One of Alinsky’s most effective strategy’s, one that we see play
out daily, can be found in the chapter entitled Tactics. This chapter
highlights twelve rules of tactics, and one of them sticks out because it
encourages those pushing for social change to use our own rules against us in a
way that discredits everything we do.
“The
fourth rule of tactics is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the
Christian Church can live up to Christianity.” (Alinsky, 1971)
What this comes down to in its most basic elements is that the
left doesn’t believe that men can be free and self-governing, and that the
system that allegedly believes in “justice for all” has failed. In order then,
to re-organize society to their liking they must use our system against us to
show that it has been a massive failure. This is akin to the discussion on
means and ends morality because what they seek to do is use our morals against
us in a way that makes us appear hypocritical in our most fundamental beliefs.
They employ this to destroy the constitution as well as the Christian religion.
One of the best examples to point to is the mainstream media. One
would think that after the constant exposure as liars and partisan hacks, along
with the massive ratings drop that they would wake up and see the light. What
if their agenda goes beyond simply being partisan hacks for the Democrat party?
What if their purpose is to completely discredit the first amendment to the
constitution by deliberately lying and hiding behind it? If this was the case,
eventually people would come to see the first amendment as something that
enables people to lie cheat and steal as opposed to using it for its intended
purpose, which is to hold government accountable and seek truth. This would be
another application of the Hegelian Dialectic discussed earlier. Create the
problem so that the people demand a solution, thus ensuring the consent of the
governed. In some instances, this has already proven to be the case when it
comes to the issue of regulating the internet. Earlier this year we saw the
issue of censorship on social media. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube
have all been found to be targeting conservative views and censoring them
through a change in their algorithms. This has resulted in far less people
being able to access conservative sites. In fact, it led to a dramatic
reduction in traffic to conservative based sites, which included sites dealing
with political campaigns. Sites dealing with liberal issues or Democrat
candidates saw no reduction in their traffic.[1]
“President
Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts dropped 45 percent. In contrast, potential left-wing
presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
did not see drops. Fox News had a drop of 26 percent in its Facebook
engagement, whereas CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post
saw virtually no change. The only left-leaning sites that appear to be affected
were clickbait sites.
Right Wing News, which has over a million
fans on its page, saw such a decrease in traffic that owner John Hawkins said it was no longer profitable to keep running. He shut down
the page and site (it’s still online but is not updated). IJ Review,
another popular site on the right that got much of its traffic from Facebook,
was forced into layoffs last week. Three other sites are
depending heavily on Facebook. Young Cons,
Western
Journalism and Sarah Palin,
saw huge decreases in website traffic in January. Some sites had to switch domain names to survive. Western Journalism renamed its
domain Western Journal. Even the most popular sites on the right were affected,
like Breitbart.” (Alexander, 2018)
Another tactic being employed by social media
giants was the re-direction from conservative based sites to liberal ones like
the associated press. According to Alexander, an article published by The
Gateway Pundit featuring a pro-second amendment position by the father of two
Parkland shooting survivors was flagged and re-directed in this manner. What we
are witnessing is an all-out attempt to control the public’s perception of
reality and what they believe. Could there be another agenda? The conservative
reaction to this was to demand that the government get involved and regulate
the internet to ensure everyone’s viewpoint is heard equally.[2]
They are effectively using the first amendment against us in ways that could
have probably never been imagined. Some will argue that Facebook, and YouTube,
for example, are private entities who themselves have a first amendment right
to determine what is appropriate to post on their media platforms. The result
however, is the demand from a group that historically has unabashedly argued
for unrestricted free speech demanding the government do something. The same is
being accomplished through the television media. There is a demand to hold the
major, liberal run media organizations accountable for their constant lying and
attacks upon conservative beliefs. Essentially, by demanding a government
solution we are giving them what they want, power over us. What they want is a demand to end freedom, a
demand to implement government control and a belief that the experiment in
individual liberty and natural rights has failed.
“There’s another
reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is
what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive,
affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our
people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in
the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance
the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, 1971)
What Alinsky is essentially arguing is that by
controlling the system from the inside the conditions of hopelessness can be
created, thus leading to a demand for change from the people who created the
hopelessness in the first place. In the case of the mainstream, and social
media, the goal is to completely eradicate the concept of free speech while
hiding behind it. If they can make people believe that the first amendment
leads to nothing but lying, and that people’s speech must be controlled, then
the work of eliminating free speech from our society is all but completed for
them.
