Racism

The usurpation of a powerful word to retard freedom of speech

 

What is racism, exactly?  There was a time when that word conjured images of crosses burning on lawns, lynchings, and deeply hateful characters in sheets and conical hats.  The use of the word 'racist' was a powerful indictment, while the term 'bigot' was used against people with backwards ideas and silly notions where racial issues were concerned.

 

Times have changed, though.  I see the word 'racist' bantered about as if it were no more powerful than calling someone a schmuck or a jerk.  I see that word used to stifle freedom of speech, for no better reason than the fact that it's a great way to (supposedly) prove somebody wrong.  While I may understand its usefulness in this capacity, I don't understand how a 'racist' has become somebody whose opinion has nothing, whatsoever, to do with race.

 

Still, I was curious.  So I picked up my old dictionary, one that was printed in the 1970s, to find the older meaning of the word 'racism' and what it meant at one time.  This is the full definition:
 

• A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

That was the long and short of it.  No secondary meanings, no other nuances - just the belief that one is superior or inferior based on one's race.  In its simplicity, this is a very powerful definition, because it allows people to treat other people as if they were animals, animals that can be lynched and tortured with no ethical dilemma short of animal cruelty.

 

But words and meanings change as time goes on, don't they?  In the early 1900s, 'gay' was happy and jubilant; by the 1970s it was homosexual; and finally, by the end of the 1990s it was used to describe something stupid or dumb (as in, "That's a really gay idea").

 

It can be argued that 'racism' should be the same, that the meaning should evolve.  So, I did some checking on updated definitions for this word:
 

• The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
• Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
• Hatred of another race or races.

The first definition is a rather watered down version of my original finding, the second definition broadens the usage, but the third is fairly straight forward and powerful.

 

Admittedly, I don't care much for this attenuated version of the word, but I have little choice other than to accept the normal evolution of a once powerful word.  I am saddened to see that a word used to describe the lowest of the low has now become a throw-away term for anyone who shows any prejudice of race, to the point that even off colored jokes about people of different races immediately earns the teller the title of 'racist'.  This is a travesty, as far as I'm concerned.  Still, life is full of little travesties like this.

 

The problem that exists with this sort of evolution is that now the word 'racist' has become so feeble that it is used to smear anyone who disagrees with any opinion of any group of people, regardless of race.  Are you against illegal immigration?  Then you are a racist.  Are you against extreme Islam?  Then you are a racist.

 

See how easy that is?

 

This all stems from the progressive liberal Democrat's opinion that anyone who opposes Muslim immigration, even without proper vetting, must absolutely be racist.  It is an epithet that they vomit forth time and time again, whenever their platform on immigration is scrutinized.  They care little that someone may be just trying to closely examine the platform or that their platform might possibly be wrong, only that they now have a word that they can use in order to slander and brow-beat any dissenters into submission.

 

Racism is a word that's root is based in race.  Muslims are not a race.  To suggest that I am a racist when I fully expect people wishing to assimilate into my country, a country that is rife with firearms and easily accessibly weaponry, be vetted to ensure that those people wish to be a part of this country and live in harmony with our laws and people, is a depravity.  I say 'depravity' because I have close family ties to many middle-eastern people.  I further have good friends who are of middle eastern descent.  I don't have any belief that I am superior to them because of my race, I don't hate them because they are not my race, and I sure as hell don't discriminate against them because they are not my race.  Yet, because I am suspicious of the Muslim religion, I am tarred as a racist.

 

So, let's take a moment in silence and say goodbye to a once powerful word, a word that has not been replaced with a more powerful form, a word that carried specific connotations that it no longer does, a word that had a place in the English language that no longer exists, a word that is now dead from overuse and poor evolution.  Also, let's add one final definition to the word, because this new definition precisely describes the word and its usage:
 

• A term used to stifle freedom of speech and prove anyone wrong who disagrees with the progressive liberal agenda.

You were a good word, a righteous word, I'm sorry to see you pass.



Down On the Animal Farm

A modern interpretation of an old allegory

 

Just a short time ago, I was challenged to prove that George Orwell's short novel, "Animal Farm", could be correlated to the United States government and what that government has become.  If you are familiar with the original story, then you know that it was written, specifically, about the USSR and their revolution.  Each character or group in the story is linked to either an individual or group of people associated with the era in which it was written ─ WWII Europe.

 

As an example, Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, of whom is an allegory for Joseph Stalin, enters an alliance with Mr. Frederick, of whom is an allegory for Adolf Hitler.  For a full explanation of the person or group to which these animals (and a few humans) are associated with (if you are unfamiliar with the story), then I would recommend the Wikipedia page on "Animal Farm", which can be found at this link: Animal Farm

 

Now, it must be understood that Orwell's original story is based on a specific historical time, while my interpretation will take place over the course of 240 years (the length of time that the United States has been a nation unto itself).

