7 Statues the Left Really Should Want to Tear Down if They Don’t Want to Be Hypocrites

PJ Media ^ | 06/24/2020 | Matt Margolis

[SeekAndFind]

The protests and riots we’ve witnessed the past few weeks have resulted in a number of historical statues being torn down. There doesn’t seem to be much of a standard for what statues are offensive. Statues of Christopher Columbus and Confederate generals have been defaced, destroyed and torn down, as have statues of abolitionists. A statue of Abraham Lincoln is actually being considered for removal in Boston, Massachusetts.

The apparent lack of consistency with which these statues and memorials have been targeted has many asking “What’s next?”

But perhaps the better question is “Why not this?”

These protestors think their efforts to tear down historical statues in the name of social justice is noble, but in reality, they reek of hypocrisy because of the statues that have so far avoided their path of destruction.

Here are seven statues that the left ought to tear down if they don’t want to be hypocrites.

1. Che Guevara’s statue in Central Park

Sure, you’ve seen his likeness on t-shirts on the privileged youth of America, but did you know that there’s a statue of Che Guevara in Central Park? Allegedly, this statue is actually depicting a street performer portraying the mass murderer, but I’m personally skeptical of this explanation. Aside from the fact that Che Guevara was a racist and a mass murderer who put homosexuals in labor camps, Guevara literally wanted to bomb New York City with nuclear missiles. “If the missiles had remained (in Cuba), we would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City,” Guevara wrote in November 1962, in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. “The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims,” he added.

2. Margaret Sanger’s bronze bust at the Smithsonian: The founder of Planned Parenthood,

[LouieFisk]

Don’t get suckered in by the “reason”; it’s not about racism, slavery, civil war figure or any like excuse. It’s all about destroying America as it has existed for hundreds of years. Everything must go.

[Tench_Coxe]

Odd the mob hasn't gone after this:

Observer to Left Wing Moron: "If you are so principled, why haven't you and your friends go and take that on down?"
Left wing moron has a moment of clarity: "I might get shot"
Observer with wry smile:"I think that's the idea....."

[ealgeone]

OH they will. Give’em time.

[jeffersondem]

Bill France's statue - where ever it is. He is the granddaddy of NOOSECAR and the 1972 campaign manager in Florida for Governor George Wallace's presidential campaign.

At the time there was nothing wrong with him advocating his political views, but now it is wrong for him to have advocated his political views.

[SeekAndFind]

Remember what the Taliban did when they blew up the Historic thousand year old Bamyan Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?



You can be certain that after these leftist mobs topple the statues of Lincoln, Jefferson, etc., they will be after Mount Rushmore.

[ctdonath2]

That was discussed a few years ago.
Stacy Abrams advocated removing the Some Mountain statue.
Then some advocates putting a memorial bell on top of the mountain as a conquering gesture.
I think the message “don’t get yourself shot” was expressed.
The issue faded after some overtly White Power type demonstrations occurred.

All races celebrate the confederate memorial, by the thousands, all summer every year.
This year could be interesting.

[Lurkinanloomin]

History erasing is wrong-headed Taliban behavior.

The reason Nimrata Randhawa doesn’t care about our history is that it is not her history.

[Alberta's Child]

Dan Bongino said it best on a Twitter post the other day (I paraphrase):

"These are people who have to Google the names on the statues after they topple them, just to find out who they are."

[ThunderSleeps]

I doubt they'll bother for a couple of reasons.

One, as per the point of the article these are democrats and leftists. Therefore they have a certain level of automatic immunity and protection due to the usual leftist double standards.

Two, all the hoopla over statues and monuments isn't really about the statues and monuments. They're just an excuse for the unrest. Gotta keep their radical base fired up, and keep us off balance and on the defensive. So they really don't have to be thorough in their removal of statues. They just have to keep the party going. Plenty of others to keep them busy without violating reason #1 above.

[Batman11]

PFL

[Reily]

As if being hypocrites ever bothered them!

[gasport]

“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution.”
- Saul Alinsky

[schurmann]

” ‘...why haven’t you and your friends go and take that one down?...’ “ [Tench_Coxe, post 3]

“...after these leftist mobs topple the statues of Lincoln, Jefferson, etc., they will be after Mount Rushmore.” [SeekAndFind, post 6]

No monument is completely invulnerable, but Stone Mountain and Mount Rushmore are probably less vulnerable than many.

Neither is a fully three-dimensional, free-standing statue. Both were never fully chiseled from the rock they were made of. There aren’t a lot of projecting portions around which rioters could sling cables or chains to pull on.

The scale, too, would work against any attempts to do damage. Thousands of feet of cable or chain would be needed.

And the terrain nearby complicates any effort that might be envisioned: there aren’t many places nearby, where a would-be vandal could stand, to pull on cables or chains. Mount Rushmore sits in particularly rough terrain: the only flat spot for miles around is the parking lot. Films like North by Northwest get the landscape completely wrong.

One can imagine climbers attempting to sneak close to wield a hammer or plant explosives, but doing so would be arduous and risky. Today’s inner-city activists and rioters are less likely to own the skills and stamina; Mount Rushmore sits in terrain about 6000 feet above sea level and any approach would demand a level of thin-air conditioning and mountaineering prowess that today’s urban youths cannot begin to understand.

Attack by rockets or airplanes cannot be ruled out, but such threats are a little easier to guard against.

The best defense, of course, remains an armed populace. South Dakotans might be somewhat less scrappy than Georgians, but are no less resolute. Population in western SD (where Mount Rushmore is) is pretty thin by urban standards, but that means fewer urban sheep who might aid vandals and rioters.

[wardaddy]

I love your posts

Mount Rushmore has always seemed to me ironically or not

Surrounded by Indians

Sioux as I recall

The Black Hills are sacred to them...native activists don’t like the monument either

Not sure how much weight the Peltiers and Means of the Indian world ever held with the rank and file anyhow

[wardaddy]

I’ll take Dixiecrats for 1000 over any of today’s pussyass GOPe cucks

Modern day GOPe is simply Lowell Weicker meets Scoop Jackson

Tell me I’m lying

[Pelham]

“One, as per the point of the article these are democrats and leftists.”

Five were, two weren’t.

Che Guevara was an Argentine/Cuban communist.

And Margaret Sanger was a Republican. A pal of Peggy Goldwater’s. 30 years with the Tucson Republican Women.

[ek_hornbeck]

Modern day GOPe is simply Lowell Weicker meets Scoop Jackson...Tell me I’m lying

I hate to say it, but I'm afraid you did misspeak. It's actually much worse than that. More like the love child of Jeb Bush and Bill Kristol.