George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four now has a trigger warning

Of all things 1984-ish, this story about Nineteen Eighty-Four itself might be the most 1984 in the history of anything.

Image from the motion picture Nineteen Eighty-Four

Out of all the books that have ever been published, George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (I prefer to spell it out like that when referring to the book or movie instead of shortening it to its numerical equivalent) is the one screaming most against attaching an advisory before reading.  It doesn't need anything so ridiculous.  Nineteen Eighty-Four speaks for itself, from the first sentence on through the final four words.

I wonder if people like Dolen Perkins-Valdez have ever bothered to try to understand what Orwell was conveying, what his underlying message was, when he first wrote his classic novel about totalitarianism and absolute control of the human spirit.  Perkins-Valdez is the one who has composed a new foreward to Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Which ordinarily isn't something too unprecedented.  There is a foreward by Walter Cronkite in the thirty-fifth anniversary edition of the book and I am sure there have been others.  But I could readily accept that Cronkite at least had sincerest appreciation for the novel.

The same cannot be said for Perkins-Valdez, whose foreward is actually a "trigger warning" of the kind slapped upon all works that fringe leftists declare to be "problematic".  After all this time, since Nineteen Eighty-Four's first publication in 1949, it has finally been revealed that Orwell''s book is misogynist and not sensitive enough to racial issues.  Perkins-Valdez, like too many others, demands that this most classic of warnings about absolute government must be perceived through the lens of those obsessed with identity politics.  "A sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity," she writes.

These people just don't get it, do they?

I first read Nineteen Eighty-Four during spring break of my senior year of high school, while recovering from a second-degree burn inflicted during a part-time job.  That book completely absorbed me far and away from any pain I might have otherwise been feeling.  I had just recently finished reading Stephen King's The Stand.  Nineteen Eighty-Four was even more of a horror novel.  It wasn't altogether beyond the imagination that a realm like Oceania really could come about.  It was about language: the alteration and mutating and ultimately obliteration of words and the ability to verbalize an idea.  The destruction of language was an act of obscenity, one that tyrants and regimes and entire nations of their supplicants had perpetrated since time immemorial.  Our own times have proven to be no more invulnerable.

The destruction of thought.  That was the greatest crime that Nineteen Eighty-Four described.

And that is the crime that Dolen Perkins-Valdez and too many who describe themselves as "liberal-inclined" are guilty of not only aiding and abetting, but thoroughly advocating.  They are attempting to take apart books like Nineteen Eighty-Four and indict against them with the very same tools that the books utilize in their admonishments about totalitarian thought.

These people have never had any real jobs, I am sure of it.  They sit in their ivory towers and think themselves masters of all that they survey.  Putting a trigger warning on Nineteen Eighty-Four is how they justify their notion of having a "real" career that in the end does nothing to serve anything but their own egos.

As for what Perkins-Valdez is claiming, I've always thought that Nineteen Eighty-Four already addresses the racial issue.  Oceania, and its adversaries Eastasaia and Eurasia, are multi-ethnic states.  But that isn't a distinguishing factor in those nations' demographics.  The three super-states of Nineteen Eighty-Four have no "ethnicities" at all.  Why should they?  Each of them has de-humanized the lives of their individuals to such a degree that things like "race" are absolutely meaningless elements.  Yes, there are black people in Nineteen Eighty-Four's world.  For all we know Syme, the much-too-smart-for-his-own-good colleague of Winston's at the Ministry of Truth, is a "black person".  We don't know.  We simply aren't told.  It doesn't matter.  One day Syme is there and the next day he is not: just another "unperson" vaporized by the Party as if he had never existed at all.

Any person who thinks Nineteen Eighty-Four, or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or To Kill A Mockingbird has to pass the muster of leftist racial sensibilities before they can be experienced by the reader, is himself or herself attempting to destroy a thing.  In the end works such as these are the product of their respective authors, above and beyond the demands of modern ideology.  Indeed, if there is any book that preaches against the fruits of such ideology, it is Nineteen Eighty-Four.  It is a warning that we would do well to heed.