 

We start with the animals of the farm, having become tired of laboring under their human lords, staging a revolution.  They have little to combat the humans, save their resolve to liberate themselves, but, nevertheless, they are able to push the humans off of the farm and take it over for their own devices.  Here we have the American revolution, taking the country from the British.

 

Rules are then put in place to ensure that all animals on the farm are equal and spoken for in the government that is installed by the victorious animals.  The pigs, being the most intelligent amongst the animals, make the rules and have regular celebratory festivities, honoring their heroes of the revolution.  The rules for Animal Farm are reasonably simple:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.

It is here that we see the animals of the farm creating what is analogous to the American constitution or a bill of rights.  At this very moment, all is well on the farm.  The animals now have a working government, a government that will equally protect them and ensure that every animal is treated equally under the eyes of the law.

(Digression 1: There is minutiae in the original story that I shall not touch on here.  A good example is, "In a very little while the animals had destroyed everything that reminded them of Mr. Jones" [p8].  Mr. Jones being the allegory for the British government and the destruction being small things like Noah Webster's revision of spelling words like 'colour' to 'color' to form an American version of those spellings, thus destroying things that reminded us of the British.)

So the formation of the country, Animal Farm (the United States), had begun.  There were problems, like the cows who needed milking but had no humans to do the job. Nonetheless those problems were overcome with ingenuity on the part of the animals (but mainly overcome by the smart ones who were in charge - the pigs).  They all worked together to sort these problems out and they had the pigs to show them the way.  The pigs used the harness room for their meetings in order to ensure that Animal Farm continued to run smoothly and that all animals were represented and taken care of.  In those days the pigs worked together for the good of all, but, as with any scheme of this nature, the power begins to corrupt and some pigs were having a problem with other pigs who didn't share their own, personal concept of what Animal Farm was and what it should be.

The analogy here is reasonably obvious.  The pigs (what will become career politicians) begin to take advantage of the power that they were given.  Slowly, the laws that gave them the position of ruling were tweaked here and there to make the job more lucrative.  We can see this in the rationing of the animals, the pigs taking a bigger share for themselves, because, well, they needed it to ensure that their thinking would be clear and the other animals didn't object (it made sense to them at the time), compared to the career politicians who give themselves raises and more benefits.  It's still early on, so these extra perks that the politicians give themselves make sense to the general populace.  The politicians (not quite career minded individuals, as yet) do attempt to make things better, while still ensuring that they have special perks, are as yet altruistic in their beliefs and meet in a simple place, the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. (not quite the White House and congressional buildings, at this point).

Time moves on and the laws and rules are tweaked.  Things are going well for Animal Farm, even though the pigs are getting the better of things (they get better rations and more milk than the other animals, but they need to keep their thinking clear and this makes sense), but war must eventually break out as a result of the losing side.  The humans strike back and attack Animal Farm again.  The specific causality and reasons mean little, it is only animalistic behavior that requires war to solve issues.  Ultimately, the animals win this war, but at a high cost.  This can be loosely correlated to the War of 1812.  The United States wins the war, but the capitol is burned to the ground.  This brings about the updated capitol, the White House and the congressional building and ultimately the Pentagon.  For the pigs, though, it means that they move into Mr. Jones's farmhouse and start creating more laws and rules that ensure that they (the pigs) remain entrenched as the ruling class (the career politician is born).

(Digression 2: Again, there is a great deal of minutiae to be found, like the dogs being used to enforce the laws, for right or wrong, which corresponds to the FBI and/or the Secret Service, and so forth.  Minor points like this are open to debate and argumentation, but a strong case can be made in favor of the overall points in this article, so I feel I must mention them here.)

It is here that we see some major changes being made the laws of the animals.  They have changed as follows:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal.

These revisions allow the pigs to further rule as they see fit, just as the rules begin to change for the career politicians, who now have several generations of minor changes that make their career all the more lucrative (even though the original government was not set up for citizens to make a career out of politics).  The specific revisions allow the pigs to legally eliminate any animal that attempts to put an end to their reign and further allows them to rule as they see fit.  Do I really need to explain the correlation, here?

Ultimately, one pig decides to take over the government and realizes that he must eliminate another pig to do so.  This is when Napoleon, the strong pig, decides to eliminate Snowball, the weaker of the two.  It is at this very point where specific characters in the story no longer correlate to specific people, but rather become metaphors for the government in general.  The elimination of Snowball can be seen in the assassination of John F. Kennedy where a greater power, the government itself, run by a shadowy group, takes over.  Just as the exact details of what happened to Snowball are obscure and mysterious, so to was the assassination of JFK.  Snowball is made a scapegoat, but this is not exactly true of Kennedy.  All in all, the analogy stands, though.

