With the recent tragic events in Dallas, the anti-police left have now had a taste of just how harmful their anti-police rhetoric has become. They don't recognize that as the source of the murder of five police officers, with six more injured. (Of course, to them, guns are to blame.) (Either that, or the Dallas police deserved what they got.)
The anti-police rhetoric pervades the media. President Obama spreads it. The attorney general spreads it. The leftist media spread it.
It's no wonder that some deluded git would believe it and open fire on the police.
The media now harp on gun control and the racial divide in the country. Progressives pretend to be outraged, then push for gun control. Republicans pretend to be outraged, then push to blame Democrats. Conservatives shake their heads, point to the rhetoric, and say, "What did you expect would happen?"
Few are asking the important questions:
- Why do progressives blame whites for everything?
- Why do progressives build up racial tension in the US?
- Why do progressives hate the police?
By answering the first question, we can get an answer to the other two. So why do progressives blame whites for everything?
The answer to this question stems from the basic progressive dogma that the United States was founded on the back of slavery, oppression, and white-male dominance. Ignoring the incredible advances in thought, equality, politics, science, and technology brought about by Western civilization, the Renaissance, classical liberalism, and the founding of the United States, progressives believe the unprovable doctrine that such advances could only have been made through the oppression of others.
Besides being silly, this concept is dangerous because it denies the very foundation of progressivism. In other words, progressives denigrate the very system that created them. They denounce the very philosophies that allow them the freedom to exist and to think as they do.
Then, turning against their own foundation, they praise and adopt philosophies that stem from those who hated classical liberalism and the free market - Marx, Rousseau, Engels, Owens, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao.
Where does racial conflict come in to all of this? In the US during the 1950s, the ideals of democracy and equality finally caught up with a majority of the population, enough to start the Civil Rights movement to incorporate blacks into the American ideals of equal protection. During the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement moved into full swing, and Republicans in Congress changed the laws to create a more just system.
During the 1970s, the same forces created the Women's Rights Movement, which succeeded in requiring women to compete in the work force.
During the late 60s and early 70s, the Democrat Party, realizing that it had been left politically behind, changed from being the worker's party, to the progressive party.
By 2000, most of the gains of the 60s and 70s had been realized, but the US now had a new crop of progressive politicians and school administrators who had successfully infiltrated and redesigned education in the US to promote their ideals of class warfare, racial warfare, and multiculturalism.
With no targets to foment the socialist imperative of class warfare and polarization, progressives tried (and succeeded) in redefining the Civil Rights Movement to include homosexuals. While that issue was indeed polarizing, the Gay Rights Movement forced the courts to accept same sex marriage, and the fight became essentially moot.
Yet, progressives desperately need polarization in order to thrive. Class warfare is at the core of the revolution. When there are no real classes, when the Civil Rights Movement essentially won, progressives turned their attention back to the Great Racial Divide.
Whites were blamed for all inequality and poverty and oppression.
Which leads us to question three: Why do progressives hate the police.
Hating the police is a throwback from the 1960s, where the police forces came to represent "The Man," namely those in power who could only oppress others. Yet, there is something more going on in 2016 than blaming the police for being "The Man."
The next step in progressive logic is to force its ideology, its very thoughts, onto an unwilling population. While progressives have made great strides in bamboozling the masses that progressivism, and Obama are the salvation of humankind, there will always be a segment of the population who are not bamboozled, who are not ignorant, and who see through the lies and deceit of the progressive agenda.
What better way to destabilize the country, to bring "errant" conservatives into line, than to erode the institutions that protect individuals from harm?
The police forces consist of private citizens, are local, and cannot easily be controlled by a strong federal government intent on making fundamental changes to how the US operates.
Years ago, when I was in grade school, a police officer visited our class to talk about being a police officer. (I think it was career week.) He said something I've never forgotten, and which I maintain is true.
He said, "The police are the people who stand in the way of tyranny. Think about it. If there were not a private and separate police force, the government would have to use the military in order to enforce the law. Governments which have direct police powers always abuse those powers."
And that is the answer to our question. Progressives want to erode our police system because, at the heart of their ideology, is the belief that they should use the full force of the government to enforce the progressive ideology of social justice. Along with eroding the police forces of the US, progressives have promoted paramilitary forces in the NSA.
Yet, if progressives succeed in breaking the police forces, will there indeed be social justice, or will that all crumble to dust, along with everyone's protections of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?