Time Travel, Revisionist History, and the Liberal Agenda

 "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."    1984 by George Orwell

A mosaic stitched image of Stone Mountain, Georgia, United States. Taken with a Canon 5D and 70-200mm f/2.8L at 200mm. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

         When the CW television network debuted The Flash in 2014 I was enthusiastically on board from the first episode.  Since I had been a big fan of the first short-lived incarnation of The Flash in 1990 and sad to see its demise after only one season, I welcomed the reinvention of the superhuman speedster in a television era where special effects technology would be so much better.  The characters in the new show were well developed and fun and the story was not so far-fetched that I could reasonably buy into it.  But then, as will invariably happen with such genres, the writers of The Flash went into realms of the absurd that I could no longer accept.  I've stopped watching The Flash.

         Superhero stories like most science fiction and fantasy typically require healthy doses of willing suspension of disbelief and yet there can be limits to just about everything.  In The Flash I could accept the increasing array of super villains and even the alternate universe.  However for me the entire "flashpoint" concept--the changing of a timeline where the Flash entered a world where he had memories of another timeline that no one else knew with subsequent plots revolving around events connected with the new timeline with plot points interjected from the previous timeline--this concept annoyed me.   To me an ability for someone or some power to be able to change the past or create an alternate past has no logic and becomes downright silly.

        Oddly over the past few years we've seen a number of television shows and films with similar past-changing plot devices.  This past TV season alone I've gotten caught up in Frequency (derived from the 2000 film of the same name) and Timeless.  In both, the element of going back in time in order to change the timeline of history does bother me, but the stories have been so engaging and are so well written that I was able to forgive the illogical premise.   I also recall seeing other films and shows that used the device of changing time (Looper comes to mind) but I can't name any others at the moment, but I've been less forgiving of most of them.

        Time travel happens to be a favorite fictional genre of mine, but I have a hard time accepting the stories where someone goes back to change history.  To me that's like the story that has the "it was only a dream ending".  It's a gimmick that usually doesn't work well for me unless it's something on a less serious note such as the Back to the Future films.  If time gets changed to the point of a new outcome then was the outcome as remembered by the time traveler comparable to being only a dream?  And what does that traveler do with that memory and once returned to a future with a new outcome does that traveler have the memory of the new history line somehow implanted in their mind?

       For me there becomes an almost conspiratorial suspicion that this type of change plot line is a sort of liberal leftist agenda, whether it be purposeful or subconsciously devised, to become a part of the revisionist history movement that is becoming more popular in recent U.S. thinking in circles of academia and new progressive socialism.

        More often a tool of dictatorships and radical governmental change agents, the concept of historical revision is being seen in the movements to remove symbols such as statues of former heroes, primarily associated with the Confederacy, or the names of historical figures that offend certain people in new movements taken off of schools and other public buildings.  Many early explorers, founders, and shapers of the United States are now being looked upon with disfavor and gradually being eliminated from this nation's history or relegated to roles where they are deemed essentially unsavory.

       The agents of social change and certain academicians unable to physically go back in time in order to exert change seem to want to instead rewrite history books and change the landscape to no longer reflect an existence of anyone who engaged in anything that is now looked upon with an unfavorable eye.  The revolutionaries of the New Order of Thought would prefer future generations to understand a new and different history that is more reflective of the demographics of our time.

          Revising history is in the hands of educational institutions, politicians who exert the most power, social groups with the loudest voices, or whoever else becomes the victor in future struggles for dissemination of knowledge and lore.  The entertainment industry has been doing this for years as seen by theatrically released biopics and historical epics.

         More than once have I been disappointed after watching an interesting film and then, after being driven by curiosity to investigate further about the topic, to find that what I had seen was mostly a reinvention of actual history.  If in the future our textbooks and other references are changed to reflect the new history then who will know what the truth is.  Already we see a mythology of history appearing on the internet to the extent that we cannot always trust what we read.  This of course has always been the case to some extent in published materials, but with the internet it seems that revisionism could be getting worse.

         So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were really jerks and not worth having a school named after them?   Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were part of an evil cause and should have their monuments removed from public view?   The United States legacy is really one of aggression and oppression?  Does the history of this country and the country as it now is deserve to be respected?  

         Oh, I'll still be watching the time travel shows and films.  I'll do my best to suspend disbelief as much as I can.   But nevertheless, this nagging fear will linger in my mind that maybe the trend to depict time travelers as being successful in changing history is really a nod of approval to the real history revisionists in our midst.  When society starts eradicating the truth, they might create an illusion that where we are now and where we are going in the future is wonderful, but they will also be building castles with foundations of sand.  