I close this essay with something very special to me.  It's the copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four that I bought in the spring of 1992.  I have kept it all this time, in remarkably excellent condition.  I take good care of the books that mean most to me.  I try to read Nineteen Eighty-Four every few years, along with Fahrenheit 451 and Atlas Shrugged.  Maybe that will suffice as a peak into the mind of this writer.

Read More

About the Murthy vs Missouri decision...

Regarding Murthy v. Missouri: the Supreme Court decision yesterday about government coercing social media companies to censor users' activity based on political content.  SCOTUS decided that the plaintiffs had no standing and dismissed the lawsuit.

This seems like a colossal victory for the government and social media companies.  HOWEVER...

The case was *not* dismissed.  Today's ruling dealt with the temporary injunction in the case, not the case itself.  The case was REMANDED, back down the legal chain.  It could still come before the high court where the plaintiffs can better frame their arguments with solid evidence of coercion and censorship.

I believe that such a thing is not only possible, it is almost guaranteed to happen.

Twitter, or X as it's called now, is going to be VERY interesting to watch as it pertains to the case.  When Murthy v. Missouri was first filed it was confronting a seemingly unassailable block of social media companies, especially Twitter.

But Twitter/X is no longer part of that.  It's in the hands of Elon Musk now.  Who may prove to be quite enamored with the idea of opening up Twitter's old files and shed some sunlight on how his company under previous management censored content because the government told it to.

That may be a more substantive body of evidence than a few emails were as was the crux of the plaintiff's arguments.  If not in support of the Murthy plaintiffs then almost certainly worth a case all its own.

So to those who have been frustrated by today's ruling: be of good cheer.  This sort of thing has happened before, and it will again.  Personally I believe that Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were correct in their dissent.  But I'm not ready to throw out the bathwater with the baby quite yet.  This was a ruling on the injunction, not necessarily the case itself.  The case was sent back to the lower courts.  And might still come before the Supremes again.

Read More

Censored by Twitter

Well, it happened.  But from the looks of things I am in plenty of good company.

Last night I made a tweet on Twitter.  The now much-beleagured company that along with Facebook (is that a possible RICO charge?) has been censoring any mention of yesterday's New York Post story about Joe Biden and his son Hunter and their dealings with Burisma.  Among other things.

There is a photograph of Hunter Biden using a crack pipe.  Or maybe meth.  I don't know.  Meth would be a lot nastier.  But I know this photo exists.  I know because I have seen it.

So last night I made a Twitter post, along the lines of "the question that should be asked of every journalist, news outlet, and social media giant: Why should we trust you?"

Below that I added: "P.S.: there is a photo of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe."

I just checked my Twitter page.  That post has vanished.  Without warning or notice.

It's possible that a Twitter employee deleted it. It's also possible that they have adjusted their algorithms to automatically search and destroy anything negative pertaining to the Bidens.

However or whatever happened, it's not that big a deal.  I'm actually rather honored that of all the zillions of tweets flying right now about Hunter Biden, that mine was apparently targeted for termination.  The Twitter account page itself is still there (at twitter.com/theknightshift) but I wouldn't be surprised if that went MIA without warning sometime either.

 The more that Twitter and the other "Big Tech" companies pull stuff like this to an increasing number of people, the more they are looking at having their protections stripped and being broken up.  It happened before with the phone companies.  It could happen again.  Nothing is "too big to fail".  I've wondered if anyone has considered that Facebook and Twitter have become means of communication between people, companies, and organizations like churches and civic groups.  Depriving people of that or banning them from participation is almost tantamount to obstructing delivery of the mail service.  Or denying phone service on the basis of personal political beliefs.

And of course, Twitter and Facebook are behaving not so much as platforms as they are publishers.  There is a vast difference between the two.  Big Tech is trying to have it both ways.  And it's wrong.

Well, as I said: it's no skin off me if the post was deleted or even if my entire Twitter feed is destroyed.  Who knows: maybe there's a class action lawsuit that could come of Twitter's antics.  I wouldn't mind getting in on that action.

EDIT 10/16/2020 8:26 am EST:  The tweet is back where it was.  Oddly, I looked at its interactions and it has only been seen twice.  The other night it got up to around 200 or so within a short period of time.  Not speculating, just making a note of that.

