Orwell was an optimist

Posted on June 25, 2015 by KG

confederate-flag_20150624_113643 ‘A full-fledged cultural cleansing of the Southern states is underway as lawmakers debate whether to remove Confederate flags and rename schools and parks named after Confederate war heroes.
There are also discussions in Washington, D.C. about removing Confederate-related statues from the U.S. Capitol — including a statue of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy…’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Orwell was an optimist

  1. Pascal says:
    June 25, 2015 at 07:48

    It’s not for no reason that those of us who were able to read the signs have been referring to this as the USSA. We did it every now and again as news reports come in regarding the next cultural rampart to fall. And we’d get stares like we’re overwrought. The starers have never once considered that they might be underwrought. And, as we know, there were those loyal comrades in the gulag, muttering at their last breath “If Stalin only knew.”

    And yet we have those who are saying, like Mark Levin, that the GOP leadership doesn’t understand what it’s doing. Or Coulter: ‘[Nikki Haley] Is an Immigrant and Does Not Understand America’s History.’ On a good day Levin acknowledges well, it’s only in the clutches of moneyed interests. To him and her I’m still overwrought. If only.

  2. Contempt says:
    June 25, 2015 at 08:02

    http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_scratch.gifHmm, Al Sharpton Dead-end Interstate. Ahh, Rev Jerimiahular Wright Bullavard, err and so forth and so on. Stoopid.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif

  3. HarvardPotatoHead says:
    June 25, 2015 at 08:07

    Oh Cointempt, you are really acting out!!LOL*

    *LOL – Little Ole Ladies

  4. Pascal says:
    June 25, 2015 at 09:59

    Provocative Democratic Operative Yahoo headline: “Ted Cruz’s team stands by campaign aide who compared Confederate flag removal to a ‘Stalinist purge'”

    Lee Bright, a local lawmaker who is serving as the South Carolina co-chair for the presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), compared the calls to remove the Confederate flag from the capitol building in his home state to a “Stalinist purge.” According to a spokesperson for Cruz, those comments don’t conflict with the candidate’s position on the issue.

    “What Senator Cruz has said is that this is an issue for the state of South Carolina and South Carolinians to sort out and I think that’s what you’re watching happen,” Cruz campaign spokesman Rick Tyler said in a conversation with Business Insider on Tuesday evening.

    Let me put it this way for all others on the cultural rampart watch:

    Ted Cruz’s team stands by campaign aide — for now.

    BTW, this campaign IS comparable to a Stalinist purge as implied in my previous comment. But, as you know KG, I’m the overwrought type.

  5. Darin says:
    June 25, 2015 at 13:32

    Some idiot on the radio here mentioned slavery and the flag yada,yada,yada and the next caller said -“ya,I reckon we oughta change the flag,I suggest we switch to black and white checked with a Nascar emblem in one corner and a KFC logo in the other out of fairness and what not” :mrgreen:

  6. MacDoctor says:
    June 25, 2015 at 13:48

    The American civil war was fought over economics, not race. The southern states relied heavily on slave labour to keep their prices, especially cotton prices low. any racism was essentially incidental to that.

    Had the union allowed a staged ending to slavery – initially no new slaves and a gradual tired release of slaves – many lives would have been spared, not the least tens of thousands of negros who perished from starvation immediately after emancipation. I can understand the union’s reluctance – slavery is abhorrent- but the fact remains that a compromise would have avoided a bloody war..

    This is why the confederate flag should remain – as a reminder that doing the “right” thing is sometimes horribly more costly and wrong than the so-called “wrong” thing. This is a lesson socialists desperately need to learn.

    • rivoniaboy says:
      June 25, 2015 at 15:16

      A couple of years ago I attended a lecture at Canterbury university about Lincoln and his part in the emancipation of slavery.

      At the conclusion of the lecture the audience were invited to ask questions. I stood up and asked the lecturer if he agreed that if the South had won, Lincoln could well have been tried for war crimes.

