Thu. Jul 25th, 2024


Credit Denise Sanders/The Baltimore Sun, via Associated Press

Recent news involving Al Sharpton criticizing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Museum, and the arrest of Antifa protester Takiyah Thompson who helped topple a Confederate statue, has many liberals applauding and many conservatives decrying the death of American Patriotism. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Is it repairing injustice or perpetuating the hate?

The Left’s Argument: Glorification of the Immoral

The left’s argument is that to bring public glory to Confederate, Nazi or Colonial figures of history, who were decidedly immoral in conscience, is our right as a progressive society. The first amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression doesn’t apply to public statues, which supposedly reflect the modern public’s appreciation of the American heritage of old. We keep their statues because, in theory, we agree with these depictions of heroism. We feel they represent us as a state, as a federal republic, and as Americans.

First amendment rights do not protect the right of public exhibition—rather, the right to privately exercise free speech and pay honor to any historical figure of choice behind closed doors or in a gathering of peers, with land owners that reflect the views of the party.

Not surprisingly, Nazis and other white supremacists are finding it difficult to book public venues because their ideology is offensive to most Americans. Corporations that own these venues usually don’t court public controversy for any reason, and so citing first amendment rights does not apply in this case.

If Antifa’s concluding solution to dissenters of the left is ever to invade the private properties of white supremacists, they would be exhibiting behavior like the Nazi Gestapo—the very evil they claim to fight against. However, the demonstrations have not reached that point yet. Thus far the argument is that “we” don’t want symbols of segregation or slavery in the public eye.

The Right’s Argument: Cultural Marxism

The right’s argument is that removing these figures is un-American, treasonous and seditious—especially since Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Robert E. Lee, are all important figures in American history and they’re all at threat of being torn down. Yes, many historical figures were slave owners and were, in the case of people like Harry Truman and FDR, full blown unlikable racists who spoke disparagingly of blacks and other non-whites.

Should this necessitate removal from a public square because it is little more than an offensive exhibition, as is burning the flag, or burning copies of the Quran?

The reason why such violent demonstrators are being called “communists” is not simply as a name dropping slur. Conservatives are referring to a pattern in history called Cultural Marxism.

The very definition of Cultural Marxism is the belief that all modern human behavior stems from the culture society allows—and that all culture is malleable, and easy to shape if only society takes a firm hand in censoring thoughts and statements contrary to public decency.

Cultural Marxism has a historical pattern of “modern societies” destroying icons and imagery of the past, particularly in destroying public statues, or even in destroying the legacy of historical, fictional or religious figures—a need for modern society to reject the old doctrines and old way of life in favor of a new and greater morality.

Some have gone so far to say that Cultural Marxism is the intentional destruction of all “holy things” an old society has accomplished, from legacies to traditional schools of thought, to even the gradual molding of individual preferences towards a State model worthy of following.

The Historical Perspective of Destroying Statues

Subversify and other third party progressives take an unemotional approach to the argument, and one based on a largely historical perspective. We know for example:

1. The dead are conscious of nothing. It doesn’t hurt Andrew Jackson’s feelings that he’s not on the $20 bill. It doesn’t concern Jefferson or Washington in the least, that people 200 years removed find their lifestyles offensive. This is merely the progression of modern society—and old society will never be in sync with the modern world because it hasn’t progressed to our state of civilized behavior, our compassion and humanity, learned by experience, a gradual process that takes literally hundreds of years.

2. It is common behavior among all revolutionaries to destroy the statues, legacies and icons of old figures that no longer serve a political purpose. This is nothing new—liberal radicals in Russia did the same on the early 20th century, as did revolutionaries in the French Revolution, and all the way down to ISIS in modern times. These people would not be revolutionaries if they “fought with honor” and tried to be nice to all those wonderful dead people.

3. In an ideal world, there would be no monuments to war heroes because nobody would ever see the value of resorting to war. The pacifist argument is that we should never think of a man who has resorted to war, resorted to murdering other people for his political purposes, as anyone deserving of special honor. He did what had to be done, according to his perspective, not what he was proud of doing.

One may argue that violence is a necessary evil, such as protecting against home invaders, serial killers and gang warfare. That may be so, but at no point has anyone erected a monument saluting Bob for shooting his next door neighbor after a break-in attempt.

Wars, at the very best, are failures of human communication. Horrific “final solutions” that leaders take because they have run out of all other reasonable options. The aim of any so-called humanist should be to promote peace, find other options to violence, and negotiate a compromise so that we can all live one more day without gunning each other down in cold blood.

There may be no real advantage to removing statues, besides appeasing an angry mob—especially since the news media is what actually riles people up to commit violence in the first place. People only know how to respond to any situation after hearing a news narrative that demonstrates a “call to action” that makes sense.

We the Subversives, in opposition to the 1% and the oppression of the poor, will not violently intervene to oppose the removal of statues consecrating dead men and their dead wars. We can only imagine that Jefferson himself, and Washington himself, would be far less concerned with their legacies and far more concerned with the survival of the United States of America—especially as it faces its greatest divisionary war yet.

Instead, we will only remind the radicals of society that if you’re going to censure war criminals and morally repugnant men and women of yesterday, don’t forget to do the same to men and women today who are equally flawed.

