The War on White Monuments: Duke Supporters and Soros Marxists Clash in New Orleans


– 24 September 2016 –


Janus-smallA Leftist group called “Take Em Down NOLA” led a protest in New Orleans against the slow process of removing four Confederate statues and to demand further removals, particularly to take down the statue of President Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square.

Via the Kansas City Star:

Hundreds of people turned out Saturday in New Orleans’ historic French Quarter to protest a statue of Andrew Jackson and Confederate monuments in the city.

New Orleans has been struggling with what to do with a number of Confederate-era monuments in the city. The City Council voted last year to remove four of the monuments after heated public meetings but the effort has been stalled in the courts. A major hearing on their removal is slated for Wednesday.

Take Em Down NOLA, a group that has been advocating for the removal of monuments it describes as being linked to the city’s white supremacist history, called for a demonstration Saturday to take down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square to protest the slow progress of taking down the Confederate monuments.

The Jackson statue is not one of the four Confederate monuments that the council voted to remove. Jackson is considered a key figure for leading the defense of the city in an 1815 battle against the British. But Michael Quess Moore, one of the group’s organizers, said Jackson was also a slave-owner who as president signed the controversial Indian Removal Act.

[. . .]

Shortly before the protesters arrived, white supremacist David Duke and a small group of supporters converged on the square, calling for the statue to be protected.

As Duke, who is also running for Senate, talked to supporters he was heckled by bystanders.

“I am here to defend our American heritage. Our Louisiana heritage and our New Orleans heritage,” he said.

The protests were largely peaceful although a few fights broke out between demonstrators. WWL-TV reported that seven people were arrested.


Bunch of Google degenerates with their printed signs and printed shirts. They appear well-enough funded. And no doubt the old white cuck on the right feels very self-righteous in joining this anti-white protest. I’m sure he brags about his involvement to anyone who will listen.

What is this “Take Em Down NOLA” group anyway?

Their website offers the following description:

We the people of New Orleans demand that the Mayor and City Council take immediate action to remove all monuments, school names and street signs dedicated to White Supremacists. These structures litter our city with visual reminders of the horrid legacy of slavery that terrorized so many of this city’s ancestors. They misrepresent our community. We demand the freedom to live in a city where we are not forced to pay taxes for the maintenance of public symbols that demean us and psychologically terrorize us. We demand:

  1. That the city release a timeline for the immediate removal of the monuments;
  2. That the city expand the definition from 4 specific monuments to encompass all monuments to White Supremacy;
  3. That the city develop a community driven process for the removal of the monuments and the choosing of their replacements.

If you really want to sign the petition, their site mentions that you will receive “periodic updates on activism opportunities from” Goody.

So what is Color of Change? From the ColorOfChange site:

Color Of Change helps people respond effectively to injustice in the world around us. As a national online force driven by over one million members, we move decision makers in corporations and government to create a more human and less hostile world for Black people, and all people. Until justice is real.

The Activist Facts website—which helpfully exposes the funding, agendas, and personnel of various Left-wing activist groups—mentions the Color of Change’s ties to George Soros:

Through the years, Color of Change has received considerable funding from groups controlled by George Soros, the billionaire best known for backing left-wing nonprofit groups. Since 2009, Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF) has given $550,000 to Color of Change and its parent organization, Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL). Among other recipients of donations from Soros are ACORN, People for the American Way, and, where James Rucker previously served as Director of Grassroots Mobilization. Color of Change has had numerous campaign partnerships and close ties with

Color of Change “partners” with, and is a project of CEL. CEL directs a number of other projects that could be considered carbon copies of Color of Change—most of these projects seek to engage and mobilize minority citizens to expand their political voice generally through the use of the internet. Similar to Color of Change, these organizations masquerade as champions of suppressed and disadvantaged individuals in order to advance their progressive political agenda.

Effectively, Soros and other billionaires are able to funnel their millions of dollars in donations into, CEL, and ultimately Color of Change to rally left-wing supporters to vote.

It’s interesting that these types of groups have already expanded their attacks on Confederate symbols to include Andrew Jackson tributes and memorials.

Once local and state governments quickly remove these symbols of whiteness, the Leftists will immediately demand the purge of other white icons, such as Christopher Columbus, most of our slave-owning Founding Fathers, and Henry Ford.

The cultural Marxists will not be satisfied until they have not only removed all of white history, but whiteness itself.


