Tag Archives: George Orwell

CONDEMN THE WHITE GROUPS FIRST, FORGET THE REST

The citizenry of the United States of America has been conditioned by the left that racism by whites or white groups, particularly white nationalists/white supremacists, is the worst sin that can possibly be committed on the planet. And since the left makes up the definition of racism to fit its needs of the moment, they can accuse you on the spot and take steps to severely punish you, even to the point of ruining your life. And that’s okay.

This liberal directive has also spilled over into the conservative circles. No matter what the facts may be, or if the facts have yet to be determined, if an incident occurs where a white person, or white groups have possibly exhibited  acts of racism, that conservative leader, politicians, pundits, elected officials, etc. must race to the microphone to denounce the white person/white group. No facts are required and if the act turns out to be not true, it doesn’t matter. If the person(s) involved incur damages or if their live/lives are ruined, who cares. They’re white people and it’s our purpose to wipe out all white people or beat them into submission.

The Charlottesville melee has fully confirmed the above. Even though the white nationalist group, “Unite the Right” was acting in unacceptable Nazi-like fashion, the groups, ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter, with histories of hate and violence themselves, showed up and the protest site ready to rumble. But, according to Big Brother (the left and the main stream media), ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter have no responsibility in this. In fact, these two hate groups should be applauded because, according to the left, excuse me, Big Brother, they were there to confront racism.

When watching The Five on FNC last night, I observed that Kimberly Guilfoyle and Dana Perino, both conservatives, were displeased with the president’s responses to Charlottesville, thinking that he should have barreled out, grabbed a microphone, and denounced “Unite the Right” as being the sole perpetrator of the events in Charlottesville. Jesse Watters was the only talking head that seemed satisfied with the three addresses by the President. I couldn’t get a feel for what Greg Gutfeld was thinking, and of course Juan Williams thought the President’s actions were unacceptable and that ANTIFA/BLM had no blame in the melee whatsoever.

As I write this, I’m reviewing an article posted on townhall.com in the last hours. According to townhall.com, House Speaker, Paul Ryan, is taking issue with President Trump’s statements regarding the Charlottesville melee. Speaker Ryan tweeted the following: “We must be clear. White Supremacy is repulsive. This bigotry is counter to all this country stands for. There can be no moral ambiguity.

In addition to Speaker Ryan, GOP Chairwoman, Ronna Romney McDaniel corrected the president as to who is to blame for the violence. Chairperson McDaniel tweeted the following: “In Charlottesville, the blame lays squarely on the KKK and white supremacists.”

Speaker Ryan Questions Trump’s ‘Moral Ambiguity’

Like I said above, with respect to acts of racism committed by any white individual or white group, the entire nation appears to have been conditioned to zero in on the white folks/white groups involved and exclude any other groups which may have behaved badly also.

I’m currently listening to Rush Limbaugh and what he’s saying parallels to what I’m writing. Of course, I will be demonized by the left and perhaps some on the right for my observations and opinions. While I may have known this all along, the Charlottesville incident has made me more aware than ever of how the left in American has continuously brainwashed and conditioned the American people and will continue to do so.

In fact, the United States of American is dangerously close to becoming Oceania in the George Orwell novel, “1984.” In fact, I’m going to say it…We are “1984” with the left, including the main stream media assuming the role of “Big Brother.”

Facebooktwitter

TEAR THEM DOWN OR LEAVE THEM UP – PART TWO

In my introduction to what should we do with those pesky monuments commemorating heroes of the Confederacy, I laid out my feelings about the actions of a few folks with whom I’ve come in contact who have moved to the Southeastern United States (the South) from other parts of the country and the attitude that some, not all, have displayed toward southern culture and the southern people.

