Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mouse]

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

[slidemansailor]

Perhaps replacing it with Epstein, Clintons and Obamanations...
Brave New World

[Elias Alias]

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

[Joe Kelley]

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.

[Elias Alias]

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

[Joe Kelley]

“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?

[Elias Alias]

“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.

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

Common sense as exercised in self-defense.

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.
 

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".

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

"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.

“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)?

“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.

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

[Joe Kelley]

"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."

[Joe Kelley]

OK, well no news from my character assassin, so I will move on in the intended direction.

“...this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die....”

Recap:
The quote above is yet another of those very odd messages from one of the so-called “Founders” of both Americas. The name of that so-called “Founder” of both Americas is Thomas Jefferson. The odd quote has to do with Statue (statute) building.

A working definition of a Statue:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Well, that doesn’t agree with the modern version of so-called “Illegal Alien,” does it?

Tear that one down?

Thumbs up
Thumbs down

Who decides any fact at issue according to the law of the land?

Back to Jefferson (off-topic to some, perhaps less so to others):

A fact about Institutionalized Slavery before 1789 is such that only the British demanded Extortion Payments (taxation without representation) so as to keep their Slave Trade in the Economic Black; rather than the Economic Red. You know: “If we can make the slaves pay for their chains, we are back in business.”

It was not just men enslaved. It was generations of babies unborn, babies allowed to be born, babies before the age of 7, and then people of all configurations after the age of 7 who were, by a Legal Fiction, enslaved by their Human Traffickers, and their creditors, investors, apologists, and sycophants.

So, please know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly who you are choosing by your will power (what remains of it) to share that one bed.

[Elias Alias]

....
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.

Joe, I don't even have time to write my own responses, so I'm certainly not going to write yours for you. We're all big boys and girls here, and everyone here expects others to keep on topic as much as possible, and, if by chance one wanders off topic, we expect that one to correct himself as quickly as possible. The topic of this thread is in regard to some people wanting to tear down statues which reflect our actual history.

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.

The topic is the movement in America at present time to remove statues, most notably any statues of Confederate army heroes cherished by some in our southern States. It is not about the metaphysical infrastructures of interfacing psychological predispositions in perception at a subjective level, nor is it about imagianic fantasies of the mind's unloosed powers of, and tendencies toward, tangential, obscure, and/or oblique mental associations. 

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.

Yes indeed, and there are reasons why no statues of Donald Trump have been erected on the Moon. It is so kind of you to point out that historical British governmental figures are not celebrated in State parks across America, even if alluding to that fact does not have a damn thing to do with the topic of this thread.

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."

Wow. I must be going blind. I've just looked at the Declaration of Independence and am having trouble finding your exact quotation. Here is a copy. Please read it and note for me in which part of the Declaration of Independence I should expect to find the passage you've just furnished. Thank you.
https://thementalmilitia.net/2015/08/01/declaration-of-independence/

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.

Well, fortunately, you're beginning to get my drift. Your fate is more in your own hands than in mine, but I am your host here and it's generally a good idea not to deliberately waste one's host's time with irrelevant mental masturbation, once one's host makes it known that such goings-on are a violation of extended trust. Some just call it displaying "good manners", or displaying one's respect for one's host. It may also be seen as being sensitive to one's fellow man. Does my request that you stay focused on the topic of this thread strike you as being tyrannical?

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."

Here is a clue for you. The structure could go something like this --
1: Movement in America to remove statues of Confederate figures of note, or battles won.
2: Confederate heroes are associated by those in movement to get rid of statues of Confederate heroes as "pro-slavery"
3: While understanding that some views on slavery are associated with Confederate heroes of the Civil War, and that the brunt of the statue-removal drive is being pushed by folks who are willing to deny actual history in the mis-guided or mis-applied effort to condemn slavery, sensible individuals may understand from a higher perspective that to learn from our past mistakes we should always preserve the edifices which remind us of our past.
4: Slavery is but a side issue, and is not the direct topic of this thread. If I want to discuss slavery I should consider starting a thread using slavery as the topic.

See?

[Joe Kelley]

"Does my request that you stay focused on the topic of this thread strike you as being tyrannical?"

