This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Iconic Dukes of Hazzard Car 'General Lee' Stripped Of Confederate Flag: "This Is A New Level Of P.C. Idiocy"
Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,
They’ve been pushing for it for over 150 years and this year the politically correct anti-Confederate flag movement may have finally achieved its ultimate goal. Following a racially driven shooting spree that left nine people dead at a church in Charleston, the governor of South Carolina is pushing legislation to have the flag removed at any government buildings where it currently flies. In Alabama, the governor has ordered Confederate flag “paraphernalia” removed from the Confederate Memorial Monument.
Major retailers like Amazon, Ebay, and Walmart immediately jumped on board and have now removed confederate flags from their listings. Paul Joseph Watson highlights the sheer ridiculousness of the move, noting that while Amazon has removed memorabilia featuring the flag of the Confederacy, they continue to allow the sale of items featuring Nazi emblems and Swastikas.
But the idiocy, based on absolutely no logical reasoning except that this is the perfect crisis to not let go to waste, doesn’t stop there.
Warner Bros. has announced that it has halted production of toys and replicas of the iconic Dukes of Hazzard sports car known as the General Lee.
Dukes of Hazzard, a staple TV show of the early 1980’s, featured what may possibly be the most popular and most recognizable car in American history.
As of today, that car will no longer feature the confederate flag on its roof.
The Confederate flag may or may not be removed from government buildings in South Carolina, but the relic is definitely being removed from at least one southern icon. Warner Bros. today announced that it was halting production of toys and replicas of the General Lee, the car from the Dukes of Hazzard, which famously bore the flag on its roof.
...
As recently as 2012 Warner Bros. quashed rumors that it was planning to remove the Confederate flag from toy versions of the General Lee. “We were not and are not planning to change design of the General Lee on merchandise,” the company said at the time, after a Tomy sales representative reportedly indicated production would cease in 2013.
Ben Jones, who played good ‘ol boy Cooter on the show and had a crush on leading lady Daisy Duke, responded to the removal of the flag, echoing the general sentiment of many Americans who find the move by major retailers and political leaders to be overkill:
Some unnamed genius at the company feels that the flag is ‘offensive to some’ and therefore it has no business on a classic TV comedy about a bunch of good ol’ boys and girls in the Southern mountains
This is a new level of ‘P.C.’ idiocy. I don’t know about you, but I am tired of being insulted by morons.
Cooter (far right) poses with Bo Duke, Luke Duke and The General Lee
We’re sure that the next crisis will lead to the complete removal of any references to the South’s involvement in the Civil War, including the removal of the very name of the vehicle, The General Lee, named after the man who led the South’s armies against the north.
No proposed names have yet been put forth, but some politically correct replacements may include:
- The General Grant
- The General Sharpton
- The General Obama
- and, since the iconic car may now openly identify as being more feminine than masculine, The General Pelosi has kind of a ring to it.
Listen to The General Lee’s racially divisive Dixie Horn before it gets removed from the internet forever:
»
- 85662 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"I fucked a marxist girl in a ballerina outfit, because her roomate wouldnt"
Joke's on you pal, I knew about the gonorrhea!
As a thought experiment, perhaps someone should proclaim all taxes, usury and fees as Racist and Offensive, and see how far down the rabbit that goes.
all this subliminal steering, and especially the low friction on its path, makes me puke!
is everyone eating toothpaste? fo foksayk!
Jus can't hep mysef. Evry time I sees a negro I thinks of slavery an dat's bad.
I figger we shud ban tha n---er.
Cut off dem welfiar cheks. That'll fix 'em.
Ye ha!
Most of those welfare checks are going to good people, hard working folks who very much appreciate society's support of their circumstances at birth.
It makes perfect sense that the lovers of gubmint and central authority-top down control of the US nanny state would want to molest, desecrate and excise (like a cancer) the greatest symbol of freedom, independence and rebellion that the US has ever had: the Confederate Flag. Makes perfect sense. The nanny staters abhor freedom, and thus must kill off that flag.
