We are on the cusp of an important change that comes on the heels of the lib-left's successful removal of a historical monument in New Orleans dedicated to General Robert E. Lee.
For those who slept through history class, Lee fought for the Southern states in the U.S. Civil War. Because the Southern states endorsed slavery, the lib-left has concluded that the monument to Lee is a divisive symbol and must go. New Orleans conceded. Now memorials to one-time residents Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard, two other war-time leaders of the South, are also scheduled to be removed by the city.
Encouraged by its power and success, the lib-left is trying to eliminate more memorials, including one in Missouri and another in Texas. But here's the thing: the memorial in Texas does not commemorate Lee, Davis or Beauregard or anybody who supported the Southern states in the U.S. Civil War. It was erected in honor of Sam Houston, the governor of Texas from 1859 to 1861. The lib-left is merely angry about the fact that Houston owned slaves. Thus, the lib-left's campaign to remove the Houston memorial marks a new turn in the battle to control the literal socio-political landscape.
There are two major reasons why this turn is important. First, in the case against Houston, we are talking about erasing the legacy of a man who
not only has a statue, but has a modern city named after him - Houston, Texas. What we are talking about here, therefore, is potentially a whole new battle over what must be changed, while the public has to decide how they feel about it. What good is removing a statue of a man to erase his legacy if his name is still associated with the city?
Second - and perhaps more importantly - if the slaveowning aspect of Houston warrants his statue's removal from the public sphere, the same argument can be made for taking down or renaming the major landmarks in Washington that were built for Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who both owned slaves as well.
Of course, a lot of Americans would be offended if the lib-left began lobbying to change the names of cities or bulldoze the landscape of Washington D.C. - and will not take this new threat seriously. But the social climate actually favors such change; increasingly, the mythos surrounding the Founding Fathers is forgotten and these former national heroes are treated like dead white men (1, 2, 3) and slavers (1, 2). In view of this changing understanding, the mainstream media has already raised the question as to whether, for example, the Jefferson Memorial should be removed.
If you still are not taking this threat seriously, let me point you in the direction of understanding how the men who led the Southern states in the U.S. Civil War were once seen, and how these men are seen now. At present, their faces and names are being eliminated from the public sphere. But, earlier in history, the country revered everything attached to the South, including the bravery of the Southern men, which is why an American-manufactered tank was named after Lee. It is also why films like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind were such hits, and events like this took place:
Times change.
The thing is, change usually comes slow enough that people do not feel threatened; even fewer have the foresight to see where things are headed - a foresight that, making one feel uncomfortable, could stir anger. Accelerate the process of change, however, and it is a whole different story. People begin to feel that a carpet has been pulled out from under them and become awake and aware of where things are heading, as well as the consequences - all the while understanding perfectly clear how things used to be, having lived through that time. For the same reason, it has been theorized that the 2015 migrant crisis woke Europe up, because it put into effect the changes that the globalists wanted to work towards and did so much faster than the public was ready for, especially once all the things the "conspiracy theorists" had been warning would happen happened immediately. Similarly, 'pushing too far too fast' may be one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, as this article and others have suggested.
If none of this were true, then pushing movements "too far" - in terms of the extremity of what they are calling for - would not be a sound political strategy of subversion. But it is, and this political weapon has been used historically to push opposition parties to a point where their conception is both isolating and polarizing, frightening people away. The effort to automatically attack those who oppose mass immigration and cultural replacement as "Nazis" comes from the same playbook.
Based on the above points, a case can be made to not only encourage the complete removal of "everything Houston", but to actually accelerate the attack on "everything Houston" and make it a major rallying point for those who belong to major lib-left organizations. As stated by Andrew Anglin:
This is why we need to start meming the Houston thing ASAP; with a push to take this city off the map, all the local Houston sportsball fans are going to get pretty annoyed, and so are the normal people watching this unfold. But as long as the logic for the push remains consistent from the lib-left's end, the lib-left is going to be there, from its pulpit in the mainstream, pushing full steam ahead for the cause we have turned it onto. This gives us a chance to rise up as the stable and sane defenders of normalcy, who warned that this is where things were headed all along. And the funny thing is this: all we are doing is employing the same strategy that has, for years, been used against us.
For those who slept through history class, Lee fought for the Southern states in the U.S. Civil War. Because the Southern states endorsed slavery, the lib-left has concluded that the monument to Lee is a divisive symbol and must go. New Orleans conceded. Now memorials to one-time residents Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard, two other war-time leaders of the South, are also scheduled to be removed by the city.
