Monday, June 5, 2017
The Republican Party has made a name for itself as the Party of patriotism, conservatism, and constitutionalism. The evidence is clear cut on this matter, even going to a 4th of july event makes people more likely to vote republican according to this study, and even more incredible, just seeing the American flag can push people slightly more right for quite awhile! It's obvious Republicans have made a name for themselves as being patriots, so why not act it?
Sure that's a very incendiary comment right there, implying republicans don't act Patriotic, in saying this, I don't question the love for their country that is so prevalent in the Republican party, I myself plan to register as a Republican voter when I turn 18. Rather, I question the actual adherence to the beliefs that founded this country. Fighting for the first and second amendment is good and all, but what about the other bits, what about the idea of "don't tread on me". The Tea Party, a clearly far right movement adopted this sign, almost all Tea Partiers are now Republicans, yet for some reason, the Republican party resonates far more with pushing Traditionalist ideology in policy, than in pushing libertarian ideology in policy.
What I am advocating here is not abandoning the Traditionalist viewpoints that form the Conservative Ideology, but rather, I am advocating that just as we would wish for the government to stay away from our guns, that we should keep the government out of other's beds. You don't need to abandon your ideology just to believe that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. According to a Pew Research poll, only 1/3 of Republicans support legalizing gay marriage, this is compared to over 60% of the general population who do support legalizing gay marriage. Why? Why should Republicans be against what someone else does in their own bed, the only reasoning for this would of course be religious, yet even in christianity, the main religion of the Republican Party, we don't see an order to force others to comply with our beliefs, but rather a willingness to give people the free will to decide how they would spend their own lives. Not only is this sort of Ideology hypocritical as the Republican Party wants a smaller government and as a whole, supports the Don't tread on me Ideology, but it is also off putting. If the Republican Party wants to truly represent the Constitution, it can't continue to push its morals in policy, by this I don't mean stop the fight against abortion or anything of the sort, but instead, stop the implementation of policies that don't actually prevent damage to people.
What I mean by this is that in fighting Abortion, Republicans are fighting what they/I perceive as the killings of innocent unborn babies, however, in fighting gay marriage, Republicans are not fighting for anything other than the repression of others to do what they want in their own life, it doesnt protect anyone from anything, it just makes people not vote republican.
How many millennials would vote Republican if it were not for traditionalist views that Republicans force on others through policy. Millions of people resonate with Republican economic policy, but when it comes down to whether people want a lower business tax, or whether they can marry the person they want to, it can be very deterring to have to take a bundle in which if you vote for a good fiscal policy, you also have to vote for someone else's moral beliefs.
What I would advocate for is a Libertarian Republican Party that truly adheres to the "don't tread on me" Ideology, and says, Keep the government out of my bank, bed, business, and bullets. I would advocate for a Republican party that doesn't put off millennials by saying we don't want gays to be able to marry, but rather a Republican party that taps into the powerfully libertarian beliefs of the younger generations that say "don't tell me what I can do with my own life". This form of the Republican Party is the type that picks up upwards of half the Millennial vote, a Party that only puts off socialists, rather than putting off all the people who simply think people should do as they please in their private lives, is a much more popular party.
Literal battles have broken out between these two rather insane groups, one calling themselves Anti-fascists and then promptly beating anyone who doesn't espouse their beliefs, the other called the Alt-right which can consistently be found waving flags that are meant to represent Kekistan, a fake country named after the ancient egyptian god Kek who has been transformed into our modern day meme, Pepe. Oh did I forget to mention that the Kekistan flag follows the exact same design as the WW2 german flag?
Clearly with so much oddity between the two groups, and so much violence at play, the media wants to hop aboard this crazy saga of Frog nations versus Anti-fascists who are actually fascist. Except, one thing is wrong with the media coverage, If we look at every battle between these two groups, Antifa always starts them, and Antifa is the one who literally prepares weapons and throws bricks into crowds of people, yet for some strange reason, and I honestly can't tell why, the media treats the two as if they are equally at fault.
The Guardian, which certainly leans left, but I never thought it leaned farther left than Stalin, has put out an article, and it is important to note that this article is not under opinion, it is under US, in which it actually paints the Alt-Right as worse than Antifa!
In this article, The Guardian talks about how the Alt Right held a rally and the most militant of counter-protests had to be pushed out by police, These militants of course were Antifa, the Article never makes the direct connection. Even more disturbing, twice in the first three paragraphs, The guardian talks about the Police confiscating dangerous "makeshift weapons" including "bricks, mortar, and other projectiles", This is clearly mentioned in the article, except it never mentions that all of this came from Antifa. The article clearly steers away from mentioning that Antifa is the cause of the violence.
To make it worse, the Article hops into talking about the stabbing that took place last week, when a man who apparently espoused "far right views" stabbed two men that were protecting a muslim women. The Alt-Right was quick to disavow this action, and so would any group. No matter what you think of the Alt-Right, and I think of it as often annoying, silly, and often wrong, no one in their right mind would ever suspect the Alt-Right, or at least the mainstream Alt-Right of planning an attack on someone due to their religious belief. Yet Antifa won't believe this, and of course this stabbing only adds flame to the fire, Here is a video of an antifa leader talking about how who they call fascists, basically anyone they disagree with, are planning a genocide of other races. Clearly, in this Article from the Guardian, it is making a connection between the alt-Right and the horrific stabbing of the two men who attempted to protect a muslim women. How incredibly interesting it is that leftist articles like The Guardian will immediately jump to assure everyone that Radical islamic terrorists are not defining of islam, which I find to be true, but then tell us that one insane "Far Right" criminal defines the entire Alt-Right. This isn't fair journalism in the slightest, The Guardian is purposefully making the Alt-Right look evil, while doing everything in their power to make Antifa look like either the victims or the good guys in this case.
The Article even equates the Free-speech rallies held by the Alt-Right with the stabbing in portland, Its insane! Free-Speech Rallies held by the Alt-Right are somehow dangerous, while Antifa who would willingly shut down free speech across the country if they could, they already try on a regular basis in college campuses like UC Berkeley. In fact, when the Article mentions Kyle Chapman/ Based Stickman, it states that he became a "movement hero after physically attacking antifascists in Berkeley, California". Odd that The Guardians fails to mention that Kyle Chapman was defending people from Antifa who was attacking people, and even pepper sprayed and old man while that day, Clearly, this article is a hit job on the Alt-Right, but to make it worse, this article is in full support of Antifa, every time anything violent that came from antifa is mentioned, The article tactfully stays away from actually mentioning who the violence is from, but when it comes from the Alt-Right, which is rare, The article leaps into how terrible the Alt-right is by giving examples of fringe alt-Righters who do not represent the main body in any manner whatsoever.
So in essence, you have one side that goes out of their way to call for Free-Speech, although often I would rather not hear what the Alt-Right has to say, it's good that they fight for their right to say it, and then you have a side that will violently shut down anything they don't agree with. Despite this clear and obvious choice as to which group is the culprit in the violence, leftist articles like the guardian will make Antifa appear as clean as possible. Unlike The Guardian, I would rather not stray away from the obvious truth, a group that supports the violent shut down of anything they disagree with is nothing other than a political terrorist group. Antifa is a political terrorist group.