Every time they see that flag they see a brand of American who cannot be controlled, and are so miniscule that they think that removal of southerner's flag can substitute for subjugating them.
As a deep south southernor with that flag in my dna, you can destroy Lee's flag, but you cannot excise the fiery independence, love of freedom and hatred of central authority from the southerner any more than you can excise our twang.
That flag represents rebellion, and you goddamn right we true southerner's will never be subjugated. It's too damn bad our politician's fail to comprehend what the libtard's true motives are.
What must drive the libtard's mad is the fact that true southerner's love their black friends, co-workers and neighbors like family, always have and always will. We have co-mingled all of our lives and share a love that no libtard could ever comprehend without living it.
Remember, southerners mostly just want to be left alone to (as said by Margaret Mitchell) "raise good cotton, ride well, shoot straight, dance lightly, squire the ladies with elegance, and carry one's liquor like a gentleman."
The Confederate flag symbolizes that sort of life, and its clear that attitude cannot co-exist with the libtards dream of total control. It must be destroyed.
Sorry to get serious here.
The book, American Nations by Colin Woodard demarcates the boundaries fairly well (greater Appalachian here). We've never been one nation in any sense other than a national boundary.
I say let us dissolve these bonds that keep us ensnared in pervasive tyranny. We are better off alone.
Perhaps we can get the Yankees to agree to "kick out the southern states" since our history offends their delicate sensibilities.
It's a bit repulsive you refer to the flag as "the greatest symbol of freedom...the US has ever had... ." That flag belonged to free men of the Confederate States of America, a separate, sovereign, independent nation, formed by men pursuant to their human right to choose the government under which they will live. It did not, and never will, belong to the United States of America.
The Flag *should* be offensive to US employees, actually all government employees at any level, as it is a bold reminder that when men so will it, free men will stand up to evil.
The Confederate Flag will always stand for the opposite of the US flag; it is a flag of rebellion against tyranny versus a flag of tyranny.
Misreading the point
I got the "point" I take issue with your statement as quoted.
I have come to the end with the liberal thought police. Obama, the MSM and government liberal control scum are out of control. They are now no different than the political arms of defunct fascist or totalitarian states of the past 6000 years. They had better watch their backs. One misstep and I’m there…
Flag can they do something about Daisy Jorts on Men and "Baby Got Back" Sir Mix-a-lot crowd... now that is a real hate crime... and no psychotropics.
DIVERSITY = WAR ON WHITE PEOPLE.....
Whites are just tioo stupid to realize it.
Let's resurect the series and make Cooter and the Sheriff (maybe even Boss Hog) "colored".
Skip all that, just let us have those old Amos and Andy reruns back.
Divided, we will Fall.
Novorossiyia was an unrecognised confederation of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, claiming the territory of the respective Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/War_Flag_of_No...
spot similarities with confederate flag
That flag would be a great symbol for a Russian language version of the Dukes of Hazard. The Dukes of Donetsk?
Break the crossess off war memorials and take down the battle flag of the Confederacy... so we can have South Africa once and for all.
Lets make one of them boys Black, and the old man could have a negress neighbor. If Daisy got an operation, the flag on the roof could be one of those with the multicolered narrow stripes.
Obama can play Cooter.
Oh snap! One black, the other Hispanic. Roscoe would be Asian with a Shitzuh co-pilot. Daisy would have coke bottle glasses and drive a rainbow decorated Subaru, wearing an earth frock that covered a body similar to that of a young boy. These "Duke Boys" would crash breeder weddings and campain for "=" in banana hammocks. Uncle Jesse wouldn't exist, because old white dudes full of wisdom aren't allowed anymore. You might have Uncle Jenner instead, a crazy-cross dressing wack job that everyone ignores. Show gets cancelled after one episode.
Zombies on SSRI meds don't kill people. Historical flags kill people.
has it been revealed yet that he was under the care of an air force psych-o-kyratist?