Since Dylann Roof entered a Charleston, S.C. church in June 2015 and opened fire, killing nine church members, all black, there has been a frenzy by the left to destroy anything relating to the United States Civil War. The reasoning: In some photo, Mr. Roof was seen holding a Confederate battle flag. The left and some members of the right immediately called for the banning of the flag because it was a symbol of hate. Everyone who owned a Confederate battle flag or something depicting the Confederate battle flag, even it was just a belt buckle, was automatically labeled a racist, a white supremacist, a hater, etc. No room for argument. Because the left said it was so, then it must be so. Conservatives from outside the south, and even from within the south were also piling on.

Did I own anything depicting the Confederate battle flag? If I did, it was packed away in some box in the back of the basement. I didn’t like the attitude of the left plus the attitude of some fellow conservatives. While it was determined that Dylann Roof was indeed a racist, white supremacist, and a hater, does that necessarily mean that everyone owning an object depicting the Confederate battle flag was also all of these things? Apparently the left and many conservatives thought so, though. Was explaining that owning a Confederate battle flag or an object depicting a Confederate battle flag, could mean the remembering of heritage, of history? According to the left and other conservatives, absolutely not. These folks wouldn’t even listen to the other side.

Of course, the left would never, ever listen to the other side, and the conservatives were too scared of being labeled a racist if they did listen to the other side and acknowledged the reasoning. In 2015, being labeled a racist by the left was one of the worst things that could happen to an individual.

In the South, there are many monuments in public places honoring Confederate heroes, plus many buildings, schools, streets, and towns are named after prominent southerners living in and around the time of the Civil War. Following the Charleston church tragedy, there has been a movement by the left, and yes, by some conservatives, to destroy everything that is a reminder of the Civil War.

The Alabama legislature has passed a statute indicating that monuments meeting certain criteria cannot be removed from their locations. Of course, this has the left and those sympathetic conservatives up in arms. But guess what, I don’t care, and I’m not the only one.

In New Orleans, a city run by Democrats, headed up by a Democrat mayor, the taking down of statutes honoring prominent Confederate military men and prominent southerners has begun. Earlier this month, a statute of Confederate Army General, Robert E. Lee, was recently brought down to the angst of many people, including me. As a frequent traveler to New Orleans, I have driven around Lee Circle many times. The statute is indeed impressive.

Robert E. Lee graduated with honors from West Point Academy. He was also a prominent general in the United States Army and was set to lead the Union Army in the Civil War. However, General Lee was from Virginia and loved his home state. Because of this, General Lee accepted the position to head up the Confederate Army. He couldn’t bring himself to fight against Virginia. Also, Robert E. Lee hated slavery and had freed his slaves years before the Civil War began.

Liberals have argued that even though Robert E. Lee may have been a “good guy,” he still chose to fight for the south and thus, he was “anti-American, anti-moral, and anti-non white people,” a quote from an individual who is in favor of taking down statutes honoring, in any way, the Confederate States of America.

I’ve also heard that the display of statutes honoring prominent members of the Confederacy is tantamount to Germany displaying statutes honoring Adolph Hitler and other notorious Nazis. But you can’t even compare the actions of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to the actions of Adolph Hitler and other higher ups in the Third Reich. Robert E. Lee and other prominent southerners who served the Confederate States of America fought to preserve their homeland and their way of life. The president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, didn’t round up human beings who he hated and send them to concentration camps to be tortured, experimented on, and killed.

The following is a list of some of the more prominent Confederate Generals: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, Nathan Bedford Forrest, James Longstreet, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, Bloody Bill Anderson, Albert Sidney Johnston, John Mosby, P.G.T. Beauregard, A.P. Hill, Richard Ewell, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, Kirby Smith, John Bell Hood, Barnard Bee, Lewis Armistead, and Porter Alexander. Also, there was Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy.

While it has been documented that Robert E. Lee was a good person and a fantastic general, I can’t say that I know much about the others listed above. I’m sure some of them were good and some of them weren’t. That’s true about the entire human race.

