by
Gadfly
Democrats
are leading the campaign to purify America of its sin of slavery. They support the removal of confederate
statues and renaming military bases currently bearing names of confederate
military leaders. Speaker of the House
Pelosi has even removed three portraits of former Speakers of the House who
were members of Confederate States.
As
part of the Democrat campaign, is it not ironic that in one of their publicity
stunts, Pelosi and fellow Democrats took a knee in the Nation’s Capitol while
wearing the Ghana Kente cloth? Affluent Ghanaians
were influential in selling their fellow countrymen in the European slave trade. Was it not
hypocritical for Democrats to be associated with a symbol of a people that
advanced and profited from slavery? As an example of
the leftist cabal on advancing the progressive Democrat narrative, see this
twisted and convoluted explanation by PolitiFact who has partnered
with Facebook to filter (censor) information that is contrary to their ideology.
Where will the campaign
end? If allowed to run its full course, it
will require eradicating our current political system of the Democrat Party and
any visible historical symbols of the Democrat Party throughout America’s
history—to include the portrait of Nancy Pelosi.
Does
this assertion sound bizarre?
Think
about it. As an institution, slavery
required political justification. This
involved not only Democrats from Confederate States but support from Democrats
in Northern States as well. The
institution of slavery was the reason the Republican Party was formed. Lincoln and fellow Republicans abhorred
slavery so much, they were willing to sacrifice well over 600,000 Americans at
the altar of accountability and justice.
Despite
the sacrifice of nearly 10% of America’s population at the time and the legal
termination of the institution of slavery, Democrats resisted post-Civil War
efforts to fully integrate former slaves and all blacks into America’s
Republic. The KKK and Jim Crow laws were
Democrat creations. Today’s Democrat-backed
KKK is Antifa and other well-funded organizations set on instituting a new form
of political slavery—complete acquiescence to the progressive Democrat Party.
The
long, overdue “conversation on racism,” if engaged by reasoned minds, will
shine a light on the modern slavery that currently exists in America (the
welfare state and the inner-city plantations).
Starting with education, Democrats have controlled the education of
Americans that has been very successful in indoctrinating at least two
generations of progressives (Marxist socialists in disguise), who see the world
through a normative lens.
What does a “normative
lens” mean? Progressives see the world
the way it ought to be and set out to make it so: safe from climate change and
the immoral beliefs of anyone who is not a progressive Democrat through militant
social justice warriors. As America’s intelligentsia,
they have a moral obligation to create other ordinary Americans in their image.
Does
this claim also sound bizarre?
Perhaps,
arguably, as the central organizing personality in this progressive movement,
former President Obama (who miraculously survived “systemic racism” to serve two full terms as
President of the United States of America) admitted his “intelligentsia”
proclivity on March 25, 2018 at a conference in Japan (part of an Asia-Pacific trip that also
included stops in Singapore, New Zealand and Australia—strong evidence
of a globalist perspective). He was
candid about his intellectual and moral superiority when he said (quoting from CNN):
"After I left
office, what I realized is that the Obama Foundation could potentially create a
platform for young, up-and-coming leaders, both in the United States and all
around the world to come together, meet together, create a digital platform
where they could exchange information," Obama said.
"If I could do
that effectively, then I would create a hundred, or a thousand, or a
million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas," he added (my bold
italics).
Obama’s
body language speaks volumes about his intellectual and moral superiority as in
this photograph from a CNN article:
Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was considered a demigod who tailored
Marxism for the Russian people. That is why we still refer to
Marxism-Leninism to describe Communism in Russia, the former Soviet Union, and
in China (even today). Here is a cartoon that reflects anti-Bolshevik
sentiment that Lenin (in the red robe) sacrificed Russia to a statue of Marx.
Today,
Democrats, who embrace progressivism and its Marxist philosophy, sacrifice a
formerly liberal
America to the altar of racism. Moreover,
Democrats and their progressive demagogues are creating racism (anti-white,
anti-cop, anti-anything that is not “Black Lives Matter”) in their alleged campaign
to eliminate racism. This is very
consistent with “Leninthink.” Orwell understood this so well that his
dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, painted a reality we see playing
out on our television screens. Walter Cronkite
predicted how this might turn out in a 1983 preface to an edition of Nineteen
Eighty-Four:
If not prophecy, what was
1984?
It was, as many have noticed, a warning:
a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where
political organization and technology can manufacture power
in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages.
Orwell drew upon the
technology (and perhaps some of the science fiction) of the day in drawing his
picture of 1984. But it was not a work
of science fiction he was writing. It
was a novelistic essay on power, how it is acquired and maintained, how
those who seek it or seek to keep it tend to sacrifice anything and everything
in its name.
1984
is
an anguished lament and a warning that we may not be strong enough nor
wise enough nor moral enough to cope with the kind of power we have learned to
amass. That warning vibrates
powerfully when we allow ourselves to sit still and think
carefully about orbiting satellites that can read the license plates in a
parking lot and computers that can tap into thousands of telephone calls and
telex transmissions at once and computers that can do our banking and
purchasing, can watch the house and tell a monitoring station what television
program we are watching and how many people there are in the room. We think of Orwell when we read of scientists
who believe they have located in the
human brain the seats of behavioral emotions like aggression, or learn more
about the vast potential of genetic engineering.
And we hear echoes of
that warning chord in the constant demand for greater security and
comfort, for less risk in our societies. We recognize, however dimly, that greater
efficiency, ease, and security may come at a substantial price in freedom, that
law and order can be a doublethink version of oppression, that
individual liberties surrendered for whatever good reason are freedom lost.
Critics and scholars may
argue quite legitimately about the particular literary merits of 1984.
But none can deny its power, its hold on the imaginations of whole
generations, nor the power of its admonitions . . . a power that seems to grow
rather than lessen with the passage of time.
It has been said that 1984
fails as a prophecy because it succeeded as a warning—Orwell’s terrible
vision has been averted. Well, that
kind of self-congratulation is, to say the least, premature. 1984 may not arrive on time, but there’s
always 1985.
Still, the warning has
been effective; and every time we use one of those catch phrases . . . recognize
Big Brother in someone, see a 1984 in our future . . . notice something
Orwellian . . . we are listening to that warning again (my bold
italics).
Fellow Americans, we are
well beyond a warning. The dangers of Nineteen
Eighty-Four are here. Prayer may
inspire us for strength and courage that are so necessary in confronting it. Prayer is badly needed to notice
something Orwellian and to fight it with all our strength. Let us
purify ourselves against the rot (evil) that has infected our society.
