Friday, January 22, 2010

Live Free.. or Die - A Glenn Beck Documentary

Glenn Beck has produced a documentary that discusses the truth behind the Nazi party and its roots in Marxism. He also discusses Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, and perhapes most importantly Ernesto "Che" Guevera, who is a liberal (Progressive) icon, particularly within the Hollywood and Rock music crowd.

Also extremely intriguing are the recordings of playwright George Bernard Shaw, considered by most anyone to be a great literary scholar and writer.

There are some rather graphic images, but most importantly there is extremely honest and graphic discussion about the methods used by these historical figures. The point of the documentary is to bring light to the side of each of these individuals that is not being taught in schools today due to the Progressive infiltration of our school system, as well as to battle the iconic symbolism that Hollywood attempts to create from these persons.

These decisions are always best left in the hands of parents, and therefore I would recommend you watch this documentary first before exposing it to children. I would recommend this documentary for anyone who wishes to educate your children, as long as they are middle school or older.. maybe 12 years and up. Of course you know your kids best... and I would definitely say this is the type of program that would be best served by some frank discussion afterward.

I would definitely say that this work offers information about the leftists association with Hitler and the Nazi party that children will never hear about in school. Stalin was discussed rather openly when I was in high school, but that's been since last century, so I don't know how relevant my knowledge is today. I can assure you that the information about Che Gueverra is extremely important and something that schools definitely are not teaching. There is some interesting discussion about Marx and Friedrich Engels that is probably beyond anything public schools are teaching today.

There are seven segments total, including the short closing at the end.













16 comments:

Left Coast Rebel said...

Nice work buddy, I linked you on this and hopefully it will send some traffic over!

April said...

Thanks so much for posting. I have been working all week out of town and couldn't dvr it. I just got back to my hotel from work and looked on the internet to see what I could find.

Soloman said...

Rebel - thanks, and thanks for the link. Glad to bring the info to all who wish to have it, of course!!

Soloman said...

April - at your service :)

Nickie Goomba said...

Beautiful. Now tell me exactly why we should depend on the MSM?

Thanks, Sol.

Soloman said...

Nickie -

Forget the MSM, they're a lost cause.

What I'm curious to know is what our public schools are teaching these days. I know this isn't the story I was told about Mao, and who knew about George Bernard Shaw for Heaven's sake?

And I graduated in '85, before the progressives really took over and rewrote the books.

Che.. we never even discussed him.. and I can put 2+2 together about Hitler and Marx now, but (some of) the youth today can't even add 2+2 sometimes, let alone use some critical thinking...

thedreamcreator said...

Soloman:

I'm seventeen, and we actually just recently glossed over Marxism in AP European History. However, pretty much all we got out of it was that Marx and Engels were against capitalism (of course). My friends and I were actually just discussing the other day about how communism and the like really do not seem that bad in theory, but they become corrupted when played out in real life. No one taught us that they were corrupted from the beginning. It's really a shame.

I don't believe I heard of Shaw until I watched Glenn Beck's special last night. As for Mao, the schools I've gone to haven't really gone into international history much except for the major events, such as World War II. In AP US History, however, we did learn that sometime in the later half of the 20th century, China and the US were getting along better, and that's really it. Maybe students learn more about Mao in college?

We've learned about Hitler, of course, but even regarding the Holocaust there are still many things we haven't heard of. I read a novel last year called "Sarah's Key" which is based on the events of the Vel d'Hiv (I think I spelled that right), a little-known incident that apparently many schools worldwide do not get into. We are led to think, "Oh, it must have been horrible to be French when it was occupied in World War II!" or something like that, which is warranted in many cases. However, the Vel d'Hiv was a roundup of Jews ordered by the Nazis, but the French police went above and beyond and rounded up Jewish women and children.

We went over Stalin a bit over the years, and I learned in 8th grade that he killed more people than Hitler, but it's very rarely discussed. My AP Euro teacher recently told us that the Russians actually had a poll and said they wouldn't mind if Stalin was still in power, although I don't know how accurate it is.

I just realized how much I wrote; I'm sorry! So I'll just finish up by saying this: We are taught about some of these atrocities, but not nearly enough. I know a lot of my classmates probably wouldn't care and just want a passing grade, but I think we should learn this. If we don't learn about history, how will we prevent it from repeating? It's a shame; I would like to learn more, but few people want or are given the opportunity to teach it. At least there's programs like Mr. Beck's to uncover the truth, and Google in case we'd like to learn more, but shouldn't we learn more about the horrors that went on? So many people have died, and they're not even being remembered.

Urban Pink said...

Beck never mentions that some of the first people to oppose Hitler were Socialists. I want to know what "Progressives have infiltrated our schools" means. I learned history and philosophy in high school and college where I was taught by both conservatives and liberals. As Americans, don't we allow both views in education? Are you saying progressive views are not acceptable in education? If so, that is political and religious intolerance and defies the Constitution.

Soloman said...

dreamcreator -

I can't thank you enough for commenting here. You are welcome to come back and comment any time, and please do not be afraid to ramble.. I do it all the time!

