The bruhaha stemmed over the right of a group of neo-Nazi and Klucker racists and so-called "White nationalists" to have a demonstration to oppose the targeting of statues and other monuments that commemorate the heroes of the Confederacy. When they gathered for their event, another group of racists organized by Black Lives Matter and the "anti-fascist fascists" called Antifa decided to hold a counter-demonstration, and that is when things got out of hand. To begin, neither the KKK or Antifa represent the majority of the American public. Secondly, despite what they call themselves, Antifa is just as racist and bad as the KKK, and to me they are two sides of the same ugly coin. Yet, for some reason, Antifa has been labeled by their allies in the secular press as being "cultural heroes," but they are anything but. Antifa has a goal of essentially eliminating anyone who doesn't think or behave like they do, and the incident at Charlottesville just gave them fuel for firing up. Many of us who are appalled at the performances of both these extremist factions have come to our own conclusions about what happened, and I wanted to present the two possibilities I think stirred up this mess, and in reality to a certain degree both possibilities may be plausible at the same time.
Some of my friends on social media have a legitimate suspicion that this whole thing may have been staged to incite anarchy, and although I am not personally sure, it is definitely not out of the realm of possibility. Consider for instance one person - Jason Kessler. Kessler was supposedly a leader in the White nationalist "Unite the Right" faction at Charlottesville, but he was also the guy who participated in the leftist "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations a few years back - now, how is it that a guy who is supposedly a White supremacist leader also be part of the that neo-hippie anarchist movement too?? The answer is CNN, on whose payroll Kessler is alleged to be. So, let's put a face on this guy to show you who he is:
So, this dorky-looking guy seems to not discriminate when it comes to radical politics, does he? What that means is that if this can be proven, Kessler is a paid agitator of the press to stir up public emotions over things the radicals want to do. And, like I said, it's not proven yet for sure, but it is not outside the realm of possibility either (information from "CNN Caught paying Charlottesville 'White Supremacy Leader," at https://www.only-politics.com/2017/08/25/cnn-caught-paying-charlottesville-white-supremacist-leader/ - accessed 8/28/2017). If this also turns out to be the case, it makes you wonder then how much other crap has the press incited over the years too.
A second possibility exists though as well, although not necessarily in conflict with the first. When Obama was elected in 2008, I remember reading somewhere that a high-ranking KKK leader said that Obama would be the best thing to happen for their movement since Reconstruction. Obama was one of those people who himself was a Black racist - he incited and encouraged everything from the hoopla over Trayvon Martin to the Ferguson riots, and that idiot wife of his, Michelle, even was telling school cafeteria programs to ban peanut butter sandwiches for being "racist."(Nathan Harden, "Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Racist, Warns Portland School Official," published 11/24/2013 at http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/24/peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwich-racist-warns-portland-school-official - accessed 8/28/2017) It led in time to even a small child being thrown out of school because of chocolate brownies (Alex Griswold, "School Calls Police After 9-Year-Old Makes 'Racist' Comment About Brownies." Published 6/29/2016 at https://www.mediaite.com/online/school-calls-police-after-9-year-old-makes-racist-comment-about-brownies/ - accessed 8/28/2017). So, according to the "political correctness police," food can be "racist" I suppose! Somehow, I don't see a jar of peanut butter or a box of Little Debbie brownies volunteering to put on white sheets and burn crosses in people's yards. But, the culture of "political correctness" has deemed anything that someone considers "offensive" worthy of being eliminated. And, the new target of that idiocy is Confederate statues.
In this toxic environment of "political correctness," much of the nonsense that is being perpetrated under the banner of "racist" is in reality being targeted against people now because of the color of their skin - now White people, even those not technically "White" but maybe have lighter skin, are being targeted, and many of them are starting to really take a beating from it. And, of course, when that happens, it fuels the flames of actual racists like the KKK and the Skinheads, who are starting to find a fertile recruiting field for their ranks, feeding on the weird stuff coming from the leftist crowd, and for at least 8 years being goaded on by a President who was essentially a racist himself. It is creating a dangerous situation, and all fingers point back to Obama on this one - had he not encouraged Ferguson, the crap that went down at Charlottesville would not have happened. And, I will say it - Black racists are creating White racists, and it is as if they want to start a race war in this country. And, many innocent people - Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, etc. - are going to end up being caught in the crosshairs of the extremists and will end up paying the price for the hatred of both sides of that battle. Thanks again, Obama! Colin Flaherty, in his excellent 2013 book White Girl Bleed a Lot (Washington, DC: WND Books) notes in chapter 2 that a new trend among Black thugs is something called the "Knockout Game," which essentially entails a gang of Black kids finding a defenseless White person and then proceeding to beat the crap out of that poor person until they pass out or even are killed. Flaherty also notes that these same Black criminals have been targeting Asian-Americans as well, preying on the defenseless, elderly, and very young (Flaherty, p. 15). The "Knockout Game," to put it bluntly, is the Black version of the lynch mob. However, instead of using ropes and trees, they use pipes and bats, but it is still the same evil intentions driving both. Another development Flaherty notes along these same lines is the "Flash Rob," which is a flash mob with criminal intent to loot and vandalize - this is what happened in Ferguson basically. Again, like any group that is terrorized or oppressed, a need eventually arises for the victims of these crimes to take action to defend themselves, and who do you think is waiting for them to make that decision? Your local Kluckers and Skinheads! Violence begets violence, and as Newtonian physics verifies, an action on the part of one extreme will provoke an equal and opposite reaction from the other, and there are members of the press, politicians, and others who end up really being the only winners out of the whole thing. Again, thank you Barack Obama!
Now, let's talk about these statues. The focal point of the whole Charlottesville mess was a statue of Robert E. Lee that was in a public area of the town, and for many years now political-correctness revisionists have been wanting to destroy and deface Confederate and other monuments that to them smack of "racism." Thing is, those statues have been around for ages, and they are a part of our history, love it or hate it. To eliminate areas of history like that is to essentially censor what people are allowed to learn for themselves, and it breeds a culture of ignorance. The Nazis did the same thing in the Third Reich when they banned art, music, and other cultural expressions by destroying them in big bonfires - the Nazis were wrong, and their political-correctness heirs in the US today are equally wrong of the same crime. It has even gotten so bad that an Asian-American sportscaster named Robert Lee was pulled from a University of Virginia football game because of his name! Lee is actually a common surname among Chinese-Americans, and it has nothing to do with the American Civil War or anything else - it is just a name. Yet, poor Robert Lee was punished for his name ("ESPN Pulls Asian-American Announcer From Virginia Football Game Because He Has a Confederate General's Name," published 8/22/2017 at http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-asian-american-announcer-from-virginia-football-game-because-has-confederate-generals-name.html, accessed 8/27/2017). I don't know, but it seems like Mr. Lee was a victim of racism himself, and if I were him, I would sue those ding-dongs at ESPN for it. I guess though "racism" is in the eye of the beholder, at least in the fantasy-land of the "Progressive" politically-correct types (this is why marijuana is a bad drug too - smoking too much of it makes people do stupid things like this). And, that leads to the very issue that these idiots are "protesting," the legacy of slavery.
