Tag Archives: thought police

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