The 2017 football season saw the war on free
speech rise to new levels as players, in attempt to portray themselves as
oppressed victims of American imperialism, took a knee during the Star-Spangled
Banner. This tactic enraged and isolated much of the NFL fanbase as ratings
took a massive hit; however, the actions of players like Colin Kaepernick were
lauded by liberal outlets as heroic and courageous. The left is portraying this
as an example of the exercise of free speech while many on-lookers took offense
to it. Of course, anything the left takes offense to must immediately become a
national televised issue with panels of talking heads telling us to be
offended. When the right takes offense to something we are often called bigots
and presented as people unwilling to tolerate other people’s worldviews.
Here-in lies the brilliance of the tactic of using our own rules against us,
how can we claim to support freedom of speech if we don’t tolerate an
expression that differs from our own? That is why the left continually wins the
narrative. What if the right just learned to collectively ignore the immature
antics of the left and let them express themselves without the fan-fare
spectacularism pushed by the media? Would any of these tactics ever become
mainstream if we didn’t pay attention to them? It is doubtful. In any case, the
non-sense is sure to continue into the 2018/2019 football season as the NFL has
officially made it their policy that there will be no kneeling during the
national anthem while players are on the field.[3]
They are free however, to remain in the locker rooms if they choose. The
following line from this MSNBC article proves that this is an effort to label
conservatives as intolerant and hypocritical.
“The league that
wraps themselves in the flag but doesn’t honor the first amendment its showing its
true colors.” (Kluwe, 2018)
They are working to portray the NFL, an
allegedly patriotic, pro-American organization as unable to live to the values
they espouse by not allowing their players to freely express themselves as they
should be allowed under the first amendment. In all truth they should let the players
take a knee, they look like idiots. Nowhere else in the world can people, no
matter their skin color, be paid millions of dollars a year to play a ball game
professionally. By taking a knee during the national anthem these players are
in a roundabout way, biting the hand that feeds them. They make millions of
dollars while the very people fighting to protect their rights to do so make
pennies in comparison. This is what angers NFL fans, not they are taking a
knee, but that they are ignorant in the reason they are doing so.
This tactic, of employing our rules against
us, is employed in almost all aspects of society to make conservative morals
look hypocritical. Our constitution states that all men are created equal and
that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. What
this means of course is that we are all created in the eyes of God with the
same rights and we are entitled to equal treatment under natural law. It does
not mean that we are all equally capable of achieving the same things. This is
the definition that the left has given equality to destroy the constitution and
present its writers as selfish elitists. The left knows that there is no way everyone
can be made completely equal; however, they use this as their rallying call
against our system claiming that the constitution guarantees equality and that
it is a value we hold dear as Americans.
One thing that the Obama Administration was
able to do, which is the epitome of this type of strategy, was put in place a
rule which allowed the government to waive the ninety-day residency
requirements for new immigrants to obtain firearms, this was rule 1140-AA44[4]
signed by Eric Holder. This rule virtually allowed an illegal immigrant to come
into the country and legally purchase a firearm. Technically, it applied to
only immigrants here legally; however, given the fact that several states give
illegal immigrants drivers licenses that would enable them to purchase a
firearm under this rule.
“Rule
1140-AA44, originally signed by Eric Holder, “would finalize an
interim rule published on June 7, 2012 that removes the 90-day state residency
requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or
acquire a firearm.
Rule 1140-AA05
will “require a firearms purchaser’s affirmative statement of his or her state
of residence”–although with states like California, New York and even Georgia
providing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, a person could enter
the country illegally and then purchase a gun on the same day.
Another rule, 1140-AA08,
opens the door for nearly unrestricted importation of firearms and ammunition
by non-immigrants, i.e., aliens that are in the country temporarily.
Generally, the importation of firearms or
ammunition by non-immigrant
aliens is prohibited by law. Yet the exemptions provided by
1140-AA08 would make sidestepping this prohibition as easy as being admitted to the United States for
lawful hunting or sporting purposes, or by simply filling out a permit application and
affirming that one is not in the country on a non-immigrant visa.”[5]
This was done for
discrediting the belief that we are all entitled to equal unalienable rights
because conservatives rightfully argue that only citizens of the United States
should be entitled to these rights. The left is again portraying the
conservative beliefs as being unable to stand up to scrutiny. Conservatives are
unable to live up to their values therefore; the constitution is invalid
because it isn’t working to ensure equality for all. That is the left’s
argument. It isn’t that the conservatives don’t believe that immigrants don’t
have rights, they believe there should be a certain amount of assimilation into
the culture to understand where those rights are derived from. According to the
Washington Times,[6]
the Obama administration had also eliminated the required oath of new citizens
to be willing to bear arms in defense of the nation, yet they are going to
allow them the right to exercise the second amendment? Again, this is being
done to turn our system against us and it works perfectly. As long as people
are afraid of being labeled as a hypocrite, or accused of not standing up for
the values they claim to stand for this tactic will continue to work against
us.
No comments:
Post a Comment