I am always amazed…There has only been one central issue in mankind’s history. And that is will you submit to the yoke of big government control around your neck in your country or live
in a country free from the despotism, privileged orders, monopolies, intolerable taxes, and constraints in matters of belief and conscience.
My parents believed in the latter or “American Dream”. I was taught be hard working self-reliant independent and stick to my beliefs. It was not about getting “rich” but enjoying a better life only if I would apply myself. But, today I see too many people slip the yoke of government oppression around their necks as they set themselves into government slavery.
The liberal voices shout their intolerable decrees these days. They can do it because too many squirm in the yoke. The direct opposite of what the founders of America envisioned….
You have not read the constitution or studied its history and the compromises that were made to create our system of federalism. If you had you studied it you would not make such statements. (Or, if you have you have studied it you are being purposefully obtuse.) The argument you are making was lost more than 2 centuries ago when the Articles of Confederation were replaced. We have always lived in a system which tries to protect the rights of individuals but also protect minorites. That's the essence of the system and everything else flows from that dynamic. The Constitution, as it has been interpreted and enforced, created a system of federalism which gives the final say to the government in Washington in that debate.
You are correct.
The states lost their sovereignty when the Articles were superseded by the constitution. The founders themselves claim the constitution was for a strong central government. The 10 amendments were added ONLY after some states refused to agree. The constitution was a bankers concept. Right after the ratification Washington and Hamilton started the first central bank,,, Washington admitting he figured it was unconstitutional but signed it anyway. Jackson finally corrected it. The marriage we see today between the bank and government was what some of the founders strived for. It just took longer than they thought it would.
It's amazing, medically and scientifically amazing, how tenaciously some people cling to hillbilly notions.
The desire to live in a free country is no hillbilly notion my friend.
Slavery would have ended soon enough due to the inefficiency of it all.
This isn't about political correctness. It is about doing the right thing.
The Confederacy wasn't wrong. The flag was never about slavery.
The South fought the Civil War to defend it's right to enslave another race of human beings. That flag is associated with that war and it is indefensible. Go ahead ... try.
You should take a little time and read the Articles of Seccesion of the various states that chose to leave the union. It may give.you a better understanding of the reasons the.war occurred
For some odd reason those are never read in government schools, the Emancipation Proclamation being idolized as the only significant document generated during the Northern Invasion.
And meanwhile its sole purpose of trying to incite the black slaves in the rebel states to take up arms and help the north is quietly swept under the rug. Today's children are not apprised that it only applied to slaves in the South, that Northern generals like Sherman continued to own slaves until the end of the war while rampaging around killing poor southern boys for being wicked enough to own slaves, or that slavery was not ended in the North until the end of the war because of a fear that it would turn some Northern citizens against the primary war effort, which was to keep the territorial intregity of America intact and under control by the Federal government. It's pathetic that there is so little awareness of the coup that ended our Republic or that it is so easy to confuse the general population into cheering the destruction of their own freedom.
Another irony of the Civil War is that it was the first mechanized war, utilizing railways, steamships, the telegraph, and the forerunner of the machine gun.
Mechanization was the death knell of the slave system of production. Left alone, the big plantations would have mechanized on the basis of cost alone, thus eventually ending the institution of slavery without a shot being fired.
Which poses a question. Had the South recognized the eventuality of mechanization and elected to end slavery and replace it with a system of wage labor, would the war still have been fought?
Another question that puzzles me. Surely there were enough educated Southerners who could predict the futility of a largely agricultural society waging war against a heavily industrialized opponent? Eliminating slavery would have taken the wind out of Lincoln's sails while improving the chance of becoming industrialized through trade with Britain and other industrialized nations. Why did they not see this?
Because they believed in the anachronistic ideology of honor. They were foolish enough to believe that those fighting the good fight against oppression would win because the purity of their hearts would give them the strength of lions. They didn't see what they were doing to the blacks as being oppressive, which is why the double negative nature of their fight didn't cause them to pause and reflect. People today don't understand the south -- which is a shame, because the best part of America died with their defeat.