You present a lot of good information first-hand, and that's extremely important. I don't have children, so I can't discuss with any kind of authority what is being taught in schools today. All I know for sure is that my niece who's in first grade only knows of one president - Obama. I'm saddened but not surprised. I also know that my ex-girlfriend's daughter (15) thought Obama was "the bomb" during the election, but I haven't had an update in a while.

Anyway... you offer two thoughts that lead to the same point, and I find them very interesting. First you describe your discussion with your friends about how Communism doesn't really seem bad "in theory" and second you discussed the polling of Russian citizens. The two go hand in hand.

There is a romanticism about the idea that everyone can have it good, that we should all be equal. It just isn't that way.. there will always be those who just don't try or contribute, because they know someone else will.

This exact situation then leads to statements like you heard from Shaw. He was a great contributor to society, I'm sure. He probably was sickened by the idea that people could work little to not at all and still have the government provide food and shelter. Granted that person would have no luxuries, but I think you see the point..? So while Progressives in America today at the "Joe average" level may think Progressive sounds good, what they don't realize is that there becomes an elitist class who gains great control, and then it's not all "peace and love" (or hope and change, as it were).

Capitalism and a free Republican Democracy work better generally in that people are given the opportunity to achieve anything, with the only limits (in theory) being their own effort and maybe lucky timing - and whatever successes they reap from their efforts belong to them.

Of course today we have entitlement programs (enacted by Progressives) that cause taxation at exorbitant rates, but generally speaking we are still a free society. We are gradually sliding down a slippery slope towards a Socialist state. This is why people today are able to have cell phones and $100 Nike shoes, yet live off of welfare and Medicaid, as described in in the letter in this post of mine.

Anyway.. thanks again for your comment. BTW - I followed your link to your blog page. Sorry to hear about your PC crashing. Always back up the important stuff to CD or DVD.. always...

Soloman said...

Urban Pink -

I don't think Beck's issue is / was nearly the European Socialists as it is the Progressives. There's a huge difference between the two.

The meaning behind "Progressives have infiltrated our schools" is literal. There are people today writing the books used by our students who are rewriting history. Just read the comment above yours for a small dose of evidence to that point.

Being taught by both Conservatives and Liberals is great. You probably are one of few, because many if not most working in higher education today are liberal.

As to your question "don't we allow both views in education?" - there's nothing wrong with offering many different ideas in our education system, but when you have educators literally teaching students that American Capitalism is a bad thing and that people like Mao and Gueverra were great philosophers who had world views that were beneficial to society... come on. That's not offering different ideas, that's indoctrination. This is what we have in education today.

I never said "Progressives views" should not be taught - I believe they need to be taught for what they really are. Instead they are romanticized and made out to be something more like European Socialism, which they most certainly are not.

I am in no way implying that there should not be a free flow of ideas. Progressive views are welcome in our educational system - as lessons in history, but not as a predominant and acceptable basis for education as preparation for life in America. They should be taught as history in their true and complete context, not as romantic and in half-truths (again, see thedreamcreator's comment) or they should be taught as an opposing point of view to what American culture and economics has been created and based upon since our inception.

My biggest concern, in closing, is that America is great because we are not Progressive or Socialist. We do not need to change. People come here from all around the world exactly for the purpose of escaping these other forms of government and societal repression. We must maintain ourselves as that beacon of freedom.

I hope I have made myself clear in my reply... if you have any further comment or question I'd be happy to discuss this with you further.

Soloman said...

Urban Pink -

I just had one other thought I needed to express to you:

You mentioned the idea that you think Progressive views being unacceptable in education would be in the vein of political and religious intolerance, and therefore unconstitutional.

I answered this before, but not this clearly.

So, in the words of Barack Hussein Obama - "Let me be clear" -

Teaching as acceptable Progressive views is actually what would be unconstitutional. See, my tax dollars go to the public education of students across America, via our taxation system and the allocation of some of our federal budget to public education.

Since we live in The United States of America, and the law of our land is The Constitution, the only education that is proper and Constitutional is that which teaches our Capitalist economic system as correct, and that which teaches our Republican form of government is the law of the land.

Students must be taught not personal values, but factual information. This equates to liberals' desire not to have religion taught in school. So be it. However, you are advocating a system of politics that is worse than any religious belief system in history be given equal time, and that is not American. Again - taught from a historical point of view or as a political ideal that is not American but may be followed by others? Fine.

To help clarify, and to again explain the liberal / Progressive infiltration into our school system: I have no problem with the idea that students from this point forward might be taught that G. W. Bush was president when the economy collapsed in 2008 and that he and Congress did not run our government in a deficit-positive way. It can and should also be taught that he had a Republican Congress for the first six years of his term, and that he did not operate his budget to include the financing of parts of the Iraq war. This is true, so it should be taught.

But it also must taught that it was 30 years of policy instituted by Jimmy Carter - the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, written and passed under a filibuster-proof Democratically controlled Congress and signed into law by Carter, that forced banks to offer loans to people who were not properly qualified.