Read More

The News & Record has banned me from leaving comments

Okay, to be fair, there has not been any formal notification of exile.  But having attempted to make comments with five different browsers and automatically being directed to a Facebook "blue screen of banishment" with each one, it's safe to say at this point that I am now persona non grata from adding to reader commentary on the News & Record website.  It was discovered two days ago and no correspondence has been returned from their staff about it so, looks like I've been dispatched to the hinterlands... or at least those where Greensboro, North Carolina's "newspaper of record" is concerned.

As for why the banning has taken place: if it was in violation of terms of service, I can't find a single example.  And I went back through the past few months, from around late spring when I began leaving comments on their published letters, editorials, and some published articles.  Not once was I rude or condescending or suggesting that any other commentator was being an idiot or imbecilic.  I strived for both respect and also intelligent conversation to move discussion forward, instead of promoting one ideology or another.  The image at the right is a screengrab of a typical exchange, involving a former News & Record editor and myself.  If anyone spots any inconformity with the rules of polite society, I would appreciate understanding how.

More likely though, it is nothing more or less than the News & Record editorial staff exercising censorship against those expressing opinion contrary to a leftist bias that grows more apparent with each passing day.  And other commenters have suggested much the same.  In the words of one:

"They also check our FB pages out. I like your thoughtful comments on N&R. I have been attacked by a few on the left but I try not to be snarky. They love to censor anyone who might be right leaning."

I have to concur. It also goes a long way in explaining why there seems to be a 10 to 1 ratio of anti-Trump letters published compared to any conveying anything positive about the man. Given that the vast majority of the News & Record's eleven-county coverage area went solid red for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, the remarkable proportion of letters condemning the man (often on the most ridiculous of grounds) is suspect.

As for what I plan to do so far as the News & Record - the newspaper that I began my writing career with by way of all those letters and occasional op-ed piece and religious articles of mine that they began publishing just before my senior year of high school began - is concerned, there is no doubt at all.  I will do nothing apart from this blog post.  I'm not even in the Greensboro area anymore, but just "peeking in" every so often to see how transpires events there.

Mostly however, it's because the News & Record as a newspaper is dying.  It's been bleeding away readers in recent years like a sliced-open artery.  Advertisers are fleeing, and the Sunday classified ads are no longer the small volumes of separate section.  A few years ago the page width of the newspaper editions was slashed drastically.  Staff has been let go.  There is talk of shuttering the once-imposing News & Record headquarters in downtown Greensboro.

None of these are indicators of a healthy and vibrant newspaper enterprise.  Not even charging money after ten free articles a month on their website is going to prop up this failing business.  Maybe outside (read as: "foreign", parse that as one may) interests might subsidize the News & Record, but the days of being supported by its own community are numbered.

This is what happens when a daily news publication pitches itself as "the journal of record" for an area - an assumption that demands total dedication to impartiality - and instead becomes a propaganda broadsheet.  In the case of the News & Record it has turned into a progressive outlet to the far left of old-school Pravda.  It is, not to put too fine a point on it, NOT an unbiased and impartial news outlet.  It can no longer be trusted and if it ever could, those days are fast receding in the rear-view mirror.

(Incidentally, when I was traveling on a meandering journey across America recently, I visited the offices of many small-town newspapers and not a one of them wasn't thriving.  Why were they so strong?  Because they committed themselves to news, and with keeping themselves above any social or political agenda.  But political agenda is all that the News & Record is motivated by now, apparently.  Being snide and condescending and sophomoric and insulting the readers only goes so far before there is blowback.)

So, why should I be upset that I've been banned from making comments on the website of such a newspaper?  The News & Record is going to be dead in a few years anyway.  All that will remain are microfiche and piled-up copies in the dusty storerooms of the Greensboro Public Library and at UNC-Greensboro.  And an empty edifice in the downtown of one of the largest cities in North Carolina.  Grim, mute relics of a newspaper that was once acclaimed, respectable, and trusted.

That, and lots of unemployed reporters and editors and managers.