Slavery was legal, and an accepted practice in the first century of the United States of America. When you are born and raised to think something’s okay, you generally consider it okay until others may sway your thinking, or until you decide for yourself that it’s wrong based on research, observations, and ‘gut instinct.’ What I’m trying to say, and admittedly having a bit of a difficult time doing it, is that southerners or anyone else for that matter who owned slaves, and slavery was also common outside the south, and throughout the world, were not necessarily engaging in it because they wanted to do evil, whereas the desire of Hitler and the Nazis was to do evil and create a master race, thus eliminating all of those who they considered inferior. And as we have studied, many people with disabilities were executed for no other reason than that they didn’t fit the mold of the blonde haired, blue-eyed master race that was Hitler’s goal to create.

The Civil War is part of the history of the United States of America and a very important part. It represented a dark time for this country, and one that we certainly don’t want to repeat. One of the reasons that so much emphasis is placed on learning history is that history does repeat itself. In studying about the Civil War and reconstruction when I was in school, it was drilled into my head that we don’t want to ever ‘go there again.’ Secession from the Union was a terrible thing, and when I hear quips about the state of California wanting to secede from the United States, I wince.

Remember the novel, “1984,” by George Orwell? The party regularly destroyed and/or altered history. In our public schools today, and even in some of our private schools, what is taught has been altered or completely left out because it might offend some students. This is being driven by the liberals, including the teachers’ unions.

Liberals are advocating not only the destruction of statutes honoring prominent members of the Confederacy, but they are advocating changing the names of all buildings that are named after prominent Confederates. They are also advocating changing the names of schools, streets, and even towns that may have been named after anyone who had a part in the Confederacy.

Folks, that is going to be a nightmare. There’s a county in Alabama called Lee County. Will that have to be changed? Will all the towns and cities named Jackson and Jacksonville have to be changed because of General Stonewall Jackson? Will anything that has the name of Jefferson, such as Jefferson County in Alabama have to be changed? Or will anything with the common name of Davis have to be changed because it might relate back to Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy? Gives me a headache.

I’m hearing, though, that it might be okay to memorialize the Civil War in private museums. Well what if those museums are located where folks have to walk by them who might be offended by the contents of those museum?. Or maybe just knowing about a museum that illustrates the history of the Confederacy offends someone?

Do you really think that after directing the demolition of statutes, and changing the names of buildings, schools, streets, and even towns is going to stop the left, fueled by their overwhelming hatred for anyone who disagrees with their political philosophy, including southern white conservative Christians, from declaring war on private museums that house Confederate memorabilia? And after shutting down these private museums, do you think the left is going to stop and say, ‘job well done?’ Why stop there? Let’s force anyone who has in his or her name ‘Jackson,’ or ‘Davis,’ or ‘Lee,’ or ‘Smith’ (Kirby Smith was the name of a Confederate General), etc. to change their name because such names might be offensive to certain people.

Furthermore, I have observed from some of those who are in favor of the tearing down of the Confederate monuments, a hidden hatred for the south, even though they visit, and enjoy our food, our music, our beautiful beaches, and our weather. The hatred appears to be for the southern people who may or may not have had ancestors who owned slaves.

In other words, after accomplishing all of the above, will the left then advocate the persecution of those of us who are “southern born and southern bred?” Will they round us up and put us in internment camps?

YES! The last few paragraphs are Kabuki Theater, far-fetched, and perhaps ludicrous. But the left is currently advocating the demolition of statutes, changing street names, school names, building names where those streets, schools, and building names may relate back to the Confederacy. Making all of these changes will be a nightmare, in fact, this will be worse than a nightmare.

We have to stand up to the left now, we have to preserve our history, lest we repeat it. We have to ‘nip it in the bud.’

STOP THE LEFT AND THOSE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE COWARDS AND ARE AFRAID OF BEING CALLED BAD NAMES! STOP THEM NOW!

And yes, I’m against the demolition of statutes and memorials honoring prominent leaders of the Confederacy.

Note: The phrase, “southern born and southern bred,” is a phrase in the Song, “My Home’s in Alabama,” performed by the country music artists, “Alabama,” and written by Teddy Gentry and Randy Owen.