Nope. Nice try though. The South fought the war to be free to make their own choices and choose their own fates as independent states -- unfortunately, they did choose to base their stand on their right to oppress others, which is a double negative that negated the honor due to what would otherwise be a principled stand which should be celebrated. But -- the right to make your own decisions and the right to oppress others are two different concepts, which Lincoln understood completely, and believed that denying the south the right to make their own decisions was more important than denying their right to oppress others, and he was dead set against allowing them to walk away from the relationship. But hey, let's just let Lincoln himself set the record straight, ok?
August 22, 1862. Lincoln's response to Horace Greeley's accusation that he was not being aggressive enough in taking advantage of the civil war to outlaw slavery in the north -- which wasn't outlawed from a Federal perspective until after the war, just so you know:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I donot believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
So, there you have it, from the leader of the North himself. The Civil War was not about slavery -- it was about the union between the states, and whether that union remained voluntary or not. Which means that it actually was about empire.
Prior to the Civil War, the balance of power hung between the people, who were represented in the House, the Sovereign and independent states, who had won their individual and independent freedom in the War of the Revolution and who were represented in the Senate, and the Federal government represented by the Executive branch -- the Judicial branch were simply housekeepers given no real power, Judicial review was a power they seized that is never mentioned or described in the Constitution and was never envisioned as part of the balance of power as designed by those who put together the complex set of gears we call our Constitution.
The Civil War represented the destruction of the balance of power, with the winner of the power struggle being the Federal government -- some states wanted to walk away, and the Federal government would not let them. Lincoln himself was confused, because although he used the word "union", common sense tells us that a voluntary union cannot be preserved at the point of the gun. So, what Lincoln meant by "union" was "The territorial integrity of the United States of America", and thus the Civil War marked the death of the American Republic and the birth of the American empire. Which is why the 14th amendment exists, with its new definition of citizens as being citizens of America rather than citizens of the states, and why today our public indoctrination centers try to tell our kids that the balance of power hangs between three different branches of the same entity, which is nonsense -- that's a balance of power about as much as an audit of your books by your own company accountant is an independent audit.
Want to know why the country is going down the tubes? Start there. And then look in the mirror, because ignorant fucktards like you with no concept of how freedom and independence work are the ones cheering as we dive straight into the ground. Good job. Two thumbs up for you buddy. So glad you can't tell the difference between freedom and tyranny, it makes it so much easier for those who love to oppress others to tighten their stranglehold on the people when people like you just smile and ask for more.
the Judicial branch were simply housekeepers given no real power, Judicial review was a power they seized that is never mentioned or described in the Constitution and was never envisioned as part of the balance of power as designed by those who put together the complex set of gears we call our Constitution.
The judiciary is about "interpreting the laws". All our federal laws and powers derive from the Constitution. None of our non-federal laws can violate the Constitution. Judicial review is simply interpretation of the preeminent set of rules ... the Constitution. It's just a shame that the Constitution is so poorly written, that a single co-opted phrase (the commerce clause) could allow the camel to take over the tent.
" Judicial review is simply interpretation of the preeminent set of rules" -- and that perception right there encapsulates part of the problem. Federal laws are not the "preeminent" rules any more than state rules are "preeminent." The Federal government was a tool designed to serve a specific purpose, which was to facilitate cooperative decision making between the states. That is the sole and only reason why it exists. Period.
As such, it would make no sense to have state rules that conflict with the job given to the Federal govenrment -- that just leads to confusion and complicates the role that the states all agreed to give to the Federal government. So of course Federal rules have precedence over state rules, but only in certain situations -- only when it comes to the specific tasks given to the Federal government. They are not "preeminent" in the sense of higher or more absolute or carrying greater weight or greater moral authority or greater legitimacy than state rules -- it's just that the states already agreed to delegate certain tasks to the Federal government, and if they want to continue to cooperate with the other states, then they need to continue to allow the agent they designated to handle the tasks they assigned to it. Of course, if they don't, then federal rules should not apply -- at least, not if you want to preserve your freedom. Eliminating the ability to walk away eliminates the last peaceful defense against tyranny.
