Monthly Archives: September 2016

INSTEAD OF BEING TOO SERIOUS, CAN’T WE LAUGH?

A few days ago, a link to an article from some liberal feminist website appeared on my Facebook news feed. In the article a black woman was outlining the trials and tribulations of being black. She didn’t grown up in the ghetto living in a three room house with 6 siblings, all being raised by a single mother. Instead, she grew up in a middle class neighborhood with a Mom, Dad, and a swimming pool. She attended good secondary schools and received a scholarship to Harvard. Everything had fallen into place in her life, including marriage and career. Yet, she was griping about racism and white privilege.

It seems as though when someone would ask her where she was going to college and she answered, “Harvard,” folks would ask her, “Is that the one in Massachusetts?” She further observed that white people weren’t getting this type of treatment.

In addition to the above, she claimed that a high school algebra teacher indicated that she was the only “spook” in the class. She also described an incident where a black classmate was accepted to UCLA. A white student, who was rejected indicated that the black student must have gotten in unfairly because of affirmative action. If there was ever a good reason for repealing affirmative action policies, which are discriminatory to minorities, this is one.

I grew up in Cullman, Alabama and currently live in the greater Birmingham, Alabama area. I am somewhat skeptical about this woman’s claims because in this area, being the hotbed of racism, according to the mainstream media and the left, the stuff she’s claiming was said to her and about her just isn’t said where the person talked about can hear it. I’ve heard things said in private, but not to a person’s face. I can only remember a few times when I heard the word, “spook,” said while referring to blacks and that was a long time ago.

I realize some things can get annoying. I have a friend from up north who thinks all southerners eat grits three times a day, when in fact, I’m not a big grits eater at all. For me to enjoy them, they have to be “dressed up,” with items such as shrimp, cheese, smoked sausage, and other good stuff. If they’re on my breakfast plate, I’ll eat one or two bites, but that’s about it. If we’re in a restaurant and a grits entre is on the menu, she will ask me if I’m going to order than. One time at a breakfast buffet, she asked me, “Are you getting grits?” This annoys me, but like Jesus said in First Peter, you should accept what was said, forgive, and not retaliate. In fact, this is something that’s really laughable.

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in the waiting room of the Express Oil Change close to my home. I was in there with an elderly gentleman and another lady who looked to be in her twenties or early thirties. ESPN was on the tube, and they were talking about Alabama’s game with Southern Cal that was coming up the next day. The gentleman said to me and the other lady, I know y’all aren’t happy about football season starting because and that would be all we were going to hear about for the next 4-1/2 months. I replied to him, “Oh contraire. I’m an Alabama alum, a season ticket holder, and own and manage an Alabama sports information website. I gave him a business card and invited him to visit my site. He then asked me if this was a clothing site. I explained the site to him and even showed it to him on my phone. He was obviously surprised that a woman would be well-versed in football. It was a fun thing to see the surprised look on his face and I laughed about it. However, after telling a few of my women friends about this, they were shocked and considered the old gentleman a sexist.

Why not be glad and enjoy the surprised look on someone’s face when you don’t fit in the square hole, to which they think you belong. In fact, I get a lot of surprised looks from guys when I tell them about my website. Some left wing feminists probably think I should get my nose out of joint and act offended. Now why would I do that, I want everyone with whom I speak to visit my Alabama sports website, make it their homepage, and click on the ads.

By getting puffed up and wearing her feelings on her sleeve every time something with a racial connotation is said to her by folks who are surprised that she doesn’t fit the stereotype they had in their heads for blacks, she is masking incidents of true and hurtful racism, and they are out there, that should be dealt with and corrected.

This particular woman who wrote this article has a good life. She should enjoy it and enjoy to a certain extent surprising folks with her outstanding credentials. I did note that she is a native of Los Angeles. Well, maybe folks in in the liberal city of Los Angeles act in the manner she describes, but we don’t act like that here in Alabama. We also know where Harvard is. Guess in Los Angeles, they don’t.

Facebooktwitter

THE NOVEL, 1984: ARE WE THERE? – PART FOUR

This is the last in a four part series of articles where I have illustrated how our society reflects many of the aspects of the society in the fictional novel, 1984, written by George Orwell. Part one demonstrated how the outer party attempted to “get into a person’s head” and extract his independent thoughts, which were forbidden. Part two mostly dwells with brainwashing and thought control. If the outer party says it, then it’s true. I used racism in this article to illustrate this concept. Part three discusses the concept of newspeak, the fictional language in Mr. Orwell’s novel, used to limit freedom of thought or thought crimes.

