Rhode Island to change state name

Via email from Paul K.:

Democrat Gov of Rhode Island Moves To Change State Name with Executive Order

The smallest state in the union has found itself in the crosshairs of the ongoing culture wars, as Rhode Island’s Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, removed part of the state’s official name from several documents via executive order Monday.

While the Ocean State is known to the rest of the country simply as Rhode Island, it has had the official name “the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” since it became the 13th state in 1790.

Detractors of the name argue that the word “Plantations” invokes the legacy of slavery. As demonstrated by her decision to sign an executive order to eliminate part of the state’s name from government documents, the governor agrees with that analysis.

Apparently these people don’t realize the enormity of what they are doing by attempting to appease the terrorists. The simple version is:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller
First they came …

But it’s far more complicated than that. There is a deadly psychology that goes along with this. Sociopaths have muted emotion responses.

The thugs and terrorists who beat people because of their skin color or political persuasion and vandalize buildings and monuments and loot stores get a thrill they don’t get and perhaps have never experienced before in their lives. The high they get from this requires greater and greater levels of violence and domination of others to recreate.

Read The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, and/or Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, and/or Hitler’s Willing Executioners.And read my blog post from nearly 13 years ago: Drawing a line in the sand.

What these history lessons demonstrate is that there exist people who, once they “taste blood”, are never satisfied. They will not stop when they accomplish what you might think, and even they think, is their end goal. As they acquire more and more power without significant resistance there comes a point where they become genocidal and murder millions. It feeds that hunger for power and emotional high which can no longer be achieved with mere rioting, looting, and beatings of innocent people.

As they run out of victims the “purity test scores” to avoid death become higher and higher. Those who were once favored supporters become victims to the almost unstoppable murderous thugs. They “eat their own” after leaving rivers of blood in their wake.

These people must be stopped now. They must not be appeased.


12 thoughts on “Rhode Island to change state name

  1. Exactly Joe. To me it’s just like Vietnam. You can win every battle and still lose the war because the politicians/society are so corrupt there’s no way to win. I truly feel for the next generation.
    Luck would have it though, we can die fighting back!

  2. What’s next?
    New Mexico should be renamed, of course, because as every ad man knows, “New” is better than “Old”, and Old Mexico, south of the border is thereby explicitly considered not as good as the new version which is America.
    Racism. Q.E.D.

  3. Also, Washington should be renamed (the state and the city). And “District of Columbia” is bad too (honoring Columbus). That suggests the Columbia river needs renaming, too.
    It’s a good thing the governor of SD is on record that he will not allow Mount Rushmore to be blown up. I wonder if the Crazy Horse monument is being threatened. Given that the Lincoln Emancipation monument is, including by the “delegate” to Congress Eleanor Horton, it wouldn’t surprise me.

    • I’ve been thinking there’s an opportunity to split the state into Washington and some other state name with progressive credentials, like “Roosevelt”. Since a state cannot be made from within the territory of an existing state without the approval of the legislature, we either:

      1) Get the existing legislature declared in rebellion (like West Virginia), convene a legislature somewhere else, like Spokane, an approve the split while the rebellious areas cannot attend due to being under threat of arrest for rebelliousiliciousness.
      2) Throw a advertising campaign at Seattle along the lines of “Why are you living in a state named after a white male slave owner? Why be associated with the cousin-humping redneck that want to? They’re soaking up your money, too! Let’s cut them loose!” Don’t bother throwing any money at a campaign in the rest; if Seattle takes the bait, nobody else will want to be associated with them anyway.

      As for the District of Columbia… turn it into a museum district, a place for foreign nations to keep an embassy, a working space for just the Executive themselves and immediate staff. Use the Capitol only for special occasions. Move everything else out across the nation, spread it around to the least prosperous counties in the many states to keep the real estate and cost of living expenses down.

      • Let us not forget that King County (home to Seattle) in 1986 spent a fortune on realigning the county name from William Rufus King – a former US Veep – and slaveowner – to MLK.

        • That’s a thought: the city and state could be said to be named for Booker T. Washington.

  4. i’m getting tired…just knock on my door when civil war starts so i can come play…

  5. Wow…that is as lame as it gets, i think.
    These idiots are tripping over themselves to show who can be the biggest appeaser. And THOSE, that fall for it, buy it, regergitate it….will get EVERYTHING they desrve.
    Served up by there Masters, they put in place.
    Ya gota see the brite side.
    We shall see, surely.

  6. “These people must be stopped now. They must not be appeased.”

    You mean they “should” be stopped. But they won’t be stopped, and they will be appeased, because there is a much larger agenda driving them. This iteration of Progressiveism has been over a century in the making. The movers and shakers have told us all along what they were doing and how they were doing it. The argument can be made that the “camel’s nose was in the tent”, so to speak, at the founding of the country.

    It always starts with ideological and doctrinal corruption, and once that is accomplished the game is already over. It’s a “dead country walkin'”. My estimate is; we crossed that threshold at least 120 years ago, and possibly even at the very founding in 1776 it was already a done deal. What happens next is merely the inevitable consequence of a nation that’s lost any proper sense of liberty and where it comes from.

    And in the time of Samuel the people wanted a king, like other nations;

    “And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

    And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

    And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

    And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

    And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

    And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

    And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

    He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

    And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

    Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

    That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles”.

    Sound familiar? You know it does. And it’s been downhill ever since.

  7. Pingback: Quote of the day—Mike Sievert, CEO, T-Mobile, @MikeSievert | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.