Violence is the Liberal Plan

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I discussed the racial violence at the Wisconsin State Fair on my radio shows last weekend, and on Founding Truth a black conservative called into the show and said the flash mob in Wisconsin that was targeting white people made him angry, but worse, it made him worry to the point that he feels he has to look over his shoulder to make sure there is no one behind him that thinks he's one of those violent hooligans.

"Why," we must ask, "has this divide widened?"

Obama's election, we were told, would close that divide. We were assured that Obama would usher in a post-racial America.

The promise of change requires dissatisfaction with the current system. In order for liberalism to convince people to give their radical leftist ideas a chance, the voter must be deceived into believing that the social and political environment is unsatisfactory, even if it isn't, and that only the progressives can fix it.

One way to create what voters may perceive as an unsatisfactory atmosphere is to create conflict. Conflict arises when members of groups are pitted against each other. Defining these groups, exploiting their differences, and launching accusations can exacerbate the conflict, inflame anger, and encourage the populace to cry out and demand that the government do something about the conflict. Providing entitlements, giving preferential treatment to certain groups, or manufactured sympathy over the so-called plight of a group will then reel in the votes, and put the liberal ideology, and their promises of change, into power.

That's how they did it in 2006 and 2008, and that is the magic they hope to capture again in 2012.

When opposition rises up against the liberal tactics, pointing out the destructive agenda of the Left, the strategy of personal destruction goes into high gear. The technique is used against anyone that dares oppose the liberal agenda, or looks like they might have a chance to achieve any level of power. The attacks are relentless, often based on untruths, and usually includes censorship through ridicule.

Separating Americans into groups that can be pitted against each other is largely the reasoning behind things like multiculturalism, entitlements, and calling any perceived struggle a "civil rights" issue. The goal of the progressives is warfare between the classes, so that liberalism can use the conflict as a tool to take power, reduce freedoms, and control groups through manipulation and false promises.

This may help you understand Rahm Emanuel's statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

America is based on the premise that we are a melting pot. One people, with lots of different things to offer. We are Americans, with plenty to add. We are not a bunch of groups. We are one group: Americans.

The liberal left, through their scheme of division, wants to change that. They are trying to undo America as it has been for over 200 years. They wish to create division among many groups, to the point that some of the groups become violent.

And even if they don't want to drive America to violent division as I am suggesting, it is inevitable anyway because that is what liberal policies do - in the long run progressive policies lead to violence.

Take the riots in London, for example. Yes, the riots began because of a shooting, and because rioting is contagious. But why do these rioters not care about other people's property? Why are they burning cars and buildings?

Socialism breeds their kind of violence, and thanks to Obama and the Democrats, we may see the same thing here, very soon.

You'll notice that the people out on the streets causing unrest are not business owners, and are not generally the "producers" of society. Producers care too much about their environment, and their ability to produce, than to risk it all with the rioting. Granted, there are people rioting that are losing their jobs because their bosses are seeing them on the social networks out there acting like idiots. But how much do you want to bet that those are the ones the employer won't miss much.

Socialism, or liberalism, or progressivism, divides all of the groups, and sets them against each other, but in the end, it winds up becoming the producers against the free-loaders. The free-loaders want to take from the rich and have government give it to them - even though they didn't earn it.

I remember when I said this kind of stuff, and a liberal went around telling my readers that I think all poor people are lazy. I responded that was not true. Some poor people are not lazy, but they don't stay poor for long because of it. I was poor once, but because I am not lazy, I am no longer poor.

For the most part, except in extreme cases, the perpetual poor are not only lazy, but conditioned to believe that everyone owes them something.

Just ask the rioters in London.



These people are a deadweight on society. The produce nothing, yet cost the taxpayers untold amounts. If you listen carefully to the girls in the video above, they blame government, but more specifically the conservatives, because they've been conditioned to react that way. But then they turn it against the rich, the businessmen, the producers.

Liberals often hold themselves up to be victims, blaming the successful for their failures, or blaming those that made their wealth properly for the plight of the poor. So, those at the bottom deserve, according to these knuckleheads, social justice. But doing so deprives those dependent upon the government from ever properly developing. The takers lose any kind of discipline, expecting government to provide for them anytime they think they can't do it themselves.

Meanwhile, those that work hard, produce, and earn wealth, except for the deranged few that remain liberal, produce for everyone else. The producers get taxed more, yet told they don't pay their fair share. The producers create jobs, yet are blamed when someone like Obama comes along and poisons the business environment.

Then when the opportunity comes, those that have been conditioned to take and take and take, begin to act like a bunch of uncivil animals. Rioting. Looting. Burning. They've been conditioned to believe that personal property is bad, and that government will do everything for them, so why would they care about anyone else's personal property?

Without incentives, people skid down to the lowest denominator. They have no incentive to succeed because they are being taken care of by the government. They have no desire for decency, because they have been told they are victims, and that the producers are a bunch of greedy profiteers succeeding on their backs.

These deceived fools are often young, and grew up being indoctrinated in the education system to believe the liberal agenda. That is who the rioters are in London. They are primarily the young, fooled, indoctrinated followers of the conditioning they have received.

This is what happens when socialism has a few decades to mold the society. This is liberalism at its worst. This is the same stuff the democrats push here in America. Obama and the leftist members of Congress want us to be just like Europe, and their socialist dreams are actually a nightmare - a nightmare that leads to economic collapse, the necessity for austerity programs, and ultimately, violence.

What follows violence if it becomes too rampant?

Total government crackdown, and control

Just what the liberals in America want.

The liberals are drawing battle lines between the various groups, but ultimately it is the productive versus the nonproductive.

Wisconsin was just a small preview. The liberal plan is violence, and their followers will make it happen - giving them the excuse to crack down - unless we educate, and turn this around now. It's not too late, but the pied piper is pulling out his flute. We are moments away. 2012 is the deciding factor. Either we turn this around, or we skid head first into European-style collapse and violence.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary