- Posted January 9, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones
CNN owns this picture. Thanks to CNN for letting me use it for this ireport.
Oh gees, where do I begin? This article is exceedingly long compared to most, but I urge the reader to take the time.
First, I am an advocate of individual liberty our Constitution including and especially 1A and 2A.
I have gone to great lengths to study our history, our Constitution, our founders, their concurrent writings, the Federalist Papers, opinions, court cases, topical and authoritative books of substance, on the matter of our Second Amendment right.
I readily admit that my view is engrained in my DNA as a part of my heritage, family and culture. It is only in the admission and recognition of this fact that I have any chance of viewing this issue through an approach of reason. I understand that.
I watched the Morgan interview of Jones the night before last simply by chance and here is what I came away with; a confirmation of two empirical facts that were already known to me.
1. Alex Jones is a certifiable nutcase.
2. Piers Morgan is narrow-minded and culturally obtuse to the American sense of individualism, our Constitution and liberty.
It was difficult to suffer through this exchange, if it can be called that. Two challenged individuals, one clearly mentally challenged and the other culturally and intellectually. The collective IQ between the two of these oxygen thieves would, dare I say, peg just a shy bit north of room temperature. By chance I flipped from the Bloomberg channel and caught the interview. My wife entered the room as I said, “Hey Hon, check out this MENSA club meeting”, with a laugh.
It was an excellent, yet calculable move by Morgan’s producer to have Jones on the program. Jones needs only a few minutes to convince anyone that he is completely off the reservation. It was uneasy to watch Morgan deal with Jones’ idiocy. I detest Morgan, but could not help feeling sorry for the man under this circumstance; although this was a clear calculation to gain the upper hand in the thrust to demonize him. Equally as disturbing was Morgan’s continued narrow-mindedness on the subject matter. I understand why Jones cannot have a civil dialogue. He simply has a loose screw caught in the proverbial gears. But, Morgan appears to be at least emotionally stable, with the exception of his childish tirade of name calling of the pro-2A advocate he had on his show recently that led to the petition of deportation and this interview.
Through it all, weighing the calm demeanor of Morgan and the insanity and ramblings of Jones; unfortunately, the truth remains that Morgan does not have the standing as a U.S. citizen to embark upon attacking our culture, law, and liberty. He is the quintessential, boot-licking, Queen’s boy, Redcoat, if I might have the latitude to abuse the anachronism.
The paranoid Jones types do not concern me. They are easy to flag from a long way off. That applies to both sides of the political spectrum of left and right. He is, much as left loonies the statistical ‘fats tails’ of our society.
Morgan, I’m sure feels that he gained ground by exposing the known of Alex Jones’ paranoia. However, like his continued mission to promote gun-control, he is miscalculating the American culture. It’s a common theme amongst men. It takes a great deal of humility to understand another’s culture and accept it. Our government (the entity that 2A keeps in check) has made this mistake on so many occasions with regard to our attempt to remake Iraq and Afghanistan into pseudo-democracies. And our utter miscalculation of the outcome of the ‘Arab Spring’ we so exuberantly supported.
In that vein, Morgan is working from a cultural deficit of which he is unaware. Morgan has no stake in the American system, and no roots or heritage in the States linking him to the American past. Morgan is lacking the ability to see the American culture in its totality and run the necessary calculus as an objective outsider to understand the necessity and design of our Constitution and 2A for the political long cycle. After all, the U.K. has extraordinarily strict gun laws and the gun related violence in the U.K. is practically non-existent. From a standpoint of practical human and social betterment, logic would seemingly dictate that a ban and confiscation of guns would be beneficial. However, the echo of world history and our own heritage, the words of wisdom from our founding fathers, and indeed to ideology of grasping tight to individual liberty which translates to ‘clinging to our guns’ being passed down through oral tradition from generation to generation, leave many Americans with a culture that is unique in the world. This is a tradition, a culture. It is a law of justice, balance, insurance, and liberty.
Morgan cannot be expected to relate to such high American ideals, for the majority of his life and all that he knows from a cultural perspective is born from the aging British Empire, with its royalty, and royal land owners and all the cultural trimmings of centralized power still quite intact. Most don’t know that you don’t ‘buy’ a house in the U.K., you lease it for say 40 years from some royal family. The feigned representative government is only able to represent and govern within the confines of an utterly socialist system that protects the centralized power. In the U.K. governance is about the collective.
Morgan is not the threat people think he is, and certainly has even far less effect on the American public than he flatters himself with, liberal associations notwithstanding.
No, the exchange between these two minor leaguers doesn’t rise to the occasion of concern on my radar screen.
It was the interview that immediately followed Jones, with Alan Dershowitz that bothered me and left me with a sense of fomenting anger.
Dershowitz is a Harvard Law professor. He is a man of perceived standing and knowledge on our laws and Constitution. He is a known among many as being a valid authority on our law. It is for this very reason that the dialogue from Dershowitz was incredibly unnerving and disturbing.
Dershowitz exclaimed the following: He would be afraid to be near Jones. He does not want a man like Jones to have a gun. This in and of itself is repugnant enough; to claim the power of authority over another man’s liberty due to his own internal fear. It is the personality of weakness and fear beset in a person’s character that causes the very loss of liberty 2A proponents are trying to protect. Dershowitz would do well to look at recent history with clear eyes. The Jewish population of Europe was nearly eradicated in the most inhumane way due specifically to fear. The fear to fight in the face of certain death to protect those that would live beyond your struggle, the sense of social connectivity, is what ensures the continuity of liberty. People of Dershowitz’ ilk are incredibly selfish. The act of self-preservation due to fear from those that refuse to risk their lives to save another is almost animalistic. In our society and culture, we promote ideals like bravery, courage and honor. These are concepts that bind a society and protect it through unwritten human interactive contracts. These concepts are completely foreign to a man like Dershowitz, for there is no personal currency in them.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, Dershowitz continued by stating that, “He is an American, (as if he needed to convince himself which tells us that he recognizes his disconnect with American culture), and that as an American, he and those like him had the right to change and shape America into what suited them best unconfined by the Constitution” (best quote from memory); probably misconstruing or intentionally bending the meaning of Jeffersonian writings. He further added that it was bigoted and racist for anyone to disagree with him and deny him the right.
So by this Constitutional scholar’s measure (Dershowitz), the majority has the right to rule unabated and unfettered from the Constitutional laws that protect individual liberty, and anyone that disagrees with his opinion is a bigot and racist. This… coming from a Harvard professor of law. No recognition of another person’s right to an opinion or the rigid restraints in our Constitution that enshrine our liberty and shackle our government.
This is all very interesting and quite disturbing. It seems to me, that our elite institutions of higher learning, as well as, our media have been infected with a virus of cultural decay. Our notion of individual liberty is being slowly eroded by people of different anti-liberty cultural backgrounds that begin with their cultural precepts and leverage their knowledge of our laws and systems to achieve their political ends, at the cost of liberty and our culture. It is in a word, Machiavellian.
When I was young, my father would speak of the loss of the American culture of individualism due to immigration. He expounded on it carefully so as not to denigrate immigrants as bad people. His thoughts were that what has been learned by lesson, blood on the battlefield, and inked into the annals of history would dissipate and diffuse over time due to the influx of people from other cultures that have no connection to American history beyond text books. Such is the case with both Morgan and Dershowitz, a second generation immigrant. Both have cultural linage stemming from socialist backgrounds.
So without either of them being aware, they are playing the role they’ve been assigned. It must be terrible to live in such intellectual darkness. I almost feel sympathetic for both men, and yet I must endeavor to preserve the American culture of individualism and individual liberty.