It's much like an attorney or public relations firm -- it makes no sense to hire an attorney but then continue to try to manage your own case, or hire a PR firm but then continue to speak to the public. Pick a horse. It's not wrong to handle your own PR or handle your own case, but it makes no sense to designate someone and then undermine them.
But, somehow we have become confused, and the general public now has this sense that somehow the Federal government is a higher authority, and that has lead to its own perception of itself as more important than anything else, when in fact it is only an agent hired by the people to handle certain, specific, and limited tasks for them. It is not an authority. It was given agency, and that agency can and should be removed at will, whenever desired by those who gave it the job in the first place.
The way judicial review should have been handled that would have been congruent with the design of the Constitution was to send questions raised by cases back to the legislature for clarification. That is a much better solution than allowing a few people to "interpret" words in whatever way they wish, because all power then rests with the intepretation, which is the doorway to tyranny.
Interesting rant ... and swerves into many issues. But how does it dispute what I wrote ... and what "is" obviously true.
All our federal laws and powers derive from the Constitution. None of our non-federal laws can violate the Constitution.
I admit to writing poorly. I should have written "None of our laws" ... federal or otherwise ... can violate the Constitution.
And also remember, the constitution when adopted by the subscribing states "did not" contain the bill of rights. It did however contain the poorly written commerce clause, which is the republic's Achilles heel.
The first amendment limited congressional law making ... after the Constitution was adopted. Are there other instances? I think not, though some are proposing a 28th that says congress shall make no law that does not govern them as well as the populace.
We really need a totally different kind of republic that is naturally stable ... rather than the naturally unstable one we have.
Fair enough. In the next Constitution we need a few changes. I believe one of the most important ones would be an "out" clause, which could function like this -- each Constitutional amendment is in essence a new contract. New contract requires agreement of all parties to be binding. Just as happened with the Articles of Confederation, where some states essentially left behind a few other states and proceeded with the formation of a new government and Constitution regardless of whether all the states went along or not, any group of states are welcome to leave behind the old contract and form a new one, but they can't enforce the new contract on the states that haven't signed it.
Essentially, we need to take a longer term view of stability. Stability might actually involve shifting patterns of conglomerations of states, because the ability to walk away actually is a better conflict resolution strategy than forcing unanimity of solution by force of arms if necessary.
Of course, power functioning like it does, it would only be a matter of time until the new group of states decided to force the states that didn't want to participate to join, but at least this coercion would be overt and not swept under the rug as happened with the Civil War.
which is why there are fasces at the lincoln memorial.
Thank you. A clear and concise post.
The uncivil war was the end of the voluntary union of sovereign states and marks the beginning of the dictatorial out of control POS central government we enjoy today.
Today the states are mere boundaries of federal regional control not the sovereigns they were supposed to be. The central government finished them off by taking control of their constitutional militias and the illegal ratifying of the 17th which removed their participation in the national government.
The whole country reeks of rot. While we cheer the elimination politically incorrect flags and statues our central government aids, abets and funds Nazi's in Ukraine.
As bad as slavery was it never even came close to fascist Nazism.
It is my understanding that the CSA's had already agreed to stop the slave trade.
It was being phased out as the rich tycoons of the era figured out it was far more economical to just pay a meager wage and let the quasi slaves take care of them selves rather than tradidtional slavery where the Master was responsible for everything.
*Ref
Robert Carter.... A Virginia Planter... early to mid 1700's
History of Great American Fortunes.
"That flag is associated with that war and it is indefensible. Go ahead ... try."
The entire POINT of the United States of America (at least in theory, as you've demonstrated) is that we tolerate that which we hate...did you miss the memo or something?
And what about Christianity in the ME (The Crusades) ? Should the Catholic Church remove the cross from their flag ? How about the USA when forming, then the Philippinnes/ Vietnam, ME / Asia ? The Spanish Conquistadors ?