      The lecturer and audience were aghast that they could have such a heretic in their midst and there was a momentarily silence as eyes searched for the culprit who was trying to de-canonize this saint. Lol.

  7. MacDoctor says:
    June 25, 2015 at 13:50

    That should be “tiered” release of slaves…

    • KG says:
      June 25, 2015 at 13:54

      “This is a lesson socialists desperately need to learn.”
      But they never will, MacDoctor, because they are emotions-driven and to them feeling good is evidence that they’re doing the right thing.
      http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_unsure.gif

  8. Flashman says:
    June 25, 2015 at 14:45

    Whenever this type of debate comes up, I find it useful to note that the Civil War was the worst shedding of Anglo-Saxon blood prior to WW1. A tragic and wholly unnecessary effusion.

    In the British Empire the slave *trade* became illegal in 1807, and the ownership of slaves likewise in 1833…even including some financial compensation available for the loss. With no overt conflict, no bloodshed, and no obvious bitter legacy. It just happened in an evolutionary and enlightened kind of way.

    The fact that something like half a million Americans died in a civil war and whose racial rumblings and ever-scratched raw scabs continue right up to the present day counts as part of the butcher’s bill attached to 1775 and all that.

    But of course you can’t tell an American any of that without risking getting a back or your head shot off.

    • KG says:
      June 25, 2015 at 15:02

      But the Civil War was about more than slavery, Flashman. Many in the South saw Northern interference in their affairs (and not just concerning slavery) as intolerable.

  9. Darin says:
    June 25, 2015 at 16:58

    “But of course you can’t tell an American any of that without risking getting a back or your head shot off.”

    Sorry but it’s regurgitated BS and I frankly find that utterly offensive and it’s obvious you do not know the first god damned thing about which you speak.The slave trade was ended in the US by act of congress in 1808.After that point in time all slaves were born here and not brought over.Slavery was already on it’s way out by War’s start in 1861 and would have ended of it’s own accord by the turn of the century at the latest.It was after all a very inefficient means of production.

    However,since the southern plantation owner set the price of a bale of Cotton and the great manufacturing wealth of the Northeast was built entirely on the back of slave produced Cotton from the south,the northern states decided to make things “more fair” by leveling taxes and tariffs against products produced in the south.The Northern states simply outnumbered the Southern states and the tyranny of the majority set the rule.The SCOTUS despite having usurped authority not granted by the Constitution failed to step in and rule the levies unconstitutional under equal protection .The end result was the attempted redress of grievances by armed rebellion.The North won and wrote the history books using Slavery as the justification for the total destruction of the south and the installation of the second era of slavery in America the period known as reconstruction.The lasting damage is the shredding of the 10th Amendment and the abandonment of equal protection which continues until this day.

    The Civil War had fuck all to do with ending slavery,that’s why Lincoln didn’t issue his proclamation until late in the war,he also didn’t not have the support of the Congress.Blacks were being hung by the dozen in New York and New Jersey,by Irish immigrants who didn’t apparently feel the need to be conscripted into the Army and sent south to fight and die for blacks.

    Which brings me to the Irish,the first to arrive in North America were sent here as slaves by James II and Charles I.These slaves were treated very poorly by both their masters and their fellow slaves the blacks.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

    So before you attempt to ride off into the Sunset on your moral high horse,just remember,it was the British in all their “evolved and enlightened” glory that introduced slavery ito the North American Colonies in the first place.

  10. MIchael in Nelson says:
    June 25, 2015 at 17:03

    But all whites must be racist because of the amount of white on black violence (according to Holder’s DoJ. Oh, wait…

    “In 2008, the most recent year for which such data seems to have been collected, FBI surveys show that, out of 520,161 interracial violent crimes, blacks committed 429,444 of them against whites, while whites committed 90,717 of them against blacks.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/24/theres-a-reason-we-mostly-hear-about-white-microaggressions/#ixzz3e2z7iRXP