1828 Attack Ad Against Andrew Jackson


– 16 June 2016 –

Barzillai “19th Century” Bozarth:

19th-century-barzillaiIn America’s election of 1824, even though Andrew Jackson had won the greatest share of votes in a four-way race—in both the official electoral and the unofficial popular tally—the lack of a majority of electoral votes allowed the House of Representatives to appoint John Quincy Adams to the Presidency. After winning office, Adams duly appointed the Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, as Secretary of State, a position in those days that all but guaranteed him the presidency. This quickly grew to notoriety as the “Corrupt Bargain.”

Most of the people, however, denied the legitimacy of Adams, whose presidency produced one failure after another, and Jackson loyalists almost immediately sought to elect their beloved general again for the election of 1828. In one of the most bitterly fought presidential elections in history, Adams men attacked every aspect of Jackson’s life, from his violent temper and duel-fighting to the legitimacy of his marriage and the character of Jackson’s wife Rachel. They warned that a Jackson presidency would amount to a military dictatorship marked by personal feuds and irresponsible foreign policy.

The following campaign poem, published in the Truth’s Advocate and Monthly Anti-Jackson Expositor in June of 1828, covers each of these condemnations and dire warnings against Jackson in the form of the General’s farcical lamentations upon hearing in December of his hypothetical loss to Adams.



“Caesar ant nulles was his name,
Caesar non venit—”nullus came!”

Oh! lud I am dished—Oh sons! I’m undone,
clear-spaceI must give myself up to despair—
For Adams, that rascally turncoat has won,
clear-spaceAnd is still in the President’s chair.

In vain did I fight so, behind cotton bags,
clear-spaceWhich gained me such glorious renown—
In vain turned so pious—the curst Adams wags
clear-spaceSaid the world would not swallow it down.

They say I don’t know e’en our G’ography
clear-spaceBut I know enough plenty for me;
I know Washington’s up in the District some-
clear-spaceAnd Kentuck I know a’nt Tennessee.

But a phoo! for your larning—for where is the
clear-spaceIf a man should go off on a tour,
There’s any black nigger, that’s walking the
clear-spaceCan tell him the way, I am sure.

I murder King’s English, they say—so I will—
clear-spaceFor it shows true American pride
I hate all your kings, and your Englishmen, too,
clear-spaceAnd every thing English beside.

Then a nice writing-man I have hired for my
clear-spaceTo hide the bad spelin I skrawl,
And them are as says how my grammar is bad,
clear-spaceDon’t know nothing about it at all.

Though spouting sometimes in the Senate, ’tis
clear-spaceI’ve stammer’d most sadly and blundered;
But if I’ve occasion to make a speech now,
clear-spaceVan Buren will write me a hundred.

“The three R’s—honest ‘Rithmatic, Reading
clear-spaceclear-spaceand ‘Riting,
clear-spaceI think, I can say, I’m no fool in—
Considering my time was so took up in fighting,
clear-spaceThat I only had three quarters schooling.

I hate Clay—I hate bargain—except as a bet
clear-spaceOn a game-cock, or horse at the races;
I like one of Clay’s acts, though—’tis so much
clear-spaceclear-spacelike me,
clear-spaceWhen he fought with slim John at ten paces,

And then about that Mrs. Robards affair—
clear-spaceThat, too, they’ve told Adams and Clay—
Had it never leaked out, I’ll make bold to de-
clear-space‘Twould not be known to this day.

Then poor Mrs. Gin’ral—I blush when it’s
clear-spaceHow they laughed—(I can never forgive her)—
When she said that “she cotch’d a most wiolent
clear-spaceFor the Gin’ral had kicked off the kiver.”

Though every objection I’ve answered enough,
clear-spaceStill the Adams men jabber and squall,
‘Bout militia men—marriages—morals & stuff,
clear-spaceAnd war—and the deuce knows what all.

Make me President once, and the scoundrels
clear-spaceclear-spaceshall feel—
clear-spaceWith my fist ‘gainst the wall would I jam
If they still made their jabber—by thunder and
clear-spaceI’d shoot every rogue of ’em—d—n ’em”

Trash, Truth’s Advocate and Monthly Anti-Jackson Expositor, ed., An Association of Individuals, 235-236. Cincinnati: Lodge, L’hommedieu, and Hammond Printers, 1828.