Cleopatra, Sparta, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, King George, Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Mao, Boko Haram, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Cameron, Obama,,, Hilliary ?
Maybe we should just destroy everything 1 year or older. Equilibrium anyone. What have you done for Father today. Have you taken your shot today ?
It appears many have....
If we are going to do 'the right thing', how about we eliminate 'political correctness'.
There has been more damage to and theft of our freedoms all under the guise of leftists 'the right thing'.
Go F' yourself micro-dick
When will the book burnings commence?
You believe abandoning our history is a good thing?
This.reminds.me of Soviet times, when a politician fell out of favor, the politbureau would order the pages of history books be removed and replaced with pages.written with stuff more palatable to the.regime.
I dont know about others, but I think your idea is un-American to the core.
Exactly, even if I don'tagree with your opinion, I support your right to express it.
I fly the CSA flag daily at my home in Canada.
The Dukes of Hazzard toys are being bid up on ebay.
Allen West re-printed a very good article by Michele Hickford. Clementa Pinckney, the pastor who was shot and killed in that church, voted as a South Carolina senator to retain the Confederate flag on state buildings. West did not think Clementa would be as offended by the flag, as much as the MSM and a few politicians are about it.
PC lunacy or purge. Time will tell.
Don't know how many ZHers have toured the SC Capitol grounds. The entire site is an historical monument. There's a marker showing where the original statehose was which Sherman burnt to the ground while a new statehouse was being built which still stands.The walls of the statehouse still bears rhe marks fom where Sherman's cannonballs hit. The are countless statues to hostoric political and war leaders, a very impressive slave memorial and a memorial to Confederate soldiers where the Confederate flag flies. That glag used to fly atop the statehouse.
Inside you enter the hallways of history. Countless old paintings showing revolutionary and civil war battles, portraits of politcal and war heroes. Even an engraved copy of the succession declaration.
Within this hostoric context, taking down the war memorial Confederate flag is just wrong.
Yet another reason why I like Putin. He can give two fucks about PC and he has a backbone and balls of steel. You don't like it GFY.
New Obama Executive Order 9876980: "All ice cream must now be vanilla".
good grief, you'd think the killer had been wearing that flag as a cape!
whatthis is really about is to gin up the blacks to raise hell. what, no riots and looting? can't have that.
the forgiveness and forebearance of the victims at the AME Church just doesn't help the real haters and race baiters!
McCarthyism 2.0....
We are close to Achieving peak insanity.
Oh no! The world is coming to an end! A racist flag has been removed from the shelves! Everyone run for your lives! Keep us up to date on this incredibly important story, ZH. We don't want to miss out the news of any other racist symbols being retired because a "few" people have voiced their opposition to them. (Maybe one day ZH will show the video of how the mass murdering racist was treated by the police compared to how the police treat people with less fortunate skin colour. Maybe one day ZH will show Joe Morton's speech on the Larry Wilmore show about this flag. But somehow I doubt it; showing that side of the story would offend some of ZH's readers sensibilities and we can't have that.)
Has to do with Businesses, Government and others telling us what we can or cannot buy, what we can or cannot say and what we can or cannot think.
But then independent thought is not politically correct...
"Oh no! The world is coming to an end! "
Allow me to respond to that with an Russian aphorism from Soviet times:
Today, me. Tomorrow, you.
I there a new law? I'm outraged at words and thoughts!
Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto in 1848. For 167 years these goofball Marxist yokels have been sharpening their tiny fangs for this moment in history: the moment when they can really stick it to the Republic of The U.S.A. Under the guises of compassion & generosity, Marxism panders to the absolute worst traits of humanity. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered by Marxist true-believers. The complete failure of Marxism in any form is proven by the truism Chairman Mao offers: "[Marxist] Political power comes from the muzzle of a rifle."
Getting their grubby fingers on a world-famous symbol of Southern heritage is being couched in racist terms but there is nothing racist about the Marxist lust for power. Marxists are equal-opportunity oppressors & murderers. The so-called "conservative" political leaders who were elected to oppose Marxist Big Government oppression are cowards who fear the Bureaucratic State and its social-worker managed clientele.
The failure of Marxism wherever it has been tried is well-documented. Marxism has succeeded thus far in the U.S.A. because its adherents control the Bureaucratic State. British historian Robert Conquest offered a clear explanation of what he termed the MINDSLAUGHTER that Marxism requires before it becomes feasible. His book on the subject is entitled "Reflections On A Ravaged Century." Here is a CSPAN Booknotes of Mr. Conquest being interviewed by Brian Lamb: http://www.c-span.org/video/?153487-1/book-discussion-reflections-ravage...
What the hell are you talking about? I don't think your "Vision Quest" is quite over; you need to detox a little.
If you're going to mention Marx in this discussion, you might at least mention that both he and Engels wrote regular, contemporary analysis on the Civil War for the British Press. It was very interesting stuff. They actually nailed it, just as they nailed what was going to happen to Finance Capitalism. Yes, they were horseshit political philosophers, mostly because they had a way-too-rosy view of human nature. But early on in the Civil War, many Europeans thought the South was going to win. Marx knew they couldn't and explained why. Just as people now are saying the "Marxists" are ruining Capitalism by diverting all our wealth through the banks to keep them in a zombie-like pretense of solvencuy. That's the silliest possible analysis. Marx explained why you couldn't base a system on using debt as money, relying on infinite expansion; and that eventually such a system would have to resort to fraud and such nonsense as ZIRP and TARP and all the other stuff we see. Marx would have let all the banks go bankrupt.
You're tripping Balls.
I upvoted ya for but to be honest your wasting your breath on this thread, marxism and socialism will get a knee-jerk reaction here despite (or maybe in fact because of ) the points you made and the obvious fact that its unfettered capitalism that has led us to this pretty pass
Piece of Shit car driven by piece of shit America. Porsche 911 Carerra S any day of the week. You piece of shit.
Does that come with a confederate flag on top? I'll take two and weld'em together to make a mans car.
They’ve been pushing for it for over 150 years and this year the politically correct anti-Confederate flag movement may have finally achieved its ultimate goal.
Actually they are just being used. The government sees a very real possibility of another civil war. The Confederate flag is a symbol of desire to separate that resulted in the first civil war. To governments (propaganda experts), symbolism is everything. They create them to support their causes. They eradicate them to protect their causes.
Hopefully, people who have studied on the internet the civil war and its causes (earlier conventional methods were useless due to cleansing), this next civil war will result in multiple secessions. This fission won't be good for the empire, but it will sure be good for the people. People have become thoroughly disgusted with the keepers of the the empire.
Reminds me of German history when the NAZIs suddenly ordered all Jews to mark their stores and wear stars almost overnight.
Yeah, he was on the right track. That's what we need here. Mark everything fucking jew with a fuck star and see what your left with.
I plan my life around the philosophy of Cooter.
"I can fix that"? No that's to manly. You need to be more shriveled like the pansie running dogs owned by the tribe of fags. Womans culture of mindless fruit cakes and new black dresses is really cool now unless your in the inforcement branch then you kill all the wrong people (men).
Now I'm freaking mad. I have half a mind to paint my truck orange and weld the doors shut to spite them. FUCK YOU PC PANSIES!!! YOU JUST CREATED A NEW COLLECTOR'S MARKET IN SOUTHERN HERITAGE MEMORABILIA!!!
This is what happens when you don't defend your heritage. Bad or Good.
Soon they'll be digging up the Confederate graveyards, destroying hundred year old statues, mentioning the Confederacy will become a hate crime, sort of like the work ISIS is doing in the ME.
This is equivalent to book burning.
As usual Caucasians will bend over and spread em, while trying to come up with some 'clever' work around.
