As I watch the swirling controversy over Nancy Pelosi and her constant changing of positions about what she knew about water boarding and other interrogation techniques used on the animals that committed the horrible act on 9/11, I am struck by the level of contradiction in her statements.
Another thing that strikes me as odd is that her colleagues don’t seem to be willing to hold her accountable for her obfuscations. Also, I think it is interesting that many (some in the press even) want to talk about former VP Cheney and attempt to take the focus off of what Speaker Pelosi is doing.
It seems that history has proven one thing time and again. Those who can be defined as Liberal have a close political resemblance to many of the worst actors on the world’s political stage when it comes to double standards.
What I mean here is that those that espouse a belief in conservative values appear to be lambasted for the same hypocrisies committed by those that embrace liberal views. The liberal appears to be able to contradict themselves while avoiding accountability for their hypocrisy.
The Cult of Personality
I’ve come to understand why this is so. I once heard a song by the band Living Color. The song was Cult of Personality and it talked about how ordinary people would blindly follow leaders with dynamic personalities.
What history has shown us is that Dictators, Communist and Socialist use the Cult of Personality to cover their own contradictions and to avoid accountability. They force the populous (you and I) and their political opponents to adhere to one standard while they adhere to another.
This sounds crazy right? But it’s not just the ramblings of a right wing blogger (which I’m not by the way, more of a libertarian/independent thinker type)….anyway, I digress… The way that Liberals use Contradiction and Accountability (or the lack of it as it applies to themselves and application of it as it applies to their political opponents) is spelled out in a strategy written back in the 60’s and 70’s by a political organizer and author named Saul Alinsky.
Rules for Radicals
Alinsky was quite a fellow. His most famous book; Rules for Radicals is basically a play book for causing political change. What is interesting is that the book itself is filled with contradictions, rules for accountability and rules for hiding ones true purpose in order to reach political change.
According to Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky ) Alinsky begins his book with this tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” That’s right, his book uses the Devil as one of it’s sources for how to rebel.
Not withstanding any religious beliefs, let’s not go down that slippery slope; let’s say we believe the bible to be a book of mythology. As in intellectual observation, it is odd that this author would choose to emulate the ‘evil’ force rather than use the ‘good’ forces for his examples.
He goes on to say; “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is. ... Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”
The Middle Class as a Pawn
It’s not hard to miss the hypocrisy here. Essentially what Alinsky is saying is that he doesn’t like the middle class. However, the political power lies with these masses and if the rebels want to succeed, then the middle classes must be convinced to align with the rebels.
The reference to ‘our rebels’ is to the rebels that have brought about populist social justice themes and are adherents to socialist democracies or so-called Democratic Socialism which in and of itself is another contradiction in terms. How can one have a Democracy aligned with Socialism, it doesn’t work…
Alinsky also felt that the Liberalism of his time was a farce. He saw that movement as docile and weak. His goal was to radicalize the movement in order to bring about his definition of social change ….Socialism…
Examples of his Words in Action
When we look around the world and delve into mankind’s history we see the works and words of Alinsky in practice. Some practiced his words before he even wrote them. Just look at the movements headed by Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tung. Some practiced his words even while he wrote them, look at Ches Guevara, Castro, Qaddafi, Pol Pot and some practice his words today. Just look at Kim Jong-il, Chavez and other Socialist Dictators.
Now comes the billion dollar statement, the one that will get me in a huge amount of trouble with many who read my blogs. The power structures that currently run the Democrat party were educated in the principles of Alinsky and while they may not actively refer to the writings of Alinsky, they instinctively use his teachings to control the political spectrum whether they realize it or not.
Proof is All Around Us
My proof is evidenced in the way that Contradictions and Accountability are handled by many Liberals and some in the media. There is one standard for those perceived to be Liberal and a completely different standard for those perceived to be anything else.
Right or wrong is not the question here, the facts are the facts and they are visible for anyone who chooses to ‘un-bias’ themselves so that they can see clearly. The truth is that Liberalism today has been hijacked by the activist-rebellious-Socialist of the late 60’s and early 70’s and the truth is that they despise the middle class and look down upon them.
The elites who head the Democrat party see their continuants as dupes and morons. They revel in the realization that they (the leaders of the party) have finally learned how to control this vast and powerful middle class bastion and now the party will use this control to completely change the face of America.
So what are you? A dupe and a moron? Or are you a free thinker, an independent citizen? How do you view your own contradictions and how do you hold yourself accountable. Shouldn’t our politicians be held to the same standards we hold ourselves?
Alinsky didn’t think so. Contradictions were to be used to frame debate in a way that would not allow for rebutal and Accountability was to be used as a club to bludgeon opponents with, requiring them to hold fast to a standard which nobody could meet.
Think about it… and while you do, here’s a short list of the current day politicians that learned and actively used Alinsky’s teachings to organize communities and run campaigns.
Obama; Clinton (Hillary); Carville; (there are others, simply watch their actions and see how they deal with Contradictions and Accountability). Can we add Pelosi and Reid to the bunch? I don’t think that would be a stretch.
These are not the ramblings of a right-wing zealot, moreover they are the thoughts and research of a center-right realist. After you’ve done the research, I’d love not know your thoughts. Respectfully, thank you for reading.
There is not doubt in my mind that there are winners and losers in every aspect of life and a person’s free will and ability to choose can determine whether they are a winner or a loser. We all have a choice. There is a point when we grow up and we can choose to good or bad, right or wrong, left or right.
Posts