Encouraged by its power and success, the lib-left is trying to eliminate more memorials, including one in Missouri and another in Texas. But here's the thing: the memorial in Texas does not commemorate Lee, Davis or Beauregard or anybody who supported the Southern states in the U.S. Civil War. It was erected in honor of Sam Houston, the governor of Texas from 1859 to 1861. The lib-left is merely angry about the fact that Houston owned slaves. Thus, the lib-left's campaign to remove the Houston memorial marks a new turn in the battle to control the literal socio-political landscape.
 |
| Post from campaign for the removal of the Sam Houston statue. |
Second - and perhaps more importantly - if the slaveowning aspect of Houston warrants his statue's removal from the public sphere, the same argument can be made for taking down or renaming the major landmarks in Washington that were built for Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who both owned slaves as well.
Of course, a lot of Americans would be offended if the lib-left began lobbying to change the names of cities or bulldoze the landscape of Washington D.C. - and will not take this new threat seriously. But the social climate actually favors such change; increasingly, the mythos surrounding the Founding Fathers is forgotten and these former national heroes are treated like dead white men (1, 2, 3) and slavers (1, 2). In view of this changing understanding, the mainstream media has already raised the question as to whether, for example, the Jefferson Memorial should be removed.
If you still are not taking this threat seriously, let me point you in the direction of understanding how the men who led the Southern states in the U.S. Civil War were once seen, and how these men are seen now. At present, their faces and names are being eliminated from the public sphere. But, earlier in history, the country revered everything attached to the South, including the bravery of the Southern men, which is why an American-manufactered tank was named after Lee. It is also why films like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind were such hits, and events like this took place:
Times change.
The thing is, change usually comes slow enough that people do not feel threatened; even fewer have the foresight to see where things are headed - a foresight that, making one feel uncomfortable, could stir anger. Accelerate the process of change, however, and it is a whole different story. People begin to feel that a carpet has been pulled out from under them and become awake and aware of where things are heading, as well as the consequences - all the while understanding perfectly clear how things used to be, having lived through that time. For the same reason, it has been theorized that the 2015 migrant crisis woke Europe up, because it put into effect the changes that the globalists wanted to work towards and did so much faster than the public was ready for, especially once all the things the "conspiracy theorists" had been warning would happen happened immediately. Similarly, 'pushing too far too fast' may be one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, as this article and others have suggested.
If none of this were true, then pushing movements "too far" - in terms of the extremity of what they are calling for - would not be a sound political strategy of subversion. But it is, and this political weapon has been used historically to push opposition parties to a point where their conception is both isolating and polarizing, frightening people away. The effort to automatically attack those who oppose mass immigration and cultural replacement as "Nazis" comes from the same playbook.
Based on the above points, a case can be made to not only encourage the complete removal of "everything Houston", but to actually accelerate the attack on "everything Houston" and make it a major rallying point for those who belong to major lib-left organizations. As stated by Andrew Anglin:
"Now that these people are moving on non-Confederates, planning to take down the statues of anyone who owned slaves – I think we should let it ride. Because if they take down the statue of the man Houston was named after, the immediate next step is going to be calling for the name of the city to be changed.Exactly. No more of this losing game called let's-tug-back-just-a-little-harder-because-things-were-better-the-day-before-yesterday. That approach has never won anything. It is time to think outside the box, change tactics and get the left screaming bloody murder to get Houston taken off the map, because the weirder this gets, and the faster it gets there, the more you are going to see the public less and less willing to just watch it all happen. Eventually, they will finally say "enough is enough!"
I think that if these people literally start changing the names of major cities, then we’re going to see some people really waking up to just exactly what is going on here. [...]
I think we need to pose as both blacks and Antifa online, and start a movement to demand the city of Houston change its name because Sam Houston owned slaves. This could effectively be one of the biggest trolls in all of history [...].
Probably, they are going to get the statue of Sam Houston taken down within a year – they might get it done this summer. And if people even hear that they are pushing to change the name of Houston – AND THE MEDIA WILL SUPPORT THIS – that is going to be millions of people who say "okay, enough is enough." [...]
This is going to be very easy, because they already want to do this. All we are doing is giving a helping hand. So get those fake black twitter accounts activated. And get ready to meme this. Hard."
This is why we need to start meming the Houston thing ASAP; with a push to take this city off the map, all the local Houston sportsball fans are going to get pretty annoyed, and so are the normal people watching this unfold. But as long as the logic for the push remains consistent from the lib-left's end, the lib-left is going to be there, from its pulpit in the mainstream, pushing full steam ahead for the cause we have turned it onto. This gives us a chance to rise up as the stable and sane defenders of normalcy, who warned that this is where things were headed all along. And the funny thing is this: all we are doing is employing the same strategy that has, for years, been used against us.
