The Irony: As American politicians cower before BLM, they get a lesson in courage from… France

I am sick at heart that our entire political leadership is cowering before mobs of vandals seeking to destroy our collective memory of the past. But now, we see mob rule imitating the tactics of the Red Guards of China’s Cultural Revolution, who destroyed that nation’s precious artistic and literary heritage in the name of revolutionary purity, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who blew up ancient Buddhist statues – to almost universal condemnation outside the Islamic world.

Slavery may be the ‘original sin” of America but until recent days, courage has been seen as more of an American virtue than a French one. But where is the condemnation of the vandalization of our historic artistic heritage by mobs tearing down statues, rather than following democratic processes and getting them removed to museums or less public display areas, which would be a perfectly reasonable solution to offense taken at honoring heroes of the Confederacy?

Did anyone ever expect that the President of France would teach a lesson in courage to the POTUS?

French President Emmanuel Macron publicly disavows racism but says colonial-era statues will stayhttps://t.co/cHzRzElXwX pic.twitter.com/C72iCsya2F — TIME (@TIME) June 14, 2020

Brandon Moore Red State provides a transcript:

QUOTING PRESIDENT MACRON:

“We will be inflexible when it comes to tackling racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination, and new strong decisions will be made to reinforce the egality of chances,” Macron said in the video. “But this noble fight is perverted when it turns into communitarianism, into a false rewriting of history.”

“This is unacceptable when it is picked up by separatists. I tell you very clearly tonight my dear fellow citizens, the Republic will not erase any trace or name from its history,” he continued. “It will not forget any of its deeds or take down any statue. What we need to do is to look all together with lucidity on all of our history and all our memory. Our relation to Africa in particular so we can build a present and a possible future from one to the other side of the Mediterranean.”

I think it’s desperately important that Trump get out in public with the message that we need to draw a distinction between:

Black Lives Matter, the PROPOSITION (which is certainly true).

Black Lives Matter, the ORGANIZATION (which is a Marxist Deconstructionist scam).

This is a very big and diverse country that transcends black vs. white at this point. Any organization which denies that ALL lives matter (as BLM does) is dangerous and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

RE: Black Lives Matter, the PROPOSITION (which is certainly true).

Black Lives Matter, the ORGANIZATION (which is a Marxist Deconstructionist scam).

_________________________

We need to add this and say it with COURAGE:

ALL LIVES MATTER, THE PROPOSITION ( which includes all babes in the womb, which is certainly TRUE )

Yup. All Lives Matter is the imperative. BLM is actually functioning as a black supremicist organization because they deny the value of life of all other races. Trump can unify a lot of the country by driving this point home. Most people are latching onto the proposition while blissfully unaware of what the organization appropriating it really stands for.

RE: anyway unless the “new strong decisions” are enough to satisfy them (they won’t be)

Exactly what do “new strong decisions” entail? I don’t think (and this is unfortunate) that you can be “strong” unless violence is met with violence, force with force.

“and new strong decisions will be made to reinforce the egality of chances”

“Chances” in this case is “opportunities”.

Equality of opportunities is not what they want. They want equality of results.

Exactly what do “new strong decisions” entail? I don’t think (and this is unfortunate) that you can be “strong” unless violence is met with violence, force with force.

You start playing the violence card and you really are taking chances with the future. You think that French soldiers will open fire on French civilians? What if they don't? What if they refuse or join the rioters?

And that's the problem, once you play that card you've tossed all other political options out the window and decided that you're just going to kill people. And when you try to kill people they oftentimes try to kill you right back.

Here in the US you could probably defuse the riots by providing rent relief and opening the sandwich gates. Most people would likely go home, and cops could mop up the rest. But then you're still left with a festering problem.

RE: You start playing the violence card and you really are taking chances with the future. You think that French soldiers will open fire on French civilians? What if they don’t? What if they refuse or join the rioters?

OK, I’m all ears — WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

You see mobs throwing molotovs and setting fire to precints and buildings. You see them looting, and then you also see them attacking innocent Civilians, THESE ARE NOT THEORETICAL SCENARIOS! What do “new strong decisions” entail then?

Do you try to “reason” with them at the moment? ( you mentioned other political options, there it is ).

OK, I’m all ears — WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

Don't know enough about French politics to say. But people here keep saying we should open the blood gates without taking time to think about what that actually means and my point is that you have to stop and think about it. What does it mean to ask 18-20 year old kids to shoot your own citizens? What happens after that?

RE: But people here keep saying we should open the blood gates without taking time to think about what that actually means and my point is that you have to stop and think about it.

There were huge riots and looting after Rodney King was beaten by cops in Los Angeles, huge neighborhoods were in danger of looting and arson, many shops were owned by immigrant KOREANS. Here's what they did -- EXCERCISE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:

I don't remember if they ever had to shoot anyone, but IF THEY DID, would the majority of Americans blame them?

There were huge riots and looting after Rodney King was beaten by cops in Los Angeles, huge neighborhoods were in danger of looting and arson, many shops were owned by immigrant KOREANS. Here's what they did -- EXCERCISE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:

Korean shopkeepers defending their businesses is a lot different than sending in the Marines.

RE: Korean shopkeepers defending their businesses is a lot different than sending in the Marines.

So, Americans shooting fellow Americans to defend their and their fellow American’s property is OK, but the government exercising their LEGAL authority and using similar force to protect the innocents is NOT OK? What moral rule in the universe tells us that this should be the case?

That was nearly 30 years ago. It is now 2020, things are different. Every single one of those Koreans would now be doxed and arrested by the “authorities” for vigilantism within days. Still, many of our own foolishly declare that covering your face is for “cowardly bad guys”. No. It’s for people that aren’t stupid.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.