You know,,, even when the uncivil war ended there wasn't as much pure hate as there is today. They went on to rebuild,,, we on the other hand destroy in the name of political correctness.
Wait till they hit the star spangled banner and american flag and apple pie, baseball, football and gramma.
I wonder if this is just the beginning of a long process of "symbol purging". It is becoming a means of societal control under the guise of political correctness. The rapid success of this effort to ban a historical symbol will only embolden the left to seek out others that "offend".
My guess is that smaller icons and symbols embedded with some state flags will soon come under attack. The US flag itself is sometimes forbidden to be displayed during some celebrations associated with other cultures to avoid "offending".
Next, anything with the likeness of a gun or a religious symbol like a cross. Those are certain to be the target of the anti-gun group and atheists, respectively. I'm sure they can tie-in the "hate" aspect if necessary.
"My guess is that smaller icons and symbols embedded with some state flags will soon come under attack."
I propose a referendum In California to either reintroduce grizzly bears (hunted to extinction in that state) or remove the bear from the state flag.
Seriously though, I wonder when they'll get to the state flag of Maryland. It's not as obvious as the stars & bars, but it does contain CSA imagery.
Massachusetts might have a problem with the Algonquin indian on its flag. Hell, they might even have to rename the state.
What's happening here is so transparent a blind man can see it. This is the essence of totalitarianism. Ripping off these old scabs from 150 years, the porgressive/statist left are trying to link any modern opposition to the Almighty Government to racism/slavery/white supremacy to de-legitimize it. Concerned about NSA spying, encroaching regulation, and increasingly superfluous activities in government ranks? Well, STFU and crawl back in your slimy little cave, you racist Rebel slaver.
+1000 Thank you, we have a winner. No one gave two shits about the Confederate flag a month ago; this is the media mouthpiece of our totalitarian government attempting to divert attention from real issues like TPP. All symbols of Christianity are next; wait until the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Christians will be branded as intolerant bigots if they do not tow the line and sanctify gay marriages -- symbols of Christianity will be attacked accordingly.
Is anyone outraged by what ISIS/ISIL is currently doing in the Middle East in destroying structures, icons, statues, and other symbols that conflict with their radical belief system? There is a degree of similarity between what ISIS is doing for religious purposes and what we are now doing for political purposes.
Well, since we created ISIS, that really shouldn't come as a surprise...
You can't question motives or actions from people from a rich and vibrant culture......
They took "Amos and Andy" off the air, and now "Amos' is Prezydent o' de US.
Why is it so strange that the same folk who have allied themselves with the Ukrainian Nazis would get all PC about the 'Stars and Bars'?
Next Stop Landing Strip One.
Unbelievable.
These flags represent a constant reminder to all of the horrendous costs and enormous sacrifices, on all sides of this conflict. It is a constant reminder of those we lost on both sides. A constant reminder of past wrongs, past mistakes, and the wisdom gained. It is also a constant reminder of the valour of the American people to fight for what they believe in, even though flawed in both principles and execution, often needlessly so. These flags belong to all Americans no matter what color, north or south, east or west. When gazing upon them one should pause in tearful respect and contemplation. They are not a symbol of racism, they are a constant reminder of the costs incurred by almost every American family.
Isn't it easier to just remove all the blacks from your country.
Sounds like less work to me.
I've been an avid reader of Zerohedge since Max Keiser, introduced me to this site in 2009. Today I would struggle to differentiate the outright froth and bile posted on Zerohedge with Stormfront. Like many others I post on political forums, where every view is heard, but this place especially over the last 3 years has become a cesspit of unadulterated racism, most of it illogical, with a constant display of white-victimhood, Al-Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have been proud of. I hoped the day would never arrive, but his place needs moderating.
Don't they have anything better to do? This asinine crowd of PC thugs?
How does it help...ANYTHING? Will the rate of black on black and black on white crime decrease because "The Confederate Flag Is Banned!?" Gimme a fucking break - This administration has become an even bigger bunch of completely useless assholes than the Clinton admin.