A Politically Correct Twenty-Dollar Bill and the Two-Front War Against Andrew Jackson


– 4 August 2015 –


Clusivius-sqFrom March 1 to May 10 of this year, a feminist group called Women on the 20s held several votes to see which feminist heroine should replace the reviled Andrew Jackson on the 20-dollar bill for the 100th anniversary of female suffrage in 2020.  Out of fifteen original candidates, Harriet Tubman was selected in the final vote, beating out Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, and Wilma Mankiller.  (I have to assume that the bull dyke contingent of feminist voters pushed the relatively undeserving Mankiller into the final round.)

Perhaps coincidentally, the US Treasury announced last June that they intend to put a woman on a redesigned 10-dollar bill to commemorate the 2020 centennial; they welcomed suggestions as to whom.  But now Leftists are throwing a hissy fit over the removal of Alexander Hamilton from the ten, a man who founded the Treasury, promoted central banking, and wanted slavery abolished, instead of that horrible slave owner and Indian-remover Andrew Jackson, a president who vehemently opposed central banking.

Oddly, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has remained somewhat firm on the decision to change the ten-dollar bill instead of the twenty.

Lew said in June that the $10 was the next bill due for a redesign, and that proceeding with a plan to feature a woman on that bill would be the quickest way to accomplish the goal of putting a deserving woman from history on paper money.

If the Treasury decides to keep Jackson instead of Hamilton or some other figure, it will prove just how much the Federal Reserve wants to stick it to the corpse of Andrew Jackson.


In his war against the National Bank, Andrew Jackson was a hero to the common man and a villain to the financial elites.

Jackson several times urged against the renewal of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, but when the issue came up for a vote in 1832, Bank president Nicholas Biddle personally campaigned, pressured, and threatened Congressmen and Senators to renew the bank, which they finally did.  But Jackson vetoed the bill, an abuse of his power by the standards of the day.  He justified his actions:

It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.

Biddle attempted to destroy the US economy to force Congress to overturn Jackson’s veto, and the country did fall into a terrible depression for a number of years.  The central bankers loathed Jackson, and I suspect that they were behind the attempt in 1835 to assassinate him.

When Jackson was leaving through the East Portico after the funeral of South Carolina Representative Warren R. Davis, Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter from England, aimed a pistol at Jackson, which misfired. Lawrence pulled out a second pistol, which also misfired. Historians believe the humid weather contributed to the double misfiring.[103] Lawrence was restrained, and legend says that Jackson attacked Lawrence with his cane.

Sounds like holy providence to me.


Might the bankers have hated Jackson enough to assassinate him? Two failed pistols by holy providence, Jackson lived to beat the assassin with his cane.

Ultimately Jackson refused to budge and the common people continued to overwhelmingly support him.  The US Treasury withdrew its bank deposits to several state banks, and the National Bank eventually withered away like a dried-up dead witch.

Under Andrew Jackson, the United States paid off all of its debts for the first time—and last time—in history.  The country remained free from the centralizing power of a national bank until the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (the same year that the income tax was established).  For his fierce resistance against the tyranny of the Bank, Jackson is a hero in my book, perhaps my favorite president of all.

Jackson would have despised the Federal Reserve, correctly seeing the bank as the promoter of the wealthy elite at the expense of the working poor.  Including him on the 20-dollar bill would have certainly infuriated him.

I suspect that the resurrected national bank added Jackson to the 20-dollar bill in 1928 not to simply commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of his election, but to celebrate his ultimate defeat in the war against centralized banking by continually twisting the knife in Jackson’s dead guts with every cash transaction.  However, we don’t know for certain why Jackson was added to the bill, as the Treasury refuses to divulge why they choose certain people to appear on the currency:

Treasury Department records do not reveal the reason that portraits of these particular statesmen were chosen in preference to those of other persons of equal importance and prominence. By law, only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on U.S. currency and securities. Specifics concerning this law may be found under United States Code, Title 31, Section 5114(b).

Now it seems the memory of Andrew Jackson is being attacked from two sides: those banking elites who aren’t yet tired of kicking at Jackson’s corpse, and the Leftist egalitarians who despise his actions against the Indian nations and his ownership of slaves.


Hated by the far-Left and the faux-Right, Jackson should be a hero to the common American white man.

If the Treasury keeps Jackson on the twenty against the juggernaut forces of political correctness, it will demonstrate how long the shadowy banking elites can hold a grudge.

Interestingly, all of this argument among the Leftists might be a moot point by 2020, with a growing movement against physical cash itself.  Maybe they will stick Tubman’s frowning face on the Mark of the Beast.

  • July 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Feb    
%d bloggers like this: