No matter what
agenda the left is focused on, they are undoubtedly committed to it in ways
that conservatives seem unable to achieve. Liberals stick together on every
issue bound by the belief that they are working towards creating a better world,
a state-run Utopia if you will, where everyone is equal, and no one is treated
unfairly. Liberals, being collectivists, are willing to commit all their
efforts in the push for this Utopia while conservatives on the other hand, being
individualists, have a hard time uniting around the very principles we claim to
believe in. The nation is founded upon the principles of individual liberty,
not collectivism; however, collectivism is one of the biggest attributes the
left possesses as they all work in unison pushing the same narrative. The media
certainly plays a role in this as they seem to be telling their audience what
to believe about the issues facing us today.
The left has
demonstrated that they are willing to lie, cheat and steal their way to the
achievement of any goal. This is because they are operating on an “ends justify
the means” mentality. This essentially means that the end goal of a state-run Utopia
would ultimately create a better world for everyone; therefore, whatever method
is employed in achieving it, is justified. They do not hold themselves back by
notions of morality or concepts of right and wrong. If, for example, the
passage of red flag gun confiscation laws leads to innocent people being
disarmed for no reason and without due process there is no wrong committed because
the end goal of ending the second amendment is being advanced. The
conservative, or anyone who believes in principles and universal morality would
see this as an absolute wrong. To deprive an individual of liberty when they’ve
broke no law while murderers are still murdering is the most egregious wrong
that could be committed by the state. To the left, there is no right or wrong,
only in the context of advancing socialism. If it serves to break down American
culture while creating a socialist state, it is right as far as they are
concerned.
Where does
this “ends justify the means” mentality come from? Most recently it can be
traced to Saul Alinsky and his book “Rules for Radicals.[1]”
Alinsky argued that having morals stands in the way of achieving goals, so to
say. To understand this better he refers to people unwilling to employ any
means necessary as “means and ends moralists.” According to Alinsky, means and
ends moralists, holding themselves back due to some misconceived perception of
right and wrong, are always left behind, unable to reach their goal. If you
ever find yourself wondering why liberals always seem so far ahead of the curve,
this is why. Conservatives, believing in what Alinsky refers to as the “immaculate
conception of ends and principles” are simply not willing to employ the same
methods of deceit in achieving our goals. This is because most conservatives
are guided by their religious conscious and belief in Christ. Liberals are
mostly atheist, to them there is no right or wrong in being deceitful, only the
advancement of their agenda.
“To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the
immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and
bloody.” (Alinsky, 1971)
Alinsky goes
on to describe the Jews in WWII Germany as being means and ends moralists. He
describes their unwillingness to fight back against the Nazis as a misguided
sense of morality preventing them from acting. In this case Alinsky is right,
though he is wrong to use this as an example in describing his concept of means
and ends morality. It would have been absolute moral and right in the eyes of
God to fight back against the oppression of the Nazi’s. This is different from
rigging the primaries in favor of your preferred candidate under the belief
that she would be a better president[2],
for example. Or running guns to Mexican drug cartels to discredit the second
amendment[3],
as another.
Alinsky
argues, in a roundabout way, that having no morality is the highest form of
morality one can have in pushing for social change. He says that an
unwillingness to corrupt yourself shows that you have no concern for the
people, only yourself.
In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that
is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.
The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not
for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for
his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation,” he doesn’t
care enough for the people to be “corrupted” for them. (Alinsky, 1971)
What Alinsky
is essentially arguing here is that the traditional, Christian sense of
salvation of the soul is selfish, and that being concerned about your own
salvation as opposed to the worlds salvation is misguided if you claim to care
about people. In pushing for social change one, according to this twisted logic,
should be willing to corrupt themselves to achieve their goal if they truly
care. The entire premise of this argument is in and of itself evil for several
reasons. One, man cannot save man, only Christ can. To argue that man can
create a perfect world without God or even a unifying principle of morality is
simply, wrong. It cannot happen. Furthermore, no matter how the left may work
to destroy religion in the minds of men, determining what is or isn’t right for
mankind is not man’s job, it is God’s.
This concept
best explains the motives behind many of the lefts agenda initiatives. They
believe they know what is best for the country and mankind in general;
therefore, they are willing to employ any methods to achieve their goals because
the result, in their twisted little minds, will be a better world for everyone.
In recent months we have seen this concept pushed to its ultimate limits
with the investigation into the presidency of Donald Trump and alleged Russian
collusion. They cannot have Donald Trump in office and they have demonstrated
that they truly are willing to corrupt themselves to despicable levels in their
efforts to discredit him.
The problem for
the left is that they fail to grasp the fact that there is a universal truth,
there is a universal morality. It is wrong to lie cheat and steal your way to
victory no matter what the issue. How many people teach their kids that it is ok to cheat to win a ball game, or to pass a test? To argue that corrupted means will not
corrupt the ends is to suggest that man himself is the ultimate decider of
morality and that God’s word is something to be spit on. There is simply no way
that pushing an agenda based on lies and deceit will result in a world where
everyone is honest, and equality is the highest virtue. Frankly, the only type
of world that can result from such actions is like the one we are living in
today where truth is decided not by an ultimate moral standard that is
applicable to everyone, but based on circumstances and situational ethics, or
worse yet, people’s feelings on certain issues.
Saul Alinsky
is the poster child of leftist political strategy. Barack Obama, as a community
organizer taught his methodologies and Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis
on him. As long as the right faces an ideological enemy willing to employ deceit
as a primary strategy, they will have a hard time winning by sticking to traditional
morality. This is the point Alinsky is making, that morals are a superstitious
dogma that do little else but stand in the way of all out victory in a world
desperate for change. Perhaps the biggest problem is an unwillingness on the
part of conservatives to fight by bringing our morals to the table and refusing
to let them go. That is why the left works so hard to turn public opinion
against conservatism, in a fair fight based on ideas and results there is no
way they would win.
No comments:
Post a Comment