The Ministries of Love, Peace, Plenty, and Truth are ministries or agencies in 1984 where all public attention is focused on the figurehead, Big Brother.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with the news media, entertainment, the fine arts, and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine.

Rewrite history, does this sound familiar? For several decades not, the left has tried to squelch the teachings of certain segments of American history because having to learn certain things might be offensive to certain groups of people. Christopher Columbus, who discovered America, is now ostracized by the left for reasons including, but not limited to the following, according to deathandtaxesmag.com:

  • Columbus’ expedition virtually wiped out the Taino natives.
  • Columbus inaugurated the Age of Slavery in the Atlantic and Americas.
  • Columbus was the pimp of the New World.
  • Columbus and his men tortured the Tainos who resisted slavery.

The left has also proceeded to demonize the founding fathers of this nation and has done its best to see that teaching our children about the founding fathers is kept to a minimum and their flaws, including the ownership of slaves and the advocacy of slavery, is exposed.

In June, 2015, a young man, with the intent to kill, entered a historic church in Charleston, SC and began shooting, killing nine church members who were involved in Bible study. The murderer, Dylann Roof, was white and photos of him with the Confederate battle flag were found on social media. Uh-oh! Liberals went crazy, yelling at the top of their lungs that the Confederate battle flag should be banned, destroyed, with no vestiges of it left on the planet. This included any item containing an image of the flag, even something as small and unassuming as a belt buckle.

When conservatives, including many from the South, tried to explain that the Confederate flag was not necessarily a symbol of hate toward the black race, but also represented pride in one’s heritage, the open-minded, free-thinking, tolerant left would have nothing of it, pontificating that the Confederate battle flag was nothing but a symbol of racism, slavery, and hate. There was only one side and that was the side of the “tolerant” left.

Over the next several weeks following the Charleston shooting, attempts were made to take down statutes of Confederate leaders, including many who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. In many places, statutes honoring Confederate leaders been removed, while some efforts have been thwarted and are presently hung up in the courts.

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the left wishes to change history. Thankfully it’s not as easy to do as it was in 1984, the novel.

The Ministry of Truth was also responsible for news and information fed to the party members as well as the proles (non-party members looked down upon by those in government). There was no such thing as an independent media. Freedom of the press was an antiquated obsolete concept that had been done away with in its entirety. While public radio and television, plus government Internet sites represent examples of state-run media, we do still have some remnants of a free and independent press. According to breitbart.com, President Barak Obama, in a speech where he was ripping Fox News, made the following comment: “Speaking of Fox News, the poor, and the way GOP leaders think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”

The above should horrifically frighten every man and women in this nation. In addition to hinting at the possible elimination of freedom of the press, Obama is also advocating thought control and his words could possibly construed to advocating the elimination of free thinking. This is scary stuff.

1984’s Ministry of Truth is also in charge of eliminating documents, particularly historical documents, which don’t fit the outer party’s political philosophy. Books that do not meet the party’s approval are also eliminated. The ministry has ways of destroying these documents and books whereby no copy can ever be found plus the existence and content of these documents and books are fully eliminated from everyone’s brain.

Another ministry or agency in 1984, the novel, is the Ministry of Plenty. This ministry controlled the food and water supply of the country, Airstrip One, and possibly the entire region of Oceania. The food and beverages were not palatable and were designed only to keep the people alive. The rations doled out could not possibly maximize body and brain function. Could it be that the people were somewhat mind-numbed where independent thought and memory were diminished?

Along with city and state governments, the U.S. government has made head-ways into dictating what Americans should eat. They do it under the guise of proper nutrition and healthy lifestyles. But think about the pitiful school lunches that our schools are serving up to our children. Can these children possibly function mentally and physically with such meager lunches? Could this possibly be the advent of total government control over what we eat?

While this article will be my last in this series, I feel as though I have barely scratched the surface with respect to the parallels of the novel, 1984, and the events and policies of today, events and policies that have been advocated by the left. Is there enough information out there to fill up a novel? Might be worth a shot.

Facebooktwitter

1984 ARE WE THERE – PART THREE

Remember newspeak? It’s the fictional language in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. Newspeak was created by Mr. Orwell’s totalitarian state of Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought or what was commonly referred to in the novel as “thought crime.”

In order to maintain maximum control over the outer party, words and phrases were eliminated and replaced with inner party approved or politically correct verbiage.

The aim of newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple concepts that reinforce the total dominance of the state.

In the past forty or fifty years, many words, at the behest of the left have been considered politically incorrect to utter. These words were replaced by other words that the left considered acceptable and less offensive. One such example includes the words, “retarded” or “handicapped.” “Retarded” and “handicapped” have now been replaced with the word, “challenged.” We have the politically correct terms, physically challenged and mentally challenged, and to utter the words retarded or handicapped is considered offensive and language that shouldn’t ever be used. Perhaps the word, “challenged” is more acceptable and less demeaning, but we’ve come to a point where uttering either retarded or handicapped can get you in trouble with the left, sometimes to the point of losing your job and/or being socially ostracized.

Has a liberal ever asked you what you mean when you say, “Take our country back?” Of course, it means getting rid of the liberals and liberal philosophy that have been elected to office or appointed to certain governmental positions. When explaining that to a liberal, you may see a look of disappointment on their faces. They didn’t want to hear that, they wanted you to say that you wanted the strip Obama of the presidency because of the color of his skin. Because of the wishes of the left, the term “take our country back,” is now considered a buzz phrase for take our country back from its black president. Liberals decided this and it’s a lie!

Presidential candidate, Donald Trump’s campaign theme, “Make America Great Again,” is now considered racist. Liberals are insisting that it means take America back to before Civil Rights legislation was enacted (1964). That’s ridiculous and we all know it. But the liberals are pounding a racism connotation to Mr. Trump’s theme and the main stream media is running with it. Thus, those who are not particularly politically astute or don’t follow politics, opting instead to watch mindless TV such as “Dancing with the Stars,” have no choice but to believe that it’s true. The result is votes for Hillary.

Even using what the left considers improper in describing a person of color is labeled racism. The University of Alabama football team has had string of excellent running backs, all of them black.  A few years ago, one of these great running backs was referred to as a “beast.” He was. But the left tried to make that into something racist. Thankfully, they didn’t get far. Don’t you panty-waists interject yourselves into our football! You will regret it!

I don’t deal in buzz words or phrases, and when confronted with a liberal saying to you, “this is a buzzword for thus and so,” tell that liberal to take a hike.

Another good example of how liberals are attempting to force “newspeak” upon us is the renaming of “illegal aliens/immigrants” to “undocumented workers.” Even the conservative leaning media outlets are saying “undocumented workers.” While we all know that undocumented workers are nothing but illegal aliens or immigrants, liberals have repetitively forced this language on us to the extent that we hear it and think nothing about it or about using the new term ourselves. Furthermore, the left generally refuses to distinguish between legal immigrants who are here in this country legally and may be preparing for rightfully becoming U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who have broken the law and entered this country illegally, but think they are entitled to the same benefits as all American citizens. With the left continually failing to make this distinction, people are once again being brainwashed into assuming that conservatives are against all forms of immigration. This is, of course, another leftist lie.

In 1984, the novel, the inner party was working to convert the language of the outer party in the region called, Oceania, from oldspeak to newspeak and had established a timeline of sixty or so years to do so.

While liberals claim to be advocates of tolerance and free thinking, it’s not true. In fact, nothing could be any further from the truth, unless your free thought aligns up with liberal thought. Is the left attempting to alter the way we talk and adopt a politically correct language such as newspeak? I’m giving you my opinion and you can decided.

Facebooktwitter

THE NOVEL, 1984: ARE WE THERE? – PART TWO

In part one of my 1984 series, I wrote about the ever-present “thought police” in Mr. Orwell’s novel, discussing similarities in today’s hate crimes’ legislation and operations of the thought police in trying to get into everyone’s head to determine thought because independent thought was not allowed and severely punished when caught.

Another similarity arises with racism. Liberals were changing, and still do change the definition of racism to fit their needs of the moment.

After having been called a racist so many times by the left because I didn’t agree with President Barak Obama’s policies, I became fed up and challenged liberals to find a place in my writings where I have besmirched this president because of his skin color. Of course, there’s not any in my writings.

Infuriated because they have been caught making accusations that they can’t back up (or are they?), they come up with a new way of labeling you a racist. They tell you that you, along with every other white person has an “insidious” racist gene inside of them. And while you may not act like a racist or say racist statements, you are still a racist. Liberals will even tell you that they have that gene also. Because they are enlightened, they feel they must fight their racist tendencies on an ongoing basis. When they slip up, such as a liberal woman clutching her purse just a little bit tighter when meeting a group of strutting young black men on the sidewalk, they are simply devastated with themselves.

The following is taken from a liberal thread I was on several months ago:

**********

Accuser: “Hi Nancy, racist much?”

