Affirmative history
Whenever black racists, or indeed most black people, together with the majority of, white cringe infested, white liberals, list the great names from history, they invariably include the standard troika in their top three, or if they are really trying to be inclusive, within their top five. Those inevitable names are Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and of course the sainted Mandela.
Once those three have been carefully placed on the top plinths in the Parthenon of Greats, the black racist or white liberal apologist may, although it is certainly not guaranteed, grudgingly select a few white figures from history to rank below these three historical Gods, however, that selections is seldom quite so predictable.
The selection of white candidates is usually issue driven, and, as such, Lincoln may often appear, on account of his role in the emancipation of the small fraction of 19th century slaves who were lucky enough to be in America, although the list makers will seldom mention what Lincoln actually said about black people. William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson, or their US abolitionist counterparts such as John Brown are now far less assured of a place in the list as they might once have been, given that we are now obliged to pretend that a few Haitian slaves cutting white French throats in 1791, and the fabulously successful outcome that produced, had a far greater impact on the ending of the slave trade than the efforts of a few dead white men. (Alternatively, their position will be usurped altogether by the likes of Olaudah Equiano, a freed slave who write a book.)
(Memo to those considering doing good: make sure you leave a paper trail, for historians will seek to undermine you once you become unfashionable)
Setting slavery aside, and also the US civil rights movement, where King and Rosa Parks generally take most of the plaudits, largely on account of the general unattractiveness of LBJ (despite the fact that the latter did so much more than either to end segregation), the candidates for inclusion in the non-obligatory quota of great whites become even more random.
Kennedy is always a possibility, his early death blessing him with the imagined greatness of promise, untarnished by the disappointments of reality. From Albion's shores, one might imagine that Churchill, Dickens and Shakespeare are potential candidates, but none are now shoe-ins, for all sorts of politically correct reasons. Increasingly, they are very likely to be replaced by any number of figures with more acceptably left wing credentials.
Equally, the sad truth is that in almost any contemporarily compiled list of the greats from history, any white historical figure you can think of, however great his achievements or impact, now risks the humiliation of being replaced by Bob Dillon, John Lennon or even Bob Marley.
No such indignity awaits the non-white triumvirate however, their positions at the top of the politically correct list of history's titans remain un-threatened, their names are spoken with reverence, their achievements, real or imagined, are burnished daily and their flaws unacknowledged, ignored, or more likely denied. These three are acclaimed for a greatness which does not require truth to sustain it and their seats at the top table of public reverence reserved eternally for them, whilst their white counterparts must forever struggle to retain their place against fashionable revisionism and the lies of agenda driven historians.
To question the greatness of all or any of the blessed trinity of the new order is a modern day form of blasphemy, mitigated only by the fact that such questions are usually spoken from within a vacuum from within which it is almost impossible to communicate with the wider world, for none of the usual means of communication will carry your message.
Yet, who are these historical giants who we must all revere and who's claim to greatness can not be questioned?
Martin Luther King, was, in truth, a sexually depraved communist and proven serial plagiarist, with a known penchant for brutalising women. King was a man who's only real achievement, other than being able to attract crowds, was a clever way with words (sound familiar?) who's FBI surveillance file is so potentially damaging to his memory that the courts have locked it away until 2027.
Even King's own son dismisses the official version of his death, allegedly at the hand of white assassin, as a lie. Yet he is treated as a saint, and a martyr and granted the honour of having a public holiday named after him, whilst, until Obama day is declared, all 44 US presidents have to share a single day between them. I guess that is quite an achievement for a brutal, treacherous adulterer and intellectual thief.
Then there is Gandhi, the pacifist darling of the multiculturalists and subject of one of the most stomach churningly sycophantic movies every made outside North Korea. This is a man who's rabid anti-black African racism, possibly acquired during his time in Durban, prior to returning to India in 1915, was extreme even for its time, and would make many a contributor to Stormfront blush.
Of the three, Gandhi has the strongest claim to greatness, but not to the degree claimed for him, and honesty behoves those who praise his memory to acknowledge those sides of him which they would unreservedly condemn had he been white.
No such ambiguity applies to the surviving member of the trinity, the so called living saint Nelson Mandela, most readers here will know my views on him. A convicted terrorist and self confessed murderer, that he has achieved the role of international statesman is more a testament to public gullibility and capacity for self delusion, together with the media's skill at creating a myth on the back of a lie than it is to any substance in the man himself.
Mandela was a gangster who led a gang of criminals, murderers and thugs, he presided over the start of the decline of what was once one of the most prosperous nations on Earth, and revealed his true nature by his recent endorsement of the corrupt thug who will oversee the latter stages of the decline and fall of once great South Africa. If you will allow me the indulgence of quoting from my own essay “Mandela – the legend and the Legacy”:
Three flawed and men, two of them, at least were brutal criminals, and one of those a self confessed murderer, and yet it is a testimony to the dishonesty and moral devastation of the world we now inhabit that these, above all others are portrayed to us and our children as heroes and ultimate role models.
The secular beatitude of this unwholesome trinity, is a further symptom of that dishonest phenomenon best demonstrated by those ludicrous black inventions myths which are rolled out each February in America (So called “Black History” month) when schools lie to their pupils and pretend that black people invented any number of things from air-conditioning units to traffic signs, whereas, even the most cursory examination of the facts shows that they patently did not, albeit there are still some questions over peanut butter. Like a form of Springtime Halloween, but with far more despicable characters, the black inventions myths are nothing less than historical theft, where the hard earned achievements of white inventors are stolen from them and given to randomly chosen non-whites for the sake of a pretend equality.
It is perhaps understandable that, faced which such overwhelming evidence of a achievement by one culture, there is a temptation to exaggerate the achievements of other cultures, but why does it always have to be done by belittling the real achievers.?
For example, across Britian, children in our schools are being taught that Mary Seacole, a part Jamaican nurse, who followed the British troops to Sevastopol in 1854 with a bag of herbal remedies and folk medicine, had a greater influence on the well being of Crimean soldiers than Florence Nightingale, known for a century and a half as the Lady with the Lamp.
Seacole was a brave and worthy woman, who nursed and comforted wounded soldiers in dangerous conditions, and she deserves recognition, but her achievements pale into insignificance next to Nightingale, who set up hospitals in the Crimea and who's pioneering work influenced nursing a century after her death. However, merely acknowledging Seacol's contribution is not good enough for the Multicultural revisionists, they have to pretend that their mixed race darling was better and more historically important than the unforgivably white Florence Nightingale.
This reversal has so far resulted, not only in the fact that a, possibly well deserved, statue of Mary Seacole is being planned for the grounds of St. Thomas's hospital, and the somewhat less deserved addition of study of Mary Seacol's achievements being added to the school curriculum, but with Channel 4 producing a documentary called “Mary Seacole: The real angel of the Crimea”, together with a wider effort to diminish Nightingale's achievements and slander her reputation, in order to boost Seacol's.
In effect, the now less fashionable Nightingale is being posthumously robbed of her achievements in order that the more fashionably coloured Seacole's more modest achievements can appear the greater.
The same form of affirmative action criminality takes place when the meagre achievements of the King/Mandela/Gandhi trinity are inflated, and their grimy reputations sanitised, in order to attribute to them undeserved places ahead of the truly great men and women who created our civilisation, whilst the stature of those who truly deserve the designation of “great” is being simultaneously revised downwards so as to better offset the chosen trio.
I suppose we should, in some respects, be grateful that Robert Mugabe behaved so badly that even the BBC, who covered up the massacres he committed in the early 1980's for over 20 years, could no longer protect him, for had things gone as they were planned in 1981, he would surely by now have ascended the fourth plinth on Olympus as the saviour of “Great” Zimbabwe from the wicked white Rhodesians.
So, following Mugabe's fall from grace, who will be the next non-white to be raised up to the status of greatness irrespective of merit, bypassing higher achieving whites disqualified on account of colour.
To suggest Michael Jackson (or “the People's Paedophile” as one black commentator refreshingly described him in Friday's London Evening Standard, parodying the, then still popular, Tony Blair's description of Princess Diana as “the People's Princess”) may seen bizarre, yet we can already see history being re-written before our eyes. The Hustlers such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, who invested so much in promoting the myths of King and Mandela, but who had distanced themselves from Jackson in his later years, are now back circling amongst the frenzy of smaller fish and praising the “black” king of pop.
More importantly, those who are too young to remember the names of Gavin Arvizo, let alone Jordy Chandler are being lured into hero worshipping Jackson, in the same way that youngsters who were still unborn when the dead lay strewn around Church Street paid homage to the grinning and gaudy Nelson Mandela in Hyde Park last year.
Jackson was a competent singer, although, apart from “Ben” which he first sung when I was two and he was still black, not to my taste, and a more than competent dancer, yet throughout his life his career benefited from his colour, even when he was privately working so hard to change it. It seems that the same affirmative action will apply in death, and that he will be granted a far greater posthumous fame than most white singers will achieve, and certainly greater than his post “Thriller” (here performed by Filipino convicts) career deserves.
The next of the "Greats"?
However, I think we all know who the fourth plinth on the mountain of the assisted greats is reserved for. That honour is set aside a man who had already been endowed with the mantle of greatness before he had any achievements to speak of. A man who gained a position of greatness because others wished greatness upon him. A man for whom truth and fantasy are already conveniently blurred, for no reason other than that those who call him great care more about their fantasy of him than they do about the truth.
It is certainly the aim of those who have elevated the likes of King and Mandela to undeserved levels of historical greatness in the public mind that Barack Obama will join them there. Indeed to hear many speak of him, you would think he had already achieved that status. To be fair, their hero has certainly gone a long way on the strength of very little. Seldom in our history has a single individual been raised so high after having done so little to deserve it, without the benefit of being part of a hereditary system.
Of course he had help, the media and half the world fell in love with the idea of Obama, and even now, very few have yet woken up to the reality of him. Barack Obama did not become president because of anything he had done, or anything he had said, after all he had done nothing to speak of, and said very little without the assistance of an auto-cue, he became President because enough people decided that it would be really neat to have a black president. For others Obama's ascendency was part of their life's work.
Significant numbers of those who felt it would be cool to have a black POTUS, or were eager to throw off the burden of self imposed white guilt, worked in the US media, and they, more than most, made it happen for Barry. As one US news source recently admitted, the American press, all but literally, picked up Obama and carried him cheering across the finish line, without bothering to ask uncomfortable questions. I would go further than that, not only did they carry Obama through the campaign, but they actively sought to trip up his opponents, particularly Hillary Clinton, and later Sarah Palin, whom they perceived as the greatest threats to their darling.
However, now that they have achieved the first ever Affirmative Action presidency we are in a very different ball game. Unlike affirmative action based history, where the opinion formers can edit out the parts that they want people to forget as with Gandhi and Mandela, lock the truth away for decades as they did with King, or simply not report uncomfortable news, as they did when Mandela became President of South Africa in 1994, they now have to contend with reality in real time, and, of course. their boy has to perform.
The usual outcomes of affirmative action can still be largely hidden in every day life. When the occasional bridge or building falls down, news stories can still be constructed in such a way as to gloss over the number minority hires were involved in their design and construction. When thousands of patients die due to medical “blunders” and incompetence, politicians and journalists can pontificate about “budget cuts”, “safety procedures” and “priorities” rather than third world doctors and nurses, as is currently happening in the UK National Heath Service. However, how long can they hide these outcomes when they occur in the White House?
As the months roll on since Obama's inauguration it becomes less plausible to adopt the South African excuse mechanism and blame all the problems on the old white president.
The public can only be distracted for a while. There is a point beyond which swooning over the chosen ones auto-cue prompted humour, gushing over how cute his doggie is, or gasping at his unmatched prowess at swatting flies ceases to be enough. To be a great leader, there is an ultimate requirement to get round to doing something great.
Likewise, there is only so long that the media can pretend that thing are not happening. Just how many times can the press corps pretend not to notice that their president is reading the wrong speech on his auto-cue? And how long can they continue to portray as cool self confidence behaviour which is scarily starting to resemble arrogance and even megalomania?
Rewriting the present is not so easy as re-writing the past, we no longer live in an age when failure to report facts means they remain unknown. The press continue to refuse to acknowledge the questions about Obama's birth certificate, however, those questions continue to be asked. In fact that particular farce is beginning to resemble events in the old soviet union, where the Kremlin would continue to insist that some ageing leader was in first class health, when everyone on the street knew he was on the brink of death, or beyond. Will there come a time when a progressively more desperate media starts reporting fake news, Pravda like, which only the most faithful still believe in?
The answer depends upon how committed those in power are to their new truths and to their refined version of history, how far they will go to preserve their fantasy, and how seriously they calculate that an Obama failure would damage their cause.
Despots before them have long known that to create a truth from a lie you must silence other truths, and moves are already under way to achieve just that. New “hate” laws and other legislation has been drafted for the primary purpose of curtailing and discouraging free speech. Moves to reintroduce the so called “fairness doctrine”, which might be better termed the “Censorship through boredom” doctrine, is clearly intended to smother those voices which question the new truths, but this is just the beginning.
Once they have achieved that how much further will they go? Will they turn off the internet? I wouldn't put it past them. To make a lie become the truth it is necessary to control access to information. As the internet is fast becoming the only access to real information, its days in its present form may well be numbered.
One thing is for certain, as those with the means to do so have rewritten history to achieve an affirmative past, if they are able to they will re-write the present in the same image. Whether Obama joins King and Mandela amongst the affirmatively assisted greats of our reinvented history depends upon how much those in power and news management are able to hold reality at bay and stop the truth from spoiling their fantasy.
________________________________________
Once those three have been carefully placed on the top plinths in the Parthenon of Greats, the black racist or white liberal apologist may, although it is certainly not guaranteed, grudgingly select a few white figures from history to rank below these three historical Gods, however, that selections is seldom quite so predictable.
The selection of white candidates is usually issue driven, and, as such, Lincoln may often appear, on account of his role in the emancipation of the small fraction of 19th century slaves who were lucky enough to be in America, although the list makers will seldom mention what Lincoln actually said about black people. William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson, or their US abolitionist counterparts such as John Brown are now far less assured of a place in the list as they might once have been, given that we are now obliged to pretend that a few Haitian slaves cutting white French throats in 1791, and the fabulously successful outcome that produced, had a far greater impact on the ending of the slave trade than the efforts of a few dead white men. (Alternatively, their position will be usurped altogether by the likes of Olaudah Equiano, a freed slave who write a book.)
(Memo to those considering doing good: make sure you leave a paper trail, for historians will seek to undermine you once you become unfashionable)
Setting slavery aside, and also the US civil rights movement, where King and Rosa Parks generally take most of the plaudits, largely on account of the general unattractiveness of LBJ (despite the fact that the latter did so much more than either to end segregation), the candidates for inclusion in the non-obligatory quota of great whites become even more random.
Kennedy is always a possibility, his early death blessing him with the imagined greatness of promise, untarnished by the disappointments of reality. From Albion's shores, one might imagine that Churchill, Dickens and Shakespeare are potential candidates, but none are now shoe-ins, for all sorts of politically correct reasons. Increasingly, they are very likely to be replaced by any number of figures with more acceptably left wing credentials.
Equally, the sad truth is that in almost any contemporarily compiled list of the greats from history, any white historical figure you can think of, however great his achievements or impact, now risks the humiliation of being replaced by Bob Dillon, John Lennon or even Bob Marley.
No such indignity awaits the non-white triumvirate however, their positions at the top of the politically correct list of history's titans remain un-threatened, their names are spoken with reverence, their achievements, real or imagined, are burnished daily and their flaws unacknowledged, ignored, or more likely denied. These three are acclaimed for a greatness which does not require truth to sustain it and their seats at the top table of public reverence reserved eternally for them, whilst their white counterparts must forever struggle to retain their place against fashionable revisionism and the lies of agenda driven historians.
To question the greatness of all or any of the blessed trinity of the new order is a modern day form of blasphemy, mitigated only by the fact that such questions are usually spoken from within a vacuum from within which it is almost impossible to communicate with the wider world, for none of the usual means of communication will carry your message.
Yet, who are these historical giants who we must all revere and who's claim to greatness can not be questioned?
Martin Luther King, was, in truth, a sexually depraved communist and proven serial plagiarist, with a known penchant for brutalising women. King was a man who's only real achievement, other than being able to attract crowds, was a clever way with words (sound familiar?) who's FBI surveillance file is so potentially damaging to his memory that the courts have locked it away until 2027.
Even King's own son dismisses the official version of his death, allegedly at the hand of white assassin, as a lie. Yet he is treated as a saint, and a martyr and granted the honour of having a public holiday named after him, whilst, until Obama day is declared, all 44 US presidents have to share a single day between them. I guess that is quite an achievement for a brutal, treacherous adulterer and intellectual thief.
Then there is Gandhi, the pacifist darling of the multiculturalists and subject of one of the most stomach churningly sycophantic movies every made outside North Korea. This is a man who's rabid anti-black African racism, possibly acquired during his time in Durban, prior to returning to India in 1915, was extreme even for its time, and would make many a contributor to Stormfront blush.
Of the three, Gandhi has the strongest claim to greatness, but not to the degree claimed for him, and honesty behoves those who praise his memory to acknowledge those sides of him which they would unreservedly condemn had he been white.
No such ambiguity applies to the surviving member of the trinity, the so called living saint Nelson Mandela, most readers here will know my views on him. A convicted terrorist and self confessed murderer, that he has achieved the role of international statesman is more a testament to public gullibility and capacity for self delusion, together with the media's skill at creating a myth on the back of a lie than it is to any substance in the man himself.
Mandela was a gangster who led a gang of criminals, murderers and thugs, he presided over the start of the decline of what was once one of the most prosperous nations on Earth, and revealed his true nature by his recent endorsement of the corrupt thug who will oversee the latter stages of the decline and fall of once great South Africa. If you will allow me the indulgence of quoting from my own essay “Mandela – the legend and the Legacy”:
“Nelson Mandela's lasting achievement is that, in the face of a world wishing him well, he, and the party he leads, have shown the world that, for all its flaws, Apartheid was a more benign system than what replaced it, and that the average South African was immeasurably better off under the hated white rule than they are under the alternative which black rule has created.”
Three flawed and men, two of them, at least were brutal criminals, and one of those a self confessed murderer, and yet it is a testimony to the dishonesty and moral devastation of the world we now inhabit that these, above all others are portrayed to us and our children as heroes and ultimate role models.
The secular beatitude of this unwholesome trinity, is a further symptom of that dishonest phenomenon best demonstrated by those ludicrous black inventions myths which are rolled out each February in America (So called “Black History” month) when schools lie to their pupils and pretend that black people invented any number of things from air-conditioning units to traffic signs, whereas, even the most cursory examination of the facts shows that they patently did not, albeit there are still some questions over peanut butter. Like a form of Springtime Halloween, but with far more despicable characters, the black inventions myths are nothing less than historical theft, where the hard earned achievements of white inventors are stolen from them and given to randomly chosen non-whites for the sake of a pretend equality.
It is perhaps understandable that, faced which such overwhelming evidence of a achievement by one culture, there is a temptation to exaggerate the achievements of other cultures, but why does it always have to be done by belittling the real achievers.?
For example, across Britian, children in our schools are being taught that Mary Seacole, a part Jamaican nurse, who followed the British troops to Sevastopol in 1854 with a bag of herbal remedies and folk medicine, had a greater influence on the well being of Crimean soldiers than Florence Nightingale, known for a century and a half as the Lady with the Lamp.
Seacole was a brave and worthy woman, who nursed and comforted wounded soldiers in dangerous conditions, and she deserves recognition, but her achievements pale into insignificance next to Nightingale, who set up hospitals in the Crimea and who's pioneering work influenced nursing a century after her death. However, merely acknowledging Seacol's contribution is not good enough for the Multicultural revisionists, they have to pretend that their mixed race darling was better and more historically important than the unforgivably white Florence Nightingale.
This reversal has so far resulted, not only in the fact that a, possibly well deserved, statue of Mary Seacole is being planned for the grounds of St. Thomas's hospital, and the somewhat less deserved addition of study of Mary Seacol's achievements being added to the school curriculum, but with Channel 4 producing a documentary called “Mary Seacole: The real angel of the Crimea”, together with a wider effort to diminish Nightingale's achievements and slander her reputation, in order to boost Seacol's.
In effect, the now less fashionable Nightingale is being posthumously robbed of her achievements in order that the more fashionably coloured Seacole's more modest achievements can appear the greater.
The same form of affirmative action criminality takes place when the meagre achievements of the King/Mandela/Gandhi trinity are inflated, and their grimy reputations sanitised, in order to attribute to them undeserved places ahead of the truly great men and women who created our civilisation, whilst the stature of those who truly deserve the designation of “great” is being simultaneously revised downwards so as to better offset the chosen trio.
I suppose we should, in some respects, be grateful that Robert Mugabe behaved so badly that even the BBC, who covered up the massacres he committed in the early 1980's for over 20 years, could no longer protect him, for had things gone as they were planned in 1981, he would surely by now have ascended the fourth plinth on Olympus as the saviour of “Great” Zimbabwe from the wicked white Rhodesians.
So, following Mugabe's fall from grace, who will be the next non-white to be raised up to the status of greatness irrespective of merit, bypassing higher achieving whites disqualified on account of colour.
To suggest Michael Jackson (or “the People's Paedophile” as one black commentator refreshingly described him in Friday's London Evening Standard, parodying the, then still popular, Tony Blair's description of Princess Diana as “the People's Princess”) may seen bizarre, yet we can already see history being re-written before our eyes. The Hustlers such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, who invested so much in promoting the myths of King and Mandela, but who had distanced themselves from Jackson in his later years, are now back circling amongst the frenzy of smaller fish and praising the “black” king of pop.
More importantly, those who are too young to remember the names of Gavin Arvizo, let alone Jordy Chandler are being lured into hero worshipping Jackson, in the same way that youngsters who were still unborn when the dead lay strewn around Church Street paid homage to the grinning and gaudy Nelson Mandela in Hyde Park last year.
Jackson was a competent singer, although, apart from “Ben” which he first sung when I was two and he was still black, not to my taste, and a more than competent dancer, yet throughout his life his career benefited from his colour, even when he was privately working so hard to change it. It seems that the same affirmative action will apply in death, and that he will be granted a far greater posthumous fame than most white singers will achieve, and certainly greater than his post “Thriller” (here performed by Filipino convicts) career deserves.
The next of the "Greats"?It is certainly the aim of those who have elevated the likes of King and Mandela to undeserved levels of historical greatness in the public mind that Barack Obama will join them there. Indeed to hear many speak of him, you would think he had already achieved that status. To be fair, their hero has certainly gone a long way on the strength of very little. Seldom in our history has a single individual been raised so high after having done so little to deserve it, without the benefit of being part of a hereditary system.