Read More

A federal judge just turned Twitter and Facebook into public utilities

In what might be the most hilarious case of unintended consequences in recent memory, today Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that President Donald Trump was wrong to have blocked users from his Twitter feed... which inadvertently has officially designated Twitter (and by extension Facebook and YouTube and other social media outlets) to be common carriers like the telephone system!

In a 75-page ruling, Judge Buchwald declared that Twitter was a "designated public forum" on which Trump could not discriminate against selected readers by blocking their accounts. "This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," Buchwald said in her opinion. "The answer to both questions is no."

So let's tear this down...

If a person is a "public official", that person can not "mute" communication between himself or herself and selected members of the audience based on their political views.  It is effectively giving the President a right to be heard whether he wants to be heard or not.

So when do these same protections get extended to ordinary citizens like Diamond & Silk, who have been chronically banned (and reinstated after considerable public outcry) from Facebook and other social media venues?

The documented cases of those who have seen their Facebook posts, tweets, and YouTube clips purged down the memory hole have have had one outstanding factor overwhelmingly in common: they have pertained to those who hold what are often deemed to be "conservative" beliefs.  Too many have been banned outright or have been "shadow banned": made to look as if they are broadcasting their message out but in fact have had their posts and tweets throttled down or shut down completely by Twitter or Facebook or whoever.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is now an open secret that there is extremely active discrimination being practiced on the part of self-ascribed "liberals" and "progressives" within the tech industry against those who they disagree with.  So much so that some have wondered if there might be RICO charges on the basis of advertising purchased with these companies only to have potential audiences algorithm-ed out of sight and out of mind.

But now thanks to Naomi Reice Buchwald, Twitter and other social media platforms have been officially defined to be "common carriers" like AT&T, Comcast, and a lot of other companies.  In business but also subject to regulation by the government to ensure fair practices and privileges for all.  And if users of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram are being censored not because of inappropriate behavior but purely on the basis of ideology, well...

This is gonna be totally fun to watch as it unfolds.  Wouldn't surprise me if Twitter came down on Trump's side if it keeps them and every other social media outfit out of regulatory jurisdiction.

Read More

YouTube restores Rational Response Squad's account (and commentary about supporting a group of atheists)

Early this morning Brian Sapient of the Rational Response Squad posted on the group's site that YouTube had restored their account.

You might remember a few days ago when I wrote here about how the atheist Rational Response Squad had apparently been targeted by a Christian organization. Creation Science Evangelism Ministries allegedly filed "false DMCA copyright requests" against the Rational Response Squad with YouTube, and YouTube subsequently yanked Rational Response Squad's account. But as you can see, it is now back up.

In the past few days since posting on this blog that I would "give the Rational Response Squad my full support in this matter", plenty of e-mail has come into my box about that. A lot of the sentiment is reflected in the comments made on the earlier post. And many people are really, really angry that I took up sides with a group of atheists on this issue. Especially in light of what, supposedly, Rational Response Squad has done in the past.

The first time that the Rational Response Squad ever appeared on my radar screen was during the weekend, when this affair with YouTube made news. I don't know what the Rational Response Squad has done before.

Saying that I'm supporting them in this matter does in no way certify or imply in the least bit that I'm somehow endorsing their attitudes and tactics in other matters.

But don't take that to mean that just because I do follow Christ, that it's supposed to mean that I automatically endorse "my side" in every situation, either.

This thing is for the Rational Response Squad to hash-out with Creation Science Evangelism Ministries. I don't have a dog in that hunt...

...although I do feel compelled to say this to Creation Science Evangelism Ministries: you guys aren't "getting" it at all. And these kinds of shenanigans aren't doing the ministry of Christ any favors. If anything, this enmity against the Rational Response Squad is hurting our cause, which is supposed to be one borne in love. I can't see that happening here at all.

Why did I, a Christian, lend my support to a group of atheists in this situation? Because it was the Christian thing to do. Nothing more and nothing less. If that doesn't satisfy you then maybe it'll please you to know that it was at least the American thing to do. As in the real America: the people that used to be able to disagree without feeling obligated to destroy each other. The people who used to be wise enough to realize that if it could happen to others, it could happen to them too.

This shouldn't happen to atheists any more than it should happen to Christians.

