How can one person subscribe to conflicting ideology?
As I survey today’s political landscape I notice, as I’m sure you do as well, how often conflicting ideology spews out of the mouth of the left. Like vomit from a patient with the flu. Though I’m not a doctor and cannot diagnose anybody, I do believe the best comparison for those on the left is a sickness. Certainly vomit is only one of their many symptoms.
The answer to the above question is, of course, to lack integrity, or to intentionally deceive. That is the only way in which one can subscribe to conflicting ideology. If a political party wanted to sow division into the country a good way to do that would be to confuse the people with different conflicting ideas and claiming to subscribe to all of them. This is a tactic, obviously, to control speech. When one person controls the narrative then they can control what some believe. To punish those that would call them out on these conflicting ideas is the best way to silence critics. When those of us that rise in opposition to the left merely point out this inherent conflict we are labeled racist, obviously you’re a bigot if you see it too.
The verdict was handed down on Tuesday in the Chauvin case almost exclusively without the evidence. Witnesses were called to testify that of course George Floyd was murdered. Without viewing the full context of the interaction between George Floyd and the police it is very hard to determine what happened. And that was precisely the goal to control the narrative and to leave out evidence that points to the truth. The reaction to the verdict was predictable to those that were paying attention. The left told us that this trial was America’s trial, this was historic and that if any other verdict was handed down that did not result in guilty on all counts would prove that justice did not occur. Almost immediately we were told by the left that though the jury did obey and give the verdict that was demanded, it was not enough. In fact, we were told it was not justice. Justice was some other impossible outcome that would be defined separately while simultaneously by others in a fuzzy, confusing, and conflicting way. If anyone points out this conflict we are racists.
It is not hard to search the left and the corporate media (they are one in the same) for an enemy. There are many enemies but perhaps the most citied and most criticized is white people, specifically white males. At the same time we are told that racism is bad. How can one speak of the evils of the an entire race and not be racist, simple change the definition of racism. Then appoint leaders to the cause. Look to Ibram X. Kendi and others race baiters to back you up. The media can proclaim something as racist and then interview one of these leaders to back up this opinion. If someone try’s to point out this hypocrisy even with differing and conflicting definitions they will be labeled, you guessed it, racist.
The transgender movement has gained a lot of momentum while at the same time the male sex is demonized. How can these two ideas co-exist? How is it possible to believe and say out loud that gender is a social construct and doesn’t really exist while simultaneously proclaiming that men are bad? We are told men are bad, evil, wrong, toxic, terrible, and no one should strive to be like that. We are told to teach young people that we should strive to not be men. How can we teach anyone to be something that doesn’t exist while defining it at the same time? Ellen Page was an obscure actress that decided to change her gender and become Elliot Page. This, of course, launched her out of obscurity and into stardom, and out of one gender into another. Ellen Page was a female that was attracted to other females, a lesbian. Now Elliot Page is a male that is attracted to females, straight. If straight, white, males are bad how can he desire to be transformed into one. What’s even more surprising is how this is celebrated by the left. If someone were to point out this conflict they will be criticized and labeled a bigot.
Many other contradictions can be pointed out, I’m sure you are thinking of some while reading this. If all police are bad, why do politicians need cops to protect them? If justice is what is desired, how can we not give it to some? If all people on the planet can come into our country, why do we have citizenship? If criticizing POC and LGBT people is bad, why are countries that do just that celebrated? In this country we are told that the original sin is slavery, though slavery has been practiced by all countries on the globe and some do to this day. The original sin is, sin. Those of us that understand that can recognize that hypocrisy and contradiction are common in a world of sin and that we must look to the problem and how to fix it and counteract it. We cannot, and this is important, eliminate sin. It is a problem that has to be confronted head on, we have to punish and disincentive sin. We have to reward virtue and sacrifice and teach those principles. We are simply living with the results of a culture that doesn’t recognize sin and looks to fix all problems, or claims they can with man made solutions.
Ultimately, I believe, the goal is to move the party farther left and to radicalize more people. This can be done by controlling the definition of speech and then controlling the minds of people. When the left espouses conflicting ideas at the same time they can claim either definition depending on what the opposition attacks them on. This also allows moderates to enter the party while unknowingly subscribing to a more radical ideal. Eventually they drop the moderate position while holding to the radical position claiming they held the radical position all the while. This is the recipe of the left and we are seeing it unfold everyday.
justindcarlsonblog 