Destroy the legacies of men who invaded other countries and killed civilians for profit and political advantage. Stop paying homage to public figures who align themselves with political parties that are morally reprehensible, whether because of election corruption, or because their own history is steeped in racism, slavery advocacy, white supremacy and resisting a progressive society.

Subversify remains adamantly opposed to both Republican and Democratic parties and any other ideology that promotes hate and an oligarchian society.

By Late Mitchell Warren

Author, "The End of the Magical Kingdom”, a Parody, Satire & Psychological Horror book series.

Related Post

One thought on “Tearing Down Monuments of War – Is Destroying the Legacy of American Heroes Right or Wrong?”
  1. This article is totally bias toward the left view that America has only a cultural legacy of immoral and political corruption. It fails t give balance to the real meaning behind America’s cultural heritage. Why we are who we are goes beyond politics, war and forced domination over others. The real roots of America is in our Judeo-Christian heritage and beliefs. The founders are not honored in statues and monuments because they wonwars or were the dominant political force of their time. These men are a part of the legacy of Americas belief on Jehovah God, the One True God. They were inspired by God to create this nation, and to throw off the old legacy system of Kings as as their ruler. They truly rebelled against the thought of one man or one political power ruling over them. They rejected the notion that the King owned them and their land. They were intent and inspired by God to create a governing document that reflected and paralleled the main document that guided their daily lives: The Bible.
    All of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Chriatians or Jews who read the Bible and believed in the uncontested validity of the WORD. Anyone who looks at the Constitution can draw a parallel to many passages of the Bible. The concept of individual freedom and equality is the presiding theme of the Constitution, just as it in the Holy Scriptures. The foundation of the very laws our founders created is based on the Ten Commandments. It is why we see those commandments etched in stone in Monuments and court houses throughout America. We honor these men for these principles upon which they created the Declaration of Independence. the Constitution, and the Legal system of America. This is a system unique to America, and there is nothing like it anywhere in the world.
    No man is perfect. The only perfect man who ever walked the earth is Jesus. Thus, it is easy to find fault with the men who founded America. In the 1700’s there were many practices that have since been corrected in our society and way of doing things. The main objection to dishonoring the men who gave us our current freedoms by creating America with God’s inspiration is that some participated in the practice of having workers which we call slaves today. In the 1700’s and for thousands of years prior, it was common practice to pay for others to work for you. This practice was not exclusively preserved for people of color. Many of the early settlers came to America as Indentured Servants. These were ordinary people from England, France, the Netherlands, Ireland and other countries on the Continent. For centuries it had been normal practice in African nations to take people captive during Tribal wars. These ‘defeated tribes’ then became the property of the victor and were totally subjugated to the victors. In order to pay for the cost of the tribal war, some of those captured were sold to others. In the normal thinking of people in the 1700’s there was not much of a difference between an Indentured Servant and a Tribal worker. Both were seen as a means of production. Both came at a price, and both were expected to work for their keep. In return they received housing, food and protection from personal harm.
    I want to impress upon the reader that this was not a moral practice. However, it was a common practice. The irony is that in the end it was the Constitution and the American Justice system that reversed these early practices of Indentured Servitude and Slavery. In one case the Indentured Servant ‘volunteered’ for service. They understood their master paid for their voyage to America, and paid for all of their needs while they worked for that master. They were not much different than modern day workers who come here on EB-2, EB-3, Eb-2 or L-1 visas, except current “guest workers” are not usually housed, fed and clothed by the employer.
    As to the people who were designated s slaves, they did not come as volunteers but as vanquished tribes who were defeated by other tribes. The Dutch and the Berbers and the muslims were the market place for these people, and as is the practice throughout most Muslim countries today they were “sold into life long servitude” to merchants who would market them to others for profit. Most nations did away with this practice in the 1800’s. Mostly the practice in a world that was turning toward industrialization found that it was too costly to house, feed and clothe someone to work for you as farm hand. It was less expensive to hire someone to work for you for the day. You eliminated lots of overhead, and in return you got a willing worker who needed less supervision. However, you then needed Capitalization to make this work, but that’s another whole topic we sill not get into here.
    So the real question here is should the Leaders and Visionaries who created this nation with a unique Constitution and Laws based on Biblical Principles be honored or scorned?
    A reasonable person who is liberal enough to take into consideration the factual situation that existed at the time of Americas Formative years should focus more on the Constitution’s long term effect in correcting the human condition as it existed in 1770 during our Revolution. People who claim to be liberal in their thinking may want to look at Jefferson and Washington more as the founders who’s long term efforts brought about the abolition of slavery by creating a founding document that Stated every man has “Inalienable rights” that is rights given to us by God. Every man is equal under the Law, meaning that even if we are not equal in strength, in intellect or financially when we come before our justice system we are just as equal as a stronger, smarter or wealthier person. That is the true intent of the people who founded America. It is that Intent and the effort and sacrifice these men made to create this nation that we honor with these statues, plaques, and portraits.
    Removing them or defacing or tearing them down says that their efforts to create Freedom, Liberty and equal justice under the law was all in vain. If we cannot honor the men who created the very system that protects us, we will soon lose that system and fall back into a greater chaos or be fooled into going back to a system where we are under te control of a One World Government where the individual has no rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.