When I hear on television or read about “the simpler time of the 50s” I cannot help but think about things like segregation, and the actions of a brave few like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and the tragedy of Emmett Till-albeit sparking the flame of the Civil Rights movement that would come later. Reading, seeing on the history channel, and hearing about such things inspire awe in me when I think about what they had to go through. The adversity that they had to struggle with is only something I can speculate being of generation x. I can say that those past events are remembered, and influence subsequent generations (me) in a positive way.
I find more contradictions when I think about the Civil Rights movement becoming entwined with anti-war movement of the 60s. Where I would certainly see myself marching in complete support of Civil Rights for women and minorities, I am ideologically opposed to the anti-war aspect of it. Of course Vietnam was a complete debacle. What I am opposed to were the well to do people on the campus of Berkley and Columbia spitting on soldiers and the likes of that traitor Jane Fonda (as to is Sean Penn for my generation).
Those were just a few general examples, but I see that time as the beginning of an ideology that is something that I have to deal with today, liberalism. I find it rather ironic, where I opposed Reagan era policy and demonized the Republican Party as the core of the issue when I was younger, now I am more in line with their general ethos much more than I am the legacy of the anti-war movement. I need to make a clear distinction that I consider the Civil Rights and anti-war movements to completely different things.
I find one to be uplifting and motivating, and the other to be the actions of the naive and selfish. What we have now is the naive and selfish ideology so embedded into our psyche it took many years of reading, listening, and viewing to realize there was an alternative. I am quite happy that the alternative was more true to the roots of the founding fathers and what they had to say. I would have to summarize it as somewhat conservatism, with most of the emphasis being on responsible and informed individualism grounded in common sense. I won’t say that the founding fathers were perfect. For example, leaving the issue of those southern slave owners to future generations did a lot of damage in subsequent generations.
What I see as the actions of the naive and selfish as the corruption of liberalism seething into academia, government, and media. Where some of it makes perfect sense and I would support, there is a lot of it that follows Marxist and socialist ideology that I cannot forgive nor will overlook. Something inherently tells me big government is wrong and liberal bias is wrong.
This is an example of the dribble that I am talking about.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Chris Matthews and crap from MSNBC a great example to use. So much is covered in this interview on what is wrong with news today. I do need to give Susan Page some credit towards the end of the interview. I thought the she strived for that objectivity that I’d hope to see the media make the slightest attempt at doing. Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews, on the other hand, wonderfully exampled liberal media bias and oversimplification of issues so wonderfully following the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” dogma.
The press remarked over and over again that he came from a right wing ideology. The thing is, James von Brunn’s ideology stems from leftist views. I wanted to make that statement because a recent DHS report stated “right wing” as well. The media likes to lump the racist and toxic ideology that James von Brunn subscribed to as right wing. Where in the world of op ed and 24 hour news, I would hope that an “objective” media would even try to pretend not to be so biased. Unfortunately, ethics, morals, and credibility are long gone for them. They liberal media are quite possibly one of the worst results of the naive and selfish ideology. I am not a professional in my analysis in and way what so ever. I just cannot fathom how simplistic this right/left paradigm is presented in traditional media.
There are some things that are left out of the public square because is opposes the agenda of the liberal press when they are providing their “in-depth” analysis, and these things are sure something that I did not learn from them. I wanted to provide a few historical examples of such things. I am going to use the same simplistic party lines and associations that the media presents, to give an idea that things are not as simple as they’d like them to be.
We all know that the end of slavery came from the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party. I have seen the liberal press paint that Republican Party as vastly different from the Republican Party today. That’s fine, but it was also the southern Democrats who were the greatest opposition in Civil Rights legislation before it became law. One of those in opposition was Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, elected him “Exalted Cyclops” even. This Democrat is now 4th in line to the Presidency. While he regrets his past actions, it cannot be swept under the rug of inconvenient facts.
On a side note, another Democrat who opposed civil rights legislation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Albert Gore, Sr., father to “the sky is falling!” Al Gore environmental weenie we all know and love today. I must give credit to Albert Gore, Sr., though, for stating his opposition was one of his biggest mistakes.
School desegregation ended with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. That event led to the incident at Little Rock Central High School. “On the morning of September 23, 1957, the nine African-American high school students faced an angry mob of over 1,000 European-Americans protesting integration in front of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.[5] As the students were escorted inside by the Little Rock police, violence escalated and they were removed from the school.[5] The next day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the 1,200-man 327th Airborne Battle Group of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to escort the nine students into the school.[5] By the same order, the entire 10,000 man Arkansas National Guard was federalized, to remove them from the control of Governor Faubus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Central_High_School
Eisenhower was a Republican. On the other hand are the actions of a Democrat: “Faubus' name became internationally known during the Little Rock Crisis of 1957, when he used the National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus
These events need to be realized when you have to deal with the media op ed blaming right wing hate speech and right wing ideology being behind that cretin James von Brunn. He was a member of the neo-Nazi movement who demonized Jews, Christians, and minorities with an equal amount of contempt. Point being neo-Nazi.
Before I get into the more general details of political philosophy I wanted to post the basis to which I adhere to. It follows in line what I remember from school.
Racism stems from a form of collectivism, whereas the right stems from individualism. That individualism stems for rights and the dignity of the individual. During the 30s the Germans and Russians hammered out the leftist ideology defining what they believed in. Each agreed to define themselves as opposite of the other to emphasize their flavor of oppression. Despite that, what the two have in common is the opposition to freedom of the individual. We are faced with the notion of a large government seeking to control the individual. These racist ideologues seek to control the individual based on race is one of the aspects of collectivism.
The Nazi party means National Socialism, who pursued a totalitarian doctrine of intolerance to opposition of the state and worked towards finding the “final solution” to their Jewish problem. Here you have an example of the worst and most genocidal actions of a fanatical large government with a strict racial ideology. In other words, it is the manifestation of extreme evil being conducted by human beings. Erik von Brunn and his cronies supported a political ideology that contradicts individualism. As much as Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh try to associate Erik von Brunn and like people as “right wing,” it is simply untrue.
While the above can be simplistic, sometimes simple is better. Many liberals like to overanalyze things to come across as pseudo-intellectual wind bags. Common sense is good. When I stress individualism I make that association with conservatism, not the Republican party. Bush’s exponential growth of government during his 8 years is not an action of a conservative.
A good example of conservative doctrine (with a dash of Republican) is this:
While I do appreciate Reagan’s speeches, I also found Obama’s speeches very inspiring.
* I am testing embedding video into this blog, but I did want to take this opportunity to acknowledge great speakers who give different views, but very eloquently. I appreciate that immensely now. I would never have called Dubya eloquent at all.
It’s not the message that the Democratic Party has that I particularly disagree with. There are Republican Party issues which I disagree with just as much.
The root of the problem stems the naive and selfish liberal idiots who have permeated mass media, government, and academia in recent decades. To their tribute, we have seen the public square become a name calling match, political correctness obliterating common sense, and traditional American values being demonized. When one blames America first, they are so blind to history and the freedom and opportunity that this country has to offer I feel it’s my job to call them out.
In addition, to quote Jefferson, “when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty” is valid to this day. I’d consider it unpatriotic to not to peacefully address my grievances to government policy. What’s good to know is that the internet has become more mainstream in addressing alternative views to the main stream media, that liberal press is hemorrhaging from declining subscribers and viewers. It’s nice to see liberal bias is known, recognized, and failing. MSNBC and op ed talking heads like Chris Matthews really shine in their ridiculousness. Low consumer numbers reflect that.