At this point, the pigs have taken over and what was once an altruistic endeavor has been replaced with a government controlled by people who continue to make laws and rules and regulations that effect the common masses of citizenry, while staying outside of those rules and regulations and laws themselves.  The career politician has come into his/her own.  They have ensured that their pay and their benefits are far beyond the common peasant, and they manage to do it with the blessing of their constituents, just like the pigs managed on Animal Farm.  These career politicians use falsehood and fear to continue to keep their people in line, just like the pigs on Animal Farm.

As we take a final look at Animal Farm, the original rules for Animal Farm have been boiled down to one rule, and one rule only:

1. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

If you need someone to look to for in that simple, single rule, then look no further than Hillary Clinton.  Look at all the mysterious deaths that surround her and her husband.  Look to the fact that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, protected by his wife, Hillary, and how they managed to skirt any laws that would put anyone else behind bars.  Look to how she makes statements that are nothing more than half-truths to downright lies and how her followers continue to blindly march in lock step, like the animals following the pigs.  And don't fool yourself into believing that Hillary Clinton is the only 'animal more equal than the others', look to every career politician who is making a living off of the back of the taxpayers, the taxpayers who struggle every day to put food on their table and feed their children, while these career politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are clinking their champagne glasses and getting fat, both in body and financially, to the detriment of those who they proclaim to serve.

The final nail is driven home by the final words in the Orwell book, "Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike.  No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs.  The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."  The pigs and humans looked exactly alike, so to do the career politicians and the kings and queens look alike.  Sure, we vote for our kings and queens, but that vote, that single action, is the only difference.  And, really, does it matter which king or queen you vote for?  Is that not the "Grande Illusion"?  To believe that you have a choice when there honestly is not choice at all?  The faces change, but they all look the same.

And that, dear friends, is "Animal Farm" - the perfect analogy for the United States, even though it was written about the USSR.  You know, that's the true irony of it, because it was Nikita Khrushchev who said, "Your children’s children will live under COMMUNISM. You AMERICANS are so gullible. No, you won’t accept COMMUNISM outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of SOCIALISM until you will finally wake up & find that you already have COMMUNISM. We won’t ever have to fight you; we’ll weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."

I reckon at 19 trillion in debt, Orwell was more of a fortune teller than author.


No Ethics, No Integrity

 

Yesterday, I posted a letter that I had written to Keith C. Burris, an editorial writer (and editorial editor) for The Toledo Blade.  I wanted to do a quick follow up to that letter, since Mr. Burris did, in fact, get back to me on that.

 

He was very quick to tell me that Hillary DID make history because she is the first woman to be nominated as president.  That, of course, is an absolute lie.  Since this is an easily enough researched fact, I must assume that Burris is a liar, since he refuses to admit that, in 1872, Victoria Woodhull was included in the presidential race, running under the Equal Rights Party nomination.  The abjectly pathetic part of this is that she was an Ohioan, and The Toledo Blade is an Ohio newspaper.

 

There are arguments to be made as to the legitimacy of Woodhull's run for president, but, not to be redundant, that is argumentative.  The fact of the matter is that Hillary is not the first woman to run for president, all debate aside.  It is simple fact, regardless of Burris's (or anyone else's) weak disputations.

 

This is precisely why the press is considered to be so very untrustworthy.  People like Keith C. Burris only add to the public's distrust of news outlets.  If you read his article (the link is given in yesterday's post), then you can see how his own, personal opinion colors what he proclaims to be fact.  Unethical, deceitful, and disgraceful are all excellent descriptors of Burris, specifically, and The Toledo Blade, generally.

 

He further whines about the fact that The Toledo Blade is not pro-Clinton.  What a joke.  When voting day comes around, The Toledo Blade always publishes a cut-out part for every reader to take into the voting booth with them, in order to vote exactly how The Toledo Blade tells them to vote.  Any guess on who The Toledo Blade is going to tell them who to vote for as president?  Well, I can tell you who, and, here's a hint, it won't be Trump or any third party.

 

(On a side note, I find it comical how The Toledo Blade is forever proclaiming that campaigning outside of polling places is illegal, while they publish a sheet to tell their readers exactly how to vote - the bottom line is that The Toledo Blade is campaigning right inside the voting booth.  What hypocrisy; what gall; what temerity - talking out of two sides of their faces, but clueless as to why the general populace finds the media to be untrustworthy.)

 

Wake up, people.  Please, for the love of God, wake up.  Open your eyes to what Burris and others of his ilk are doing to influence you to their point of view.  Trying to get people to see your point of view is a good thing, but the way that Burris, the media, and others of their ilk are doing it is dishonest, unethical, and vulgar.