Me: “You have opened a floodgate. I’m sick and fed up with liberals accusing me and other conservatives of racism just because we don’t support the policies and ideologies of Barak Obama. For over two years, I have been the owner and administrator of a political website/blog, and my political writings are out there for all to see.  Unless you can point to something I’ve said or written where I’ve disparaged or denigrated Barak Obama or anyone else with respect to skin color, I strongly suggest that you not hurl the racism accusation at me or anyone else.”

Accuser: “Nancy, your attitude and reaction continue to show everyone except yourself that you harbor racism. Try not to let that be a button so easily pushed. BTW, I am also prejudiced and racist. I know this to be true even as I resist it intellectually. Las Saturday as I walked on mile in downtown (American city) after a concert with my wife, I feared the area we were in and my concern was focused on the black folks around me. I wasn’t disturbed by the two white skate boarders that came right by us…could have easily grabbed my wife’s purse. I hated my thoughts that night hand have pondered it since, I admit that I have work to do. I understand that I bring prejudice to the table. And I think to myself, “If I am willing to apply these thoughts to the reality of the situation…for safety’s sake, what much more minor prejudice do I carry without knowing it. Exposing it is necessary to fixing it. You just don’t see it, we do.”

Me: “So, you’re one of those who claims we’re all racists and should cry ourselves to sleep at night after giving ourselves 20 lashes. I’ll go a little broader and say that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As a conservative writer, I’ve been accused of racism so much because I don’t agree with Barak Obama politically, that I’ve had enough and I don’t put up with it any longer. You’re not the first person I’ve said this to and I’m sure you won’t be the last.”

Accuser: “And…based on your website, you’re been called racist twice. Look it up. You wrote it. Not counting this one, of course.”

Me: “Is this the paragraph, you’re referring to? ‘Recently, I confronted two liberals online; one directly accused me of racism and the other shared a meme which indicated that white Christians hated President Obama and the first family because of the color of their skin. The liberal who directly accused me of racism apologized, but then turned things around and appeared to indirectly imply that I was a racist. Oh, I’ve been called a racist directly and indirectly more than just two times. Besides, how many times have liberal political commentators and other well knowns called those who didn’t support Obama racists or accused them of racism? If this is needed the paragraph, I don’t know how you could ascertain that I’ve only been called a racist twice, but obviously, you did. It won’t be the first time I’ve been misunderstood and it won’t be the last. Also I’ve been called much more than a racist by those on the left. Some of the things, I refuse to put in print.’”

Accuser: “Maybe boiling it down will help, especially you wrote on your site that you want people to use a valid example when calling you a racist. You aren’t going to judge a white woman negatively due to how she said something in her spouse’s nomination party speech. But, you immediately judge and convict a black woman due to how she said something in her spouse’s nomination party speech. Except to remember two things she did wrong (that in your mind were anti-white racism.) These are exactly the same mistake…one you readily dismiss as unintentional; only a few phrases out of 15 minutes. The other person you condemn for all eternity, except to remember only the things she did that were wrong/unworthy. She just happens to be the black one. I did another quick search of your site. You’re also a label-jacker…carrying the flag of all lives matter to misdirect, denigrate or water down the POC’s desire to bring focus to what is likely a long-term oppressive situation. You wouldn’t go to a breast cancer rally and shout that all cancers matter. But you’ll write about the racial version over and over and over on your site. Just trying to help. If you don’t see that you may carry prejudice in your heart or mind, I wish I could help you. I can extend my love to you, however. I hope you find some peace and some ability to care for all others, not just the ones that matter to you now. I wasn’t saying you were called a racist twice. I was saying, ‘wow.’ You’ve been called a racist twice and you still don’t think you should ponder that even a tiny bit?”

**********

Get my drift? I have never met or talked with my above accuser in my life. Yet, this person is accusing me of things for which he has no proof. He says he identifies with me because he is a racist too. This sounds a lot like the guy who was administering the torture to the main character, Winston Smith, in 1984, the novel. He would accuse Winston of things and further indicate that he was once guilty of the same things, except he had been cured. The torturer also expressed his love for Winston and just wanted to show him the right way.

While certainly no imprisonment or torture is involved here, the above serves to illustrate how the left considers themselves intellectually superior to everyone else and capable of gleaning what’s inside a person’s head when that person says or does something the left doesn’t like or disagrees with. Sounds a lot like the “inner party” in 1984.

Previously conservatives were scared of being called racists and would generally grovel on the floor begging not to be labeled a racist. Now, some are getting bolder and insisting that their accusers actually prove their accusations. By constantly enforcing their demented theory that every white person has that insidious racist gene inside of them, and must consciously and intellectually make attempts to purge themselves of that gene or certainly diminish that gene, constitutes brainwashing in my book. And that’s what happened throughout the the novel, 1984.