Upon completion of the chain of interviews and discussions between Morgan and his guests, I began to try and digest the information, as do I always to better understand the mind of the liberal servant as you can ascertain by the above. I struggled with the matter, as do I always until last night, when again Morgan continued on the subject matter with more guests of the liberal strain.
I listened in full expectation of the same propagandized, thoughtless, diatribe, and then it happened. One of the guests laughingly called for Morgan to execute Alex Jones with a semi-automatic assault weapon. Other guests laughingly agreed. Morgan complied without resistance. My only thought was, “What an incredibly irresponsible thing to say”. But it gave me an indicator and verified my thoughts on Dershowitz earlier.
There is a distinct level of emotional insecurity, a high level of personal fear, and the presence of anti-social primal urges present in the liberal mindset. Could it all be that simple? Could it be that anti-gun advocates, socialist / liberal ideologues are afraid of other people based on their own possible or probable tendencies? Could it be that the liberal is aware of their tendencies and creates a psychological barrier of conscience rules to govern their primal or innate anti-social desires? Can people operate like this? Can a person be inherently of bad character, anti-social, self-serving, selfish, potentially dangerous to society and yet develop a personal social rule construct that prevents them from acting on their anti-social desires?
The more I analyze it, the more it seems to be a truism.
So, it is plausible that while some humans work from an innate core of goodness, kindness and social contribution; others seem predisposed to a range of human weaknesses and self-serving, anti-social behaviors that are overcome with conscience training and a self-constructed or socially constructed set of rules that governs their behavior and prevents them from acting on their anti-social tendencies. In other words, being good for an elite liberal is manufactured and implies following the rules for the sake of the rules, as well as, leveraging the rules in the direction of their own anti-social or fear-laiden selfish desires; be they punishing the rich, curbing free speech through PC bullying, or socialism through legislation, or of course diminishing personal liberty that conflicts with their own ends. Liberals seem to feel helpless as individuals, they have no sense of personal sacrifice for the greater good, they feel no strength or security in personal liberty or personal independence. They are absorbed by fears, insecurities and inferiority complexes. They therefore see strength in the collective, in leveraging their collective to create a sense of security and fill the voids of strength in their soul and spirit with the collective strength. When they have comfort in numbers and feel they have captured the paradigm, they tend to press the envelope of social rules and allow their fears and anti-social behaviors rise to the surface. This would explain the ability Morgan's guests and Morgan to suggest the murder of another guest in a joking manner with the very weapons which they claim to despise.
To that end, I have come to the conclusion that true liberals which adheres to the socialist, collective ideology are, simply put, a bad people of low character that cannot be trusted. I want to make the distinction between the aforementioned elite, liberal fanatic and others that voted Democratic for money or social benefit programs. While of the same genus, I haven’t determined if they are of the same species. Of course my use of the broad brush for liberals is a generalization, but the probability of a liberal fitting this mold is high by my estimation.
To conclude, it is becoming ever more evident that the issue of 2A and gun control is simply a conflict vector for two distinct cultures and types of human mentalities to clash and compete. Such is the nature of humanity I suppose, an age old script replayed time and again throughout history.
Insofar as the liberals continue to squawk about compromise, which literally means that the minority opinion of individual liberty should give way to the majority collective mentality and allow the anti-social and frightened liberal to realize their goals, we should be aware as individuals, conservatives, that personal voids in the liberal caused by fear, sense of helplessness, and other inadequacies can never be satiated. The frightened soul can never be quiet. It is the liberal mindset of primal fear and the need for self-preservation that has ushered in all form of bad government, genocides, war, and self-destructive societies.
While I know that history comes to these inflection points from time to time without incident, given our current state of global economics, it can be expected that these two cultures in America will come to blows. This is a deeply disturbing concept and one that I hope our society can avoid. Be it known though, we conservatives understand the landscape more keenly than liberals realize and we are, in the end, prepared to sacrifice for our fellow man at the cost of our own existence.