There are many schools of thought regarding why the Civil War was started, and the predominant one many of us have heard is that it was all about slavery. Admittedly, slavery was an issue, but it was not the whole enchilada, and even the narrative of slavery's role in the Civil War is sometimes flawed - the industrial North and the then-encroaching Federal bureaucracy were not interested in the rights or freedom of Blacks from slavery; the Feds wanted to take a piece of the revenue pie they thought the Southern planters were not giving them, and the industrialists wanted to get their part in cheap labor to line their own pockets. Don't get me wrong - slavery is wrong, it is dehumanizing, and it has never been sanctioned by the Judeo-Christian worldview. But, let's give those who say slavery was the primary cause their due. If it was, then what would the Federal Government gain from it? If it freed the slaves, it would lose tax revenue, right? And, Lincoln was not exactly a lover of Black people either - his solution was to ship them off to Liberia in Africa, remember. So, what was really going on here then was not slavery itself, but the revenue slavery generated and who it went to. So, if slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War, that is why. Also, the institution of slavery was blamed on every White person in the South, but there are a few facts to consider there as well. First, only the upper-crust 1% of the richest Southerners owned slaves. Secondly, some of those upper-crust planters were not exactly White themselves - a 17th-century Black man named Anthony Johnson was credited with being the first slaveholder in the US. Johnson was originally a Black indentured servant who was in the employ of a man surnamed Bennett, but acquired his freedom and began to build up land and wealth in southern Virginia. In March 1655, the colonial court of Virginia ruled in Johnson's favor that a man can be owned by another man, and that is how the "peculiar institution" began in the US - with a rich Black man (Clint Johnson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006. pp. 81-83). On the other side of the slave chain, it was also historically established that the first slaves in what was to become the US were not Blacks either (that came later, thanks to Islamic slave traders - that is something Louis Farrakhan won't mention!) but were Irish, Romanichal Gypsies, and others from Europe. There was a time when the number of Irish and Gypsy slaves outnumbered Blacks too, but you don't hear about that, do you? Blacks, Cherokee, Whites - all had both slaves and slaveholders among them. Yet, this shakedown victim mentality (to use my friend and former parishioner Kenneth Timmerman's terminology) that is hawked by hucksters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, James Cone, Obama, and others would have us believe that only Blacks were victims. For more on this, read especially about the Irish and Gypsy slaves shipped to the colonies by Cromwell in the 18th century at http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.de/2012/05/irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white.html.
By contrast, let's look at some of those "evil" Confederates that the nutjobs want to desecrate the memories of. Robert E. Lee comes to mind in particular - this is a man who freed all his slaves, and didn't have the conscience to support slavery as an institution, and he was an honored statesman. Then there is the most noted Confederate figure from my home state of West Virginia, General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. He didn't own slaves, and even had a literacy program he instituted to help freed Blacks learn how to read. Yet, these men are considered "evil" while the same people who label them extol people like the alcoholic general and 18th President of the US, Ulysses S. Grant. Besides being a drunk, Grant was also anti-semitic - he refused to let Jewish troops serve in his own regiment - an order he issued on December 17, 1862, required the expulsion of all Jews from his War Department (Jonathan D. Sarna, When General Grant Expelled the Jews. New York: Random House, 2012. p. 64). On the other hand, many Jewish veterans existed in Confederate ranks, notably Moses Ezekiel, a sculptor by trade who later opposed Grant's campaign for the White House as he understood how anti-semitic the alcoholic Union general was (Sarna, p. 68). Some of them even equated Grant with the evil Haman who came against the Jews in the Book of Esther, saying that his only "elevation" to office was to be ascending the stairs of a gallows (Sarna, 69). As it appears here, it looks like Jewish-Americans fared better in the Confederacy then than they did in the Union, but that is a story you won't hear either (ironic, as many of the alt-Left BLM and Antifa crowd are also some of the most anti-semitic, pro-Islamic hypocrites that exist). I would be willing to wager that Grant was not exactly an abolitionist either, as he had his own racist skeletons (as did Lincoln and others) that modern revisionist history fails to mention. At any rate, who is then getting honor these days - a virtuous Confederate general whose wife was the granddaughter of George Washington (Lee), or a drunk anti-semite with megalomaniac tendencies (Grant)? You decide.
I wanted to shed light on all of this to show how ridiculously biased many on the left side of the political spectrum really are, and that the ultimate problems with Charlottesville were birthed in Ferguson. So, whether staged or if actual White racists were involved, the sole responsibility for the friction that created those incidents rests in the hands of Obama and his fellow leftists, much in the same way that 9-11 was in reality a fruit of Clinton's policies, and not Bush Jr's - if Clinton hadn't armed KLA terrorists in Kosovo earlier with American weapons and dollars that ended up in bin Laden's hands, 9-11 may have at least been delayed for a few years. As President Trump rightly said (and mind you, I am no fan of his either!) the blame rests with both sides. Now, it is just time people start growing up and owning that responsibility. When they do, then this will not be happening any more:
