Contact the Author | sample_mail@mail.com

05 Sep

Never in recorded history have so many people been able to state opinions, exchange viewpoints and, in general “sound off” as we do now. This is a “blog,” (or so I’m told) a word that is short for “weblog” and, apparently, means a diary on a website. Now, not too long ago, the only thing I knew about “webs” was that they were the creation of an eight-legged creature called an arachnid or spider. I also know—one of those endless tidbits of rather useless information at my disposal—that were spiders the size of domestic cats, they would be the dominant form of life on earth!

Apparently today, however, “web” is used in conjunction with the “internet,” another fairly recent development. Well, when one is seventy-six, “fairly recent” is a correct assessment of the birth of what has become undoubtedly the most extensive means of communication on earth today. Only those living in places where the resources necessary for such technology are unavailable, live their lives absent the presence of what cannot be considered anything other than at least the foundations of George Orwell’s Big Brother. Of course, Orwell’s warning is almost totally forgotten today and very few have either read his description of a world under the thrall of an all-powerful government and its all-present surveillance or who have seen first the television adaptation that starred Green Acres actor Eddie Albert or the later film version that starred John Hurt and Richard Burton.

But Orwell’s prescience is coming to pass in ways other than just the ubiquitous internet that many governments—including our own—seek to control. The present assault against first Southern cultural heritage has now expanded to target not only the entire country but all of Western Civilization and especially Christianity. (What other conclusion can one draw with the City of New Orleans wishes to tear down a statue of Joan of Arc?) In his book, Orwell’s Oceania is one of three “nations” that have been created after a nuclear war and the hero, Winston Smith, spends his time rewriting history. Sound familiar? What Orwell only dreamt when he wrote 1984—that is, men going into newspapers and books and expunging those who have fallen out of favor in the State so that, for all intents and purposes they never existed!—can actually be done today to a great extent. Consider the internet image of Dylann Roof, the South Carolina black church “mass shooter” with a Confederate battle flag in his hand, something that Roof’s (black) friends swear he never had! But the image is there—today’ that’s called “photoshopping” and it is getting better and better—or worse and worse depending upon your viewpoint. Oceania’s “motto” is Orwell at his best:

Whoever controls the past controls the future; Whoever controls the present controls the past.

For his readers to understand what this actually means, Orwell is even more on point:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

In other words, it isn’t that history is being changed, but that it is quite literally being destroyed! According to Orwell, “History has stopped.” Everything and anything put forth to the public as “history” in Orwell’s brave new world is nothing but the opinion of the present leaders of the State, an opinion that may well change tomorrow! It is this alteration, this adulteration, of history—something we are close to being able to achieve!—that must be prevented at all costs! This is not a matter of those variations arising out of the “normal” differences of viewpoint and opinion natural to our human condition and recognized as such. Indeed, it is universally understood that “winners write history” until sufficient time has passed to permit a more objective view. These dissimilarities of viewpoint are a given, but it is understood that in time, historians and scholars will be able to view far more objectively, what today “everybody knows.” But alas! If the very facts are changed, if what happened is rewritten as often as the government decides it is necessary, what future culture will be able to accurately know anything—always assuming there is a “future culture?”

However, today it seems that instead of becoming more objective—especially given our current ability to access information unavailable even a decade ago!—we are becoming less so. We embrace viewpoints and agendas that demand not truth or fact, but “the appropriate conclusion”—especially when it comes to history. Naturally, such a mindset means that when actual history presents a conclusion deemed inappropriate, it—as is the case with Orwell’s persons who have fallen out of favor—must be removed from the historical record! Because such determinations “upset the apple cart” of establishment history, they must be eliminated. This current methodology—aptly defined as “political correctness”—attempts to prevent at all costs the exposition of any “history” not in keeping with the “establishment” narrative, while those who fail to accept that narrative run the risk of being banished into “outer darkness” and considered not only “revisionist,” but fools or liars. Even this, however, is not the worst. The “revisionist,” “fool” and “liar” of today becomes as did Winston Smith in 1984, a danger to the State and is therefore dealt with accordingly. It seems farfetched I know, but, alas!, far less farfetched than it did only a few years ago.

The book whose website this is, was written in hopes of correcting the errors of the past that have damaged the reputation of a good and noble man. Some of these errors were the result of incorrect information, some were the result of deliberate calumny and still some were the result of the hatreds aroused by war. But whatever their origins, they are errors and I hoped in writing the book to correct the damage they did, to reinsert into history the true story of a man who deserves nothing less than the validation of his “well considered” life. Indeed, I never intended to write this book at all, but after transcribing literally thousands of newspaper articles, it became clear to me that much of what even I believed, was at best wrong and at worst the product of deliberate falsehood. Understanding the situation, I had a choice to correct my own judgment and walk away, or to work to affect a much greater transformation in the situation. I chose the latter. Whatever the fate of A Thousand Points of Truth as a book, I can take comfort in knowing that when the opportunity arose to report true history, I did not walk away.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.