         What do you think of the revisionist history movements?    Do you like time travel stories in which history gets changed?   What is your favorite time travel television show or movie?  

          On Wednesday I'll be presenting a Battle of the Bands post which continues on the theme of today's post.  Two different songs from the seventies by two well known groups who went through numerous personnel changes over the years.  If you'd like to join the participants of Battle of the Bands to present your own musical battle then let me know so I can have your blog link added to the list.  It's great fun and we'd like to see some more musical tastes involved.   I'm sure you've got something you can add to the mix that will make things even more interesting that they are now.

Related articles

• Life imitating art: '1984' a best-seller again
• '1984' is coming to Broadway to make you uncomfortable
• North Carolina school board rejects ban on Confederate flag
• Confederate statue to be removed from outside courthouse
• This fascinating map is the Ottoman Empire's take on the United States In 1803
• Independent bookstores are becoming centers of political resistance
• (Identity) Politics & Prose

Who's Watching You?

Three surveillance cameras on the corner of a building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

        You are being monitored.   Cameras are everywhere.  Nearly everything we do is being tracked by someone somewhere.  No matter to what extent you might try to keep your anonymity, forget it--as long as you function in a normal societal sense, you can be found and figured out.

        This was once the science fiction fantasy of dystopian novels such as George Orwell's 1984, but now that iconic year has passed and the fantasy has become an absolute reality.   There are surveillance cameras on the streets, in buildings we frequent, and even in satellites circling the globe. Eyes are watching you from everywhere.   In the future we can expect that our televisions will monitor us in order to customize commercials and programming.  The technology is already here--this is already being done on your computer if you haven't noticed yet.

        You may not notice who is watching you, but I assure you that you are being monitored.  Computers and the internet have made spying easy.  Yes, spying.  Surreptitious observation is not just the realm of secret agents checking on foreign governments.   We are all under the watchful eyes of someone who wants to know what we are up to.

        Careful with those income tax returns lest you be flagged by the IRS.   They have monster computers that can pick up on unusual reporting.  Watch your driving because now automated systems can catch you even if no cops are around.   Make sure you're doing what you're supposed to at your job because some companies now have ways of picking up on employee pilfering and mismanagement of work time.  More than one babysitter has been caught behaving inappropriately by a hidden nanny cam.

        Criminals are now regularly caught in the act by security cameras.   Some criminals have even been nailed due to their own stupidity of posting their acts on Facebook or YouTube.   If you think others aren't paying that much attention then think again.   There are prying eyes everywhere and many are looking right at you.

         Governments and corporations aren't the only ones with their eyes on us.  Malicious and even sometimes well-meaning neighbors have long been a source of information that can create woes for people doing things which others may not approve.  Children turn in parents and parents turn in children.  Toeing the party line is no longer just the mantra of communist philosophy.  These days say something that upsets someone else and you can be branded as a hater or even worse.   In the end you might find yourself facing uncomfortable situations that can lead to job loss or even legal troubles.

       Should we feel paranoid?   Cautious maybe, but as long as we are keeping a low profile there is probably little reason to worry.   We are in a time when the least little word or action has the potential of setting off a maelstrom of woes from which there is sometimes little or no chance of saving your name and reputation.

         Recently someone asked me if I would say such and such on my blog.   The answer is no.  Not at this time at least.  There are some things that I'm not going to touch here because honestly I'm a bit afraid to do so.  I'm not afraid because of anything I believe, but because of the ways things can be misconstrued, the refusal of those in disagreement to listen to any of the logic that I might present, and the unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion about issues.   Inciting anger against me is not my mission on this blog nor is it my mission in life.  Not yet.

          There are plenty of things in this world for me to get angry about without feeding the ravenous wolves of irrational thinking in order to create an even more maddening frenzy of argument, distrust, and hatred.  There are things I'd like to bring up, but is it worth becoming a target of attack?   On the other hand would I never want to express any disagreement and thereby never have any discussion even though others might be wrong?  Or maybe I would be wrong and others could help me see the error of my ways.   Is conflict worth the risk to me in my current situation?

           It's an uncomfortable world at times.   Our society balances on tenuous threads of uncertainty so we often keep still and stay quiet so we don't fall into a chaotic void of contention and discord.  And in the mean time, are we learning any actual truth?   Or do we merely appease the masses by turning from the truth in our attempt to remain within a zone where we can feel relatively comfortable in ignorant complacency?

          You can run.  You can try to hide.  But you can never completely escape the eyes that are upon you.  We have to be careful because waiting ears are listening for us to slip up so they can point derisive fingers of accusation to keep the negative attention focused on anyone but them.  It's a scary world.  Someone is watching us and we might not even realize it most of the time.   It's many eyes in fact.  Someone is watching you.

