As promised, and with the author’s permission, here’s an excerpt from Richard Mgrdechian’s How The Left Was Won : An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order.
Promote and Exploit Divisiveness (page 1-3)
Let’s face it, when you get right down to it, all of liberalism is fueled by a singular strategy—a strategy which has been continually perfected and relentlessly executed over the past forty years. That strategy is to promote and exploit divisiveness.
Everything liberal politicians do is based on this simple principle. Tell the people that are given to hating the most, that they are the ones who are hated. Tell the people who expect the most, that they deserve more. Tell blacks to hate whites. Tell women to hate men. Tell the lazy to hate the motivated. Tell the poor that only conservatives are rich, and then be sure to tell them to hate them for it.
Class warfare, race baiting, name calling and man-hating—all with a singular goal: to get themselves in power by promoting and exploiting divisiveness. Of course, once this divisiveness turns into frenzy, these same people suddenly act as if they actually want to solve a problem that didn’t even exist before they did everything they possibly could to create it.
To liberals, every issue, every situation is an opportunity to divide. History, religion, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the death of a soldier, a political debate, the hurricane which devastated New Orleans. Every tragedy exploited to divide. Every victory belittled to divide. Every incident, every word, every distorted statistic, every holiday—you name it, they will find some way to divide it.
Unfortunately, it’s not just the politicians who promote and exploit divisiveness; it is the people as well. Malcontents, jealous of anyone with any sort of success, come up with any way they can to attack those who are more successful then they are. Someone is rich only because they stole something from them. Certain groups are more successful only because they took advantage of them. Work has nothing to do with it. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Planning ahead has nothing to do with it. Even luck has nothing to do with it.
And what do these kinds of people view as the solution to this imaginary injustice? Why special rights, privileges and opportunities for themselves, of course. Level the playing field. Get something for nothing. Take from the rich, the white, the male dominated, homophobic society that has already given them everything. Take what they have, what they built, what they earned—whether it be money, property, liberty or opportunity—and find some way, some justification, some cause or some guise to redistribute it to the people who have done nothing to earn it. To people who refuse to compete on merit. To people who insist on taking more out of society than what they put in to it. To people who don’t give a damn that their inclusion comes only at the expense of someone else’s exclusion. The strategy is simple, really—promote divisiveness and then exploit it for your own benefit.
Liberals should thank God every day for differences between people because without them, liberalism would be dead in the water. Without them, the country might have some stability. Without them, it might have a chance to survive. Without them, the problems between those who want and those who have might actually be manageable in some meaningful or productive way. But differences have given liberals the perfect opportunity to stop any rational discussion dead in its tracks. Differences have led to polarization. Differences have led to countries within a country. Differences have led to the dreaded xist-ism-monger-phobia. Differences have allowed liberals to add any of these four sounds to the end of any word they choose, virtually guaranteeing that they can get away with anything they want.
Worse yet, liberals actually have the nerve to turn around and endlessly accuse conservatives of divisiveness. To them, conservatives— who believe everyone should be held to the same standards—are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives—who believe everyone should have the same rights regardless of the guises used to justify different ones for different people—are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives—who sacrifice their time, money, careers and often their lives to defend the true meaning of freedom and liberty—are somehow divisive.
But the reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who are trying to make some contribution to our society. The reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who expect others to at least try to do the same. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something out of a society far beyond what they are willing to put back in. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something for nothing.
Filed under: Uncategorized







But…but…all the talk of how a politician should be “a uniter, not a divider”? Thanks for the excerpt!
PH quoteth: ‘politician should be “a uniter, not a divider”?’
This is a favorite Left phrase used to attack our President in recent years, but used for any target. It translates as a ploy for ‘group think,’ which means YOU accept OUR viewpoint–versus your own (also known as ‘forcing my beliefs on you.’) (Which NO Liberal would ever DO.)
Mr. Mgredechian’s essay above is worthwhile, because it critiques American every day life. We need to think about the information/views/knowledge we are absorbing from myriad sources.
I suspect he offers a handy toolkit for dissecting all those talking points/preplanned verbal assaults Liberals constantly confuse US with. Perhaps he can help resurrect dialogue.
We no longer have open debate in this country. Does the President’s choice of public silence regarding Iraq not prove its demise? Instead we have deluge: a storm which Mr. Mgredechian may help concerned citizens surmount in the fight to take our country back.
Undoing the damage from Marxism and its ilk to America is critical. Thanks to the author for his aid.
Here’s hoping his work can find receptive use by parents for young minds, especially those of college age.
This definitely sounds like a book I need to read
.
Patrick, that’s a smoke screen. When you have bill clinton saying he wouldn’t have gone to the UN in 2003 before invading Iraq. When you have Democrats saying bomb the F out of North Korean missile launchers before they launch. That’s when you have Democrats saying that Bush is too unilateral, and not multilateral enough. It’s the age old tactic of “a good offense is the best defense”. Since the point is to defend your own flaws, you project your flaws upon the other guy and call him what you really are. The other guy is too busy defending himself, saying how he IS multilateral, for him to attack you based upon your UNILATERALNESS.
They don’t want Bush to be a uniter. FDR was a uniter, and he put people he deemed a threat into refugee camps. A uniter crushes dissent and executes spies. They don’t want Bush to be a uniter, because then they would be in trouble trying to leak things against a unified Bush offensive.