This law ultimately led to the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that the federal government could take more control over the mortgages written by private banking institutions. These two entities managed to manipulate Wall Street by selling bad securities (loans) with federal backing.

When Wall Street crashed, Fannie and Freddie were bailed out just like Wall Street, but today Wall Street is possibly going to be taxed by the Obama administration even though they have paid back their TARP dollars, yet there is no discussion of imposing taxes on Fannie and Freddie (as well as GM and Chrysler) because Obama wants to use the taxes on Wall Street to further bail out the government lending institutions that still can not manage themselves properly.

However, you and I both know that only the former will be taught, and the latter will be brushed under a rug because liberals dominate the education system, therefore they do not want the truth known about how liberal economic policy damaged us.

Urban Pink said...

Okay. It seems clear to me that you want to blame liberals and progressives for all the problems in our society; and somehow conservatives are the victims. I didn't realize we were so powerful. I think both sides of the political spectrum have made errors and solutions are hard to come by on either side. If you believe progressivism is just a failed or failing historical movement (because it is actually a moral philosophy or world view that stems from family values, just as conservatism does) then we're not speaking the same language. Just replace every word you say with "conservatives" and you'll see what I mean. Progressivism today is simply desiring egalitarian (all men are created equal, right?) and reforming problems. Progressivism does not advocate rewriting or ignoring history, it is not anti-American, and it is not against the Constitution or the Republic--it is part of it, whether you like it or not. I don't know any progressives who oppose Capitalism, but if they did that's not "wrong" in America. There have been conservative governments and progressive governments in America, and they have all been elected by the people. Do you think Theodore Roosevelt was unAmerican? He was the first Presidential leader of the U.S. Progressive Party. They wanted reform coming out of the Industrial Era. Both types of governments like to spend federal dollars on different things, don't they? We have a lot of liberal teachers because most conservative people don't often go into education; and either point of view should rarely come into the classroom, but personal values always influence what they choose to teach. But even liberal teachers don't often include the history of women; and I've had a conservative teacher tell me women caused the fall of Rome. So go ahead, recruit more conservatives to go into teaching; what's keeping you out? Don't tell me they all get fired because both sides get fired for being too political. More lucrative careers?

Zamjr86 said...

Urban pink,

I doubt that is what Soloman meant.
The facts are what should be taught,
and history has taught us that Capitalism works, and Socialism doesn't. therefore Capitalism should be taught as the economic model of the nation, and socialism should be taught in history class where it wont kill anymore people.

Soloman said...

Pink...

Let me say here that Zamjr86 called it correctly. You are off-base in saying that I wish to blame Progressives for all problems. Re-read my comment with an honest heart and you'll see that I opened by blaming George W. for many recent problems.

I'll also call out Reagan for massive spending in his second term, although that was largely a liberal Congress spending with him signing the laws. Clinton gained benefit in reverse = he was on track to be one of the biggest spending presidents in modern history until the coup of '94 brought Republican majorities in both chambers. Balance is key in our system, which is a large part of why Scott Brown won so handily in Mass. which is very liberal.

I bring these points forward simply to help you understand that what I want is fiscal responsibility and national security. Right now I don't see any of that from Obama and the current Congress.

I must tell you though that while you believe Progressive equals egalitarian, and that may be true in your heart, that is not completely true nationwide or worldwide.

Remember Harry Reid's recent "negro" comment? Jesse Jackson threatening to "cut his nuts off?" referring to Obama, because he was talking to Black communities about the importance of a father in the home and good family values? Have you ever noticed Hillary and Obama suddenly get a little southern or "more black" accent when they speak to certain audiences? Why is that necessary?

Regarding whether or not Progressives want to re-write history, and their stance on the Constitution... this is simple.

First - If Progressives aren't re-writing history, why do we find out that our schools are not teaching complete history, or even twisting the truth (such as the idea that FDR brought us out of the Great Depression, which was not true? It was WWII).

Second - this recent ruling by the Supreme Court is a clear ruling in favor of The First Amendment, yet Obama and all liberals hate it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law. McCain Feingold therefore was an unconstitutional bill, yet Progressives love it - which explains why we feel McCain is a Progressive, BTW.

Soloman said...

Zamjr86 -

Thanks for commenting... couldn't have said it any better myself.

Policy North said...

I have a degree in poltical science from Laurentian and I can tell you that I've never even heard of the stuff that Glenn talks about in this video before.
The reasons being that twitchy McGee there is dead wrong on just about every subject he touches upon.
I hate to sound elitist about this but if you take this nonsense seriously I would recomend going back to highschool before you attempt to understand modern politics.
Some wisdom:
"It is better to keep silent on issues you know nothing about and be though of as foolish then it is to speak up and be *known* as a fool for speaking out on issues you know nothing about."

IMO-Glenn Beck is a shuckster and he's out to make a fast buck off your fear. My advise is to get a book from someone who has studied polticals/history and read up on these topics as you watch along with Becks' mockumentary.