Read More

Rockingham County Board of Education members lashing out at free speech

An item has been placed on the agenda for the August 13th meeting of the Rockingham County Board of Education that, if approved, would limit remarks by private citizens to three minutes or less during public comments portions of the monthly meetings.

The Knight Shift blog received this information from a highly trusted source earlier this evening.

I've spent the past good bit of evening trying to find out more about this and I'm going to be making further inquiries come tomorrow morning.

As I've come to understand it, here's what's going down: at least one and possibly two members of the Board of Education placed this item on the agenda for the next meeting, and it's quite likely that this is coming as a reaction to what happened at the July 9th meeting. That was when the Board voted to rescind it's decision in April to implement school uniforms at Reidsville Middle and Reidsville High schools beginning this fall. A group of citizens - and I was one of them - calling themselves P.O.T.S.M.O.D. (People Opposed To Standard Mode Of Dress) dominated the public comments time during every meeting from April to July in protest of the policy. The July 9th meeting received considerable news coverage from most of the area's major media outlets because members of P.O.T.S.M.O.D. announced that they were going to address the Board wearing costumes and black armbands as a visible sign of defiance to the policy (the vote for which had been based on dire faulty information).

It's already public knowledge that there are some on the board who have expressed disdain for citizens' right to free speech. One member of the Rockingham County Board of Education stated aloud during the July meeting that P.O.T.S.M.O.D. and others were "bad for the community" because they used "loud noise" which "changed public opinion" about the uniforms.

What kind of elected official, so entrusted to uphold the principles of the Constitution, would try to "shut up" the constituents that he or she is sworn to serve and represent on the board?

I'm working on finding out more about this, folks. If more info comes this way, I'll be sure to share it here. But I wanted to go ahead and get the word out: some people on the Rockingham County Board of Education are actively taking steps to drown-out the public's right to speak out and participate in government as concerned citizens.

I don't know of any better way of wrapping up this post, than to present one of my all-time favorite works of art: a painting by Norman Rockwell simply titled "Freedom of Speech" ...

Read More

VIDEO: Giuliani staff uses police to arrest independent journalist

If only YouTube had existed in 2000...

In October of 2000 I was a reporter with an independent newspaper. And - through legitimate channels mind ya - I had been given an invitation to attend a rally for George W. Bush during the presidential debate at Wake Forest University. I was hoping to get a chance to ask Bush a few questions: nothing rude mind ya, but I was gonna try to make the most of the opportunity.

Bush staff found out that some "non-corporate" journalists were there and sent Winston-Salem police to track us down. One of them demanded to see my driver's license and I asked why. About then a Bush staffer with a bullhorn came over and told me that I should do what she says "because whenever someone in a uniform tells you something you're supposed to obey."

This guy demanded to see my invitation. He snatched it out of my hands and said that I wasn't going to be attending this function. When I demanded to know why he threatened me with physical violence.

The cops escorted another reporter and myself to "the protest area" (this was the first time I'd ever heard of this little Bush concept) and told us if we tried to return to our vehicles through the fair grounds that we would be arrested.

A few years later I heard - and I've not found any reason to doubt this - that we were rounded up and sent packing on Bush's orders, after he heard that there were non-corporate media present and he told his staff to "haul those assholes out of here".

That night I saw the true side of the George W. Bush mindset. I'm not bitter about it now though: I'm just thankful that God showed me what a loser Bush really is, before I ever had a chance to vote for him (never have).

Almost the exact same thing happened last night to journalist Matt Lepacek following the Republican debate in New Hampshire, except Lepacek actually got ask Rudolph Guiliani some questions. Or tried to anyway. Giuliani's staff had police arrest Lepacek. Here's the video:

Y'know, the only thing that kept me from standing up to those goons that night any more than I did was the fact that my best friend was coming in from way out of town to spend a few days at my apartment, and if I was in jail then I couldn't be there when he arrived. If that hadn't already been on my schedule, I think years later that it would be with a lot of pride that I could look back at being arrested on orders from Bush.

I hope that Matt Lepacek will feel proud about what he did tonight too: he stood his ground against an evil man. And he didn't back down.

That's something that nobody will ever be able to take away from him.

Read More