In the 1984 novel, the ever present “thought police” worked toward getting into the heads of the “outer party” members to determine if they were having illegal independent thoughts. Actions and facial expressions during constant surveillance were used to determine a party member’s thoughts. A smile, a laugh, a grimace, a frown, were all used in determining what was inside a person’s head. This sounds like the left’s “buzz words” or “code words” for racism, which leads into the next article in this series.

 

Facebooktwitter

THE NOVEL, 1984: ARE WE THERE? PART ONE

Perhaps it was required reading for you at some point when you were in school. Are you a child of the sixties who felt that nothing like that could ever happen in America? Or, you a child of the nineties who thinks that we’re not there yet, but could be in a decade or so? Or, are you someone like me, a conservative, who liberals often refer to as an unenlightened oaf. Are you thinking that many aspects of George Orwell’s novel, published in the 1940s, reflects the times we’re living in now?

I read 1984 when I was in Junior High School and didn’t get much out of it because I was really too young to understand governments and social norms. It seemed so far-fetched from the time we were currently living in. I read it again in the year, 1984 and understood it much better. As a young adult and somewhat of a political person, I knew that we were a long way from the culture depicted in Mr. Orwell’s novel. However, I could see it maybe coming to fruition sometime in the twenty-first century.

Fast-forward to the twenty-first century where the United States has elected the most far left president in its 200 plus year history. The mainstream media is in the tank for him and often resorts to blatant lies to push his agenda.

The novel, 1984 was authored by English writer, George Orwell and published in 1949. It is set in a country called Airstrip One which was formerly Great Britain. Airstrip One is a province of the super state, Oceania. Oceania is in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public manipulation, dictated by a political system named, English Socialist, Ingsoc, for short. Oceania is controlled by “the party,” who is headed up by “Big Brother,” who may or may not exist. The party seeks power for its own sake and is not interested in the common good of others.

After reading the novel, in its entirety, and researching the writings of others who might think like me, I was unable to find a writing of any substance which paralleled my thoughts on how we’re living in a culture with similarities to the 1984 culture.

The telescreen is omnipresent all through the novel. It is a device that is strategically position so that every party member can be watched at all times. While there are certain hiding places where one can go to avoid being seen by the powers at be, if one continues to go into hiding for a period of time that is “too lengthy,” the telescreen and the powers behind it will address that person, telling him or her to move to a place where they can be seen. If that person fails to comply, the “thought police” will arrest that person, taking him or her to various torture chambers where that person is whipped, beaten, and brainwashed into submission.

Because independent thought is forbidden on Airstrip One and probably throughout Oceania, the “thought police” are ever present in an effort to determine what thoughts a party member may have. Facial twitches, excessive laughter, scowls, smiles, etc. will serve to indicate that a member’s inner thoughts may be detrimental to the goals of the party.

In other words, the thought police are trying to get into your head and determine what you are thinking. Of course any independent thought will lead to unspeakable things happening to the person guilty of independent thought.

Does this remind you of “hate crime” laws, implemented during the latter part of the twentieth century? The crime of murder is worse if you kill them because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their religion, etc. Thus, prosecutors try to get into the murder’s head, try to determine the motivation for the killing. Was the murder out to kill someone just because he or she wanted to kill someone? Or was the murder committed because the perpetrator hated the victim’s skin color, ethnicity, religion, etc.? How do you know, how can you tell?

In 1984, the thought police had a free reign over party members. Anyone they suspected of independent thoughts was imprisoned and subject to torture and brainwashing.

They were trying to get into heads. Same thing, in this day and age. The left, the implementers of hate crime legislation, are trying to get into your head, trying to extract your thoughts, even though no credible way to do that exists.

Moving right along, consider the fact that anyone can be accused of racism by the left at any time and for any reason. And if the left can’t point to something you have said or written where you have besmirched someone because of skin color or ethnicity, they tell you that because you are white, you have that insidious racist gene inside you that must be purged from you by whatever means necessary. I’ve seen this time and time again in the last eight years. Sadly, as the left continues this diatribe against white people and continues to promote the white privilege farce, people will begin to believe their virulent regurgitations.

That’s what was happening in 1984. Subjects were bombarded with lies from Big Brother and the upper party, that they soon came to believe the lies, after being submitted to torture and brain washing. Politicians lie, the media lies. They say if you lie about something enough, it becomes the truth.

The above is just one area in which we can compare our culture to that in the novel, 1984. Additional articles will be published soon.

Facebooktwitter