 

Facebooktwitter

THREATS AND INTIMIDATION

Have we become a country where our day to day behavior can be determined by threats and intimidation? It certainly appears that way.

The vote of the electors of the Electoral College which makes the nation’s president elect the official next president usually goes off without a hitch. It’s a formality which might take up a half-minute on the news.

This year, as we all know, was an exception. President Elect, Donald Trump, captured the most electoral votes and surpassed the required number to become the next president on election night, November 8, 2016. Even though Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton, conceded the election to Mr. Trump. Democrats, who could not fathom that Clinton could have lost the election, immediately fought back. There was rioting in the streets, crying on college campuses and elsewhere, the popping up of support groups for those who were experiencing severe angst and trauma from the election results, and so on and so forth.

Since the election night, the Democrats have stopped at nothing to de-legitimize the election results and the upcoming presidency of Donald Trump. First, they demanded recounts in states where the Trump campaign flipped from blue to red. Did the Democrats use threats and intimidation in over-seeing the re-counting of the votes? If they did, it didn’t work.

In a last-ditch effort to de-legitimize Donald Trump, and in their dreams, to maybe overturn the election, they attempted to get electors, especially in the states that Trump won, to re-consider and vote for Hillary. From various news sources, I learned that emails numbering more than 2000 were sent to each elector, even in Alabama where Trump received over 60% of the vote. Furthermore, I learned that electors in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were receiving death threats in order to make them change their votes.

We live in the United States of America where any form of threats and intimidation by the government or any political party of law-abiding citizens should never take place under any circumstance. But sadly, threats and intimidation have become a popular tool of the Democrat party to get what they want.

I’ve been reading, mostly on social media, that many musicians and refusing to perform at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Earlier today, I read an article about Andrea Bocelli, a friend of the president elect, had accepted an invitation to entertain, but had to back out because of the threats and intimidation he was receiving from the left. All the social media posts about this have come from the left. Could this be fake news? Be that as it may, I thought that maybe Mr. Trump could go the country music route. He could also invite second or third tier acts who might be looking for exposure. And what better way to get it that to perform at a presidential inauguration?

But wait. If a good local or regional singer or band who has aspirations of maybe one day getting to Hollywood, Chicago, New York, or maybe even Nashville were to perform for President Elect Trump’s inauguration, would they be branded for life by the Hollywood, Chicago, New York, or Nashville leftists (and there are some leftists in Nashville). Regardless of how good the individual or group is, would Hollywood automatically reject them for having performed for Donald Trump? The implication of threats and intimidation; could they possibly prevent young artists from accepting the “gig of their dreams?”

A Trump presidency should give this nation at least four relief from what has been the continuing progression of government taking over as many aspects of our lives as possible. If President Trump can get Obamacare repealed in its entirety or replaced with something much less insidious, maybe we can get a little relief on our health insurance premiums. If all those federal lands that Obama placed off limits to oil and natural gas exploration, can be re-opened for these activities, we could take some giant steps toward becoming energy independent, meaning our personal energy costs would decrease, and the fear of massive increases which were championed by the Obama administration would cease to exist.

The left, including the mainstream media, sadly has become an enemy of the United States of America. It is an enemy that will always be with us and will always use threats and intimidation to change our behavior, similar to the threats and intimidation used in the George Orwell novel, “1984.” Threats and intimidation includes not only threats to our health and property, but will include the hurling of false accusations at those of us who refuse to tow their line, in an effort to weaken us or brainwash us into assuming their way of thinking, again like what was written in the novel, “1984.”

Many of us, in church, with our families, or just by ourselves, have prayed for our country during the Obama administration because we were afraid of the results of the implementation of many of Obama’s policies. Prayers for our country cannot stop. In fact, prayer is going to be even more important. The threats and intimidation that will continue from the left will weaken us at times and may even tempt us to flip to the other side. Some say it’s easy to be a liberal. I wouldn’t know. So, please keep fighting the good fight because we now have a chance to take our country back.

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 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