          This is a stand alone post that expresses some serious thoughts that I've not just been thinking recently, but that I've also had concerns about for some time.   I'm mostly pondering, tossing out ideas for you to consider as well.    However there is also another motivation in regard to my topic.   This post topic is a hint to my song choice for my Battle of the Bands post that will appear this Thursday January 15th.   The song is not a song by the Alan Parsons Project so you can discount that one.   This next Battle will be a rather amazing one with a classic song that's been recorded numerous times in many styles by a wide range of artists.  I would be surprised if you'd never heard this song performed by someone over the years.  Be sure to join me here on Thursday for the Battle, but I'll also be here on Wednesday with another clue if no one guesses the song from today's clue.

          When have you had a surprise encounter with having been "spied on"?    Do you think the surveillance of the general public is an issue for concern?    Do you have a guess of the song choice for my next Battle of the Bands post?

Related articles

• Soon, The Internet Will Be Impossible to Control
• Let's Be Honest About Facebook Spying
• New Toy Will Spy on Your Children for Santa

Let's Do It For Our Children!

George Orwell - Author series (Photo credit: New Chemical History)

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”
— George Orwell, 1984

           Since we've reached the year 2013 is it time for the clocks to start striking thirteen?   Sure, things have been strange for several decades, but are they about to become even stranger?

            I'm not going to dissect the words spoken by the President of the United States on Wednesday January 16, 2013 or the nonsensical babble of his buddy Joe.  I think I may have incensed enough readers with a few of my more recent posts and I don't need to make things worse by pointing out the code words and diversionary tactics of this speech, but I do want to declaim the tactic of using "the children" to sway an argument or tug at heartstrings to get what we want.

           It's a purely emotional appeal that is used as a propaganda strategy.  Advertisers use it all the time.  No parent wants to deprive their children of their safety, health, comfort, or pleasure in life.  Nearly all parents want the absolute best for their children whenever possible.  They want their children to have the best toys, clothes, food, and experiences.  They rarely want their children to face deprivation or danger.  It's the normal way to be.

          The provision and well-being of our children affects every single one of us.  After all, we are all parents or know someone who is a parent.   Children are a part of our daily lives and most of us have the desire to save every child and give them the best opportunity for a quality life that our society can provide them.   We sacrifice much for our children and it is well that we should.

           However, doesn't using the children to propagandize and promote a political agenda seem a bit underhanded?   Is it right to use children as a device to manipulate emotions to overrule rational thinking to get what we want?

            I've been guilty of this myself.  In my nearly twenty years working in a business affiliated with fund-raising, we evoked the name of  "the children" to encourage people to dig deeper to give more money to whatever cause we were promoting at the time.  After all, "It's for the kids".  Make the audience feel bad.  Make them feel like they must do something even though that something may not necessarily be the right thing when put into place in the bigger picture.

            Showcasing the children is not always a bad thing.   "Jerry's Kids", the young cancer patients at St. Jude Hospital, or "Save the Children" seem to be fine causes over all that have a decent long range mission in mind that will benefit many children in the future.  If the intent is righteous then I don't mind.

             It's the politicizing of the children that annoys me the most.   I can deal with politicians giving their speeches before a background of union members, interest groups, or their own supporters.   It's a common cliche that's rather stupid looking in my opinion, but it's a great photo op for the politicos.  If a bunch of sheep-faced people want to stand behind some blithering politician, then more power to them.  Maybe they'll even get shown on television.

           But please, political agendists, don't use "the children" as props for your cause.  Creating a reactionary movement because of some sensational incident by invoking all children as the cause du jour is merely a cheap appeal to the feelings of those who are not thinking out the entire issue.  

            I love my kids and my grandkids and I want everyone's kids to be alright.  I also want to protect children from the dangers of the future just as much as the immediate dangers.  I want to protect the children against things we are talking about now, but I think it might be even more important to protect them from the things that many of us are not talking about.   We are holding the future in our hands--so what do we plan to do with it?

          Stop the agenda driven rhetoric that is driven by emotions.  See the absolute logic if you can.  Today it may be 23 executive actions, tomorrow it might be 33 executive orders, by the end of the year we might be looking at who knows how many legislative actions costing more money than is worth spending.   Thousands of words.   And we know the danger of words.   Words can be far more dangerous than weapons and have a far more lasting effect.

          Maybe I need to dig up my copy of George Orwell's 1984 and reread it.  

           

Related articles

• Connective Parenting asks: When It Comes to Mass Shootings - What About Parenting?
• Obama's War On Terror is Orwell's Never Ending War Of Terror
• George Orwell's road to socialism