Rioters Vandalize Memorial to Victims of Communism

BLM/Antifa/Moveon/occupy/coffee Party is a communist movement. I would be surprised if they didn't.

Maybe they'll replace it with a Stalin Memorial?
 
They are destroying things they know nothing about...this isn't vandalism its an attack on America by a domestic enemy force and these clowns should be arrested and thrown in prison for 10 years so they can cool off.....and then charged for the clean up and replacement of every damn statue they tear down.....
 
They are destroying things they know nothing about...this isn't vandalism its an attack on America by a domestic enemy force and these clowns should be arrested and thrown in prison for 10 years so they can cool off.....and then charged for the clean up and replacement of every damn statue they tear down.....
No. Just shoot the Commies.
 
Its simple, the blacks you see tearing down statuary are merely the pawns of very wealthy, very entitled, white college kids who in turn are the exclusive protege's of highly committed white Marxist educators! Did you see the BLM thug who claims to head up NY BLM, does anyone really think that cretin is in charge of anything??? Fuck no, he is a slave to the wealthy white kids and the Marxist cadre of educators, who use him and his fellow "street justice warriors" to shake down both government and business! :wink:
 
In case you weren’t sure which side the Trump haters are on.

And in Seattle, mass murderer Lenin’s statue stands unscathed.


BLM cadre claim to be "trained" Marxists. A real problem among the BLM/Antifa initiates is they've no clue why Donald Trump is "bad" and Lenin is "good". A vast majority of them might come around if someone educated them on a bit of true history. Then again . . . bullets are much cheaper than dusty old books.
 
The destruction was a deliberate plan to do violence to the scopic drive. The image is an empty, ghost-like post-vandalism as one gazes at the destruction, recalling the recent numerous times MLK is invoked in the media, and the black African genome's well-known tendency to overspiritualize the socius. Spooky. Derrida:

'If one follows the letter of the text, the critique of the ghost or of spirits would thus be the critique of a subjective representation and an abstraction, of what happens (in the head [italics]), of what comes only out of the head, that is, of what stays in there, in the head, even as it has come out of there, out of the head, and survives (outside the head [it.]). But nothing would be possible, beginning with the critique, without surviving, without the possible survival of this autonomy and this automatism outside the head. One may say that this is where the spirit of the Marxist critique situates itself, not the spirit that one would oppose to its letter, but the one which supposes the very movement of its letter. Like the ghost, it is neither in the head nor outside the head. Marx knows this, but he proceeds as if he did not want to know it. In the German Ideology, the following chapter will be devoted to this obsession that made Stirner say: 'Mensch, es spukt in deinem Kopfe!" commonly translated as 'Man, there are specters in your head!' Marx thinks it is enough to turn the apostrophe back against Saint Max.

Es spukt. Difficult to translate, as we have been saying. It is a question of ghost and haunting, to be sure, but what else? The German idiom seems to name the ghostly return but it names it in verbal form. The latter does not say that there is some (revenant [it.]), specter, or ghost; it does not say that there is some apparition, (der Spukt [it.]), nor even that it appears, but that 'it ghosts,' it apparitions.' (It is a matter [it.] [Ils s'agit], in the neutrality of this altogether impersonal verbal form, of something or someone, neither someone nor something, of a 'one' that does not act. (It is a matter[it.]) rather of the passive movement of an apprehension, of an apprehensive movement ready to welcome, but where? In the head? What is the head before this apprehension that it cannot even contain?
(Derrida, Specters of Marx)

Interesting how Derrida focuses on the concept of 'mattering.'

excerpt to be continued
 
'And what if the head, which is neither the subject, nor consciousness, nor the ego, nor the brain, were defined first of all by the possibility of such an experience, and by the very thing that it can neither contain, nor delimit, by the indefiniteness of the 'es spukt'? To welcome, we were saying then, but even while apprehending, with anxiety and the desire to exclude the stranger without accepting him or her, domestic hospitality that welcomes without welcoming the stranger, but a stranger who is already found within (das Heimliche-Unheimliche) more intimate with one than one is oneself, the absolute proximity of a stranger whose power is singular (and[it.]) anonymouos (es spukt), an unnameable and neutral power, that is, undecidable, neither active nor passive, an an-identity that (without doing anything [it.]), invisibly occupies places belonging finally neither to us nor to it.'
(Derrida, op cit)
 

Forum List

Back
Top