Counterfeit good manners are the opposite of good manners. If someone thinks that someone else is off-topic, an idea is to ask the one that is presumed to be off-topic for a clue, or two, as to what connections are possible between the suspected off-topic information and the topic. Tyrants have a routine that goes like this:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Example 1a:
A Declaration of the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

"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."

Those are not the words of the off-topic Pike. Those are the words of a Slave Owner with a documented 7 Statues. That is also one of the Slave Owners - unlike George Washington - who tended to treat slaves as employees, or as actual people, who freely wandered onto his land, or was at least invited in at a price, or a cost charged to the invitee. Those words are the words of a Slave Owner who had a documented history of working to free the slaves: do as I say, not as I do.

Example 1b:
Elliot’s Debates: Volume 1
Gradual Approaches Towards Independence
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10, the following proceedings, on the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, are disclosed:
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

"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."

"We're all big boys and girls here,..."

My character assassin suggests that I am a child. Is that childish?

"The topic of this thread is in regard to some people wanting to tear down statues which reflect our actual history."

“I brought up the Pike statue piece because I wanted to add a twist to the theme of this thread.”

Another routine that can clue people in as to who is or who is not a tyrant is the routine where the tyrant strictly enforces the do as I say, not as a do rule. Call it setting the stage, or displaying behavior worthy of emulation: counterfeit.

“Wow. I must be going blind.”

That is why it may be a good idea to ask for clarification before going right into attack dog mode.  The blind can finally see! Free at last!

I’m all for Statues of famous criminals like Jefferson, or Pike, or George the Third, or even psychopaths like George Washington, or Charles Manson, in Public Places, so long as I am not enslaved so as to pay for them. Those who wander into Public Places, such as Public Forums, can be exposed to all those dynamic actions that routinely occur in Public Places, anyone can wander in unattended, to view Statutes, or learn the history of the people represented by the Statutes, or do the pigeon thing on the Statute, you know: defecation, not deification. 

Here in the Mojave Desert, for example, the whole State of New Jersey could be hidden away where no one would ever wander into it. No one has claimed vast portions of this Public Place called the Mojave Desert as their exclusive domain in which anyone happening to wander into it - or invited into it - will have their character ruthlessly attacked by the owner, for the crime of speaking the truth. It just doesn't happen, and a wanderer could wander for years without ever being accosted by some pretentious owner. Yet, someone claiming to own it could conceivably erect a thousand Statutes, and the only ones defecating on them would be what: lizards?

“Yes indeed, and there are reasons why no statues of Donald Trump have been erected on the Moon.”

That political hit is called hyperbole, and it is inserted in place as part of a Man-of-Straw attack on my character; which is done to avoid the actual information offered on this very topic. The only one mentioning Donald Trump is the political hit-man, the pretentious owner of the Public Place, yet the inference is that I am the dummy who goes off-topic with absurd claims that suggest putting Statues on the Moon. That Man-of-Straw, that is supposed to have my name, is an easy imbecile to tear apart with words, once that Man-of-Straw - with my name on it - is constructed out of straw-like thin air; like the purchasing power earned at the “Federal Reserve.” Talk about tyrants!
 
But that is enough of the off-topic truth-telling, accurately accounting for the aggressor, and his intended target.

A possible on-topic question to ask, and have answered, is: who cares about Statues in Public Places? I don’t, and I certainly would not spend my limited resources on building them up or tearing them down, while statutes, on the other hand, could be useful suggestions offered by reasonable people to other reasonable people, so long as that which is suggested for the goose is also good for the gander. If the goose claims ownership of public places, by hook or by crook, then anything goes as often is demonstrated in fact.

How about a Statue of Barry Soetoro, or the famous one who said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

I trust that I will be clued in.

[mouse]

"“France used to colonize us, but today we colonize them.”  Yep, that's about it.

https://summit.news/2019/07/25/video-algerians-tear-down-statue-of-general-de-gaulle-in-france/

Onlookers cheer as statue of France’s legendary WW2 leader is removed from plinth.

A video out of Evreux, France shows Algerian migrants tearing down a statue of General Charles de Gaulle while cheering vociferously.
The statue is wrapped in Algerian flags as fireworks fly by and the sound of motobike engines being revved can be heard.

snip