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 ConsWestern 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 beingadmitted 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.

Article posted with permission from David Risselada

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.