Of course he had help, the media and half the world fell in love with the idea of Obama, and even now, very few have yet woken up to the reality of him. Barack Obama did not become president because of anything he had done, or anything he had said, after all he had done nothing to speak of, and said very little without the assistance of an auto-cue, he became President because enough people decided that it would be really neat to have a black president. For others Obama's ascendency was part of their life's work.
Significant numbers of those who felt it would be cool to have a black POTUS, or were eager to throw off the burden of self imposed white guilt, worked in the US media, and they, more than most, made it happen for Barry. As one US news source recently admitted, the American press, all but literally, picked up Obama and carried him cheering across the finish line, without bothering to ask uncomfortable questions. I would go further than that, not only did they carry Obama through the campaign, but they actively sought to trip up his opponents, particularly Hillary Clinton, and later Sarah Palin, whom they perceived as the greatest threats to their darling.
However, now that they have achieved the first ever Affirmative Action presidency we are in a very different ball game. Unlike affirmative action based history, where the opinion formers can edit out the parts that they want people to forget as with Gandhi and Mandela, lock the truth away for decades as they did with King, or simply not report uncomfortable news, as they did when Mandela became President of South Africa in 1994, they now have to contend with reality in real time, and, of course. their boy has to perform.
The usual outcomes of affirmative action can still be largely hidden in every day life. When the occasional bridge or building falls down, news stories can still be constructed in such a way as to gloss over the number minority hires were involved in their design and construction. When thousands of patients die due to medical “blunders” and incompetence, politicians and journalists can pontificate about “budget cuts”, “safety procedures” and “priorities” rather than third world doctors and nurses, as is currently happening in the UK National Heath Service. However, how long can they hide these outcomes when they occur in the White House?
As the months roll on since Obama's inauguration it becomes less plausible to adopt the South African excuse mechanism and blame all the problems on the old white president.
The public can only be distracted for a while. There is a point beyond which swooning over the chosen ones auto-cue prompted humour, gushing over how cute his doggie is, or gasping at his unmatched prowess at swatting flies ceases to be enough. To be a great leader, there is an ultimate requirement to get round to doing something great.
Likewise, there is only so long that the media can pretend that thing are not happening. Just how many times can the press corps pretend not to notice that their president is reading the wrong speech on his auto-cue? And how long can they continue to portray as cool self confidence behaviour which is scarily starting to resemble arrogance and even megalomania?
Rewriting the present is not so easy as re-writing the past, we no longer live in an age when failure to report facts means they remain unknown. The press continue to refuse to acknowledge the questions about Obama's birth certificate, however, those questions continue to be asked. In fact that particular farce is beginning to resemble events in the old soviet union, where the Kremlin would continue to insist that some ageing leader was in first class health, when everyone on the street knew he was on the brink of death, or beyond. Will there come a time when a progressively more desperate media starts reporting fake news, Pravda like, which only the most faithful still believe in?
The answer depends upon how committed those in power are to their new truths and to their refined version of history, how far they will go to preserve their fantasy, and how seriously they calculate that an Obama failure would damage their cause.
Despots before them have long known that to create a truth from a lie you must silence other truths, and moves are already under way to achieve just that. New “hate” laws and other legislation has been drafted for the primary purpose of curtailing and discouraging free speech. Moves to reintroduce the so called “fairness doctrine”, which might be better termed the “Censorship through boredom” doctrine, is clearly intended to smother those voices which question the new truths, but this is just the beginning.
Once they have achieved that how much further will they go? Will they turn off the internet? I wouldn't put it past them. To make a lie become the truth it is necessary to control access to information. As the internet is fast becoming the only access to real information, its days in its present form may well be numbered.
One thing is for certain, as those with the means to do so have rewritten history to achieve an affirmative past, if they are able to they will re-write the present in the same image. Whether Obama joins King and Mandela amongst the affirmatively assisted greats of our reinvented history depends upon how much those in power and news management are able to hold reality at bay and stop the truth from spoiling their fantasy.
________________________________________
