponder -- If I suggested that book to you, but upon seeing your excuse for not wishing to read the book I have changed my mind and have withdrawn my recommendation that you read it, have I just committed treason?  ;)
Salute!
Elias
« Last Edit: July 21, 2019, 11:37:12 pm by Elias Alias »
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33

"If I suggested that book to you, but upon seeing your excuse for not wishing to read the book I have changed my mind and have withdrawn my recommendation that you read it, have I just committed treason?"

If you convict me of going off-topic, then my response is to ask you to write my responses for me, that way I won't go off-topic according to you.

For those who may have been able to grasp the connection between my last comment and this topic, which may be a wild assumption on my part, the connections can be discussed by people who have diverse viewpoints, and the objective of such a discussion is to share those viewpoints so as to reach the possible goal of improving the viewpoints shared.

If each county in each State had Statues in place in each State Park, Statues of King George III, Statues of Oliver Cromwell, just to name a few Loyalists loyal to a specific Oath of Alliance, then, in that hypothetical case all those in America today on the Left, and on the Right, could theoretically join sides to tear down those Statutes, or leave those Statues as their collective will, and their collective actions play out in that opposite case. Thumbs up for keeping those Statues up, thumbs down for tearing down those Statues. Forget about the actual law of the land: who needs it anyway?

There are obvious and not so obvious reasons why Statutes of King George III are not placed in each State Park in America.

Thomas Jefferson
(Un-censored) Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Why censor someone when someone attempts to keep the record straight? I could ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finicum, but they are dead, if they had Statues what would the inscription be: Guilt of the Capital Crime of Speaking the Truth, be warned? Here, here, and here, these are the words that you are authorized to speak, and if you step out of line, well, there are consequences for doing so.

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."




Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up