DIVIDE AND RULE AMERICAN STYLE
Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. By far and away, most Americans think this is wrong. But despite most Americans wishing it were not so, this extreme economic inequality remains a fact. Why? Because America is a fake democracy. America is actually a dictatorship of the very rich--a plutocracy. How does the plutocracy get away with it? By DIVIDE AND RULE AMERICAN STYLE--that's how.
To divide and rule Americans the plutocracy uses both the Right and the Left. The Right and the Left seem to be going in opposite directions, but they're both being used for the same purpose, just like the two blades of a scissors that seem to be going in opposite directions but are both used for a single purpose: to cut paper. Ordinary Americans are the paper that the plutocracy is cutting up with the Right and the Left. But a scissors needs more than a left and right blade; it also needs the screwbolt that joins the two blades together to enable the scissors to work. The "screwbolt" that enables the Left and Right to divide and rule Americans is the government--an organization controlled by the plutocracy, not the American people. How does this divide-and-rule "scissors" work?
- The government (with its racist War on Drugs and racist police forces) incarcerates blacks and Hispanics disproportionately to their numbers in the population. This sets up the Right (i.e., radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh and T.V. cop shows that feature black criminals, etc.) to promote a Big Lie: that blacks and Hispanics are mostly criminals. This Big Lie influences the thinking of some whites. The Left then declares that all whites are racists who benefit from racism by enjoying "white privilege." "Shame on you for being white!," screams the Left, as it does things like blocking mainly white suburban commuters on I-93 in Massachusetts to deliberately piss them off, all in the name of "anti-racism."
Note that many Left writers and organizations (see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here for example) praised (either explicitly or by reporting it uncritically as an "anti-racist" action) the I-93 blockade action, and those that did not explicitly praise it refused to say it was a bad thing to do (see here and here and here for example). No Left writers or organizations that I am aware of have said it was a bad thing to do. The Left is perfectly fine with attacking white working class people in the name of black working class people. This is how the Left, wittingly or not, foments race war in the U.S.A.
- The government, at President Nixon's instigation, passes the Affirmative Action laws. For decades whites are told, "We're sorry. We couldn't give you the position you applied for because we had to give it to a less qualified minority person." Before Nixon instigated Affirmative Action most working class whites supported the Civil Rights Movement to abolish Jim Crow and all racial discrimination. These whites supported the Civil Rights Movement because they were against racial discrimination.
After Nixon, however, these same whites are accused--by the Left, of course!--of being racists for being against racial discrimination--for thinking that the criteria for being hired for a job or admitted to a school should be the SAME for all regardless of race. The Right then tells whites, "No, you're not a racist; your anger at blacks and Hispanics is perfectly justified."
This divide-and-rule scam is based on the absurd notion that the only choice is either continuing to have minorities under-represented in jobs and schools, or to have Affirmative Action's racially discriminatory criteria for job hiring and school admission. But there is another way (short of egalitarian revolution, which is the best way) to end the underrepresentation of minorities in jobs and schools. Make the criterion for being hired to a job or admitted to a school be that the applicant has what is really required to do the job or benefit from the school. Stop requiring applicants to get some arbitrary score on a test (like the SAT) that correlates far more with race and economic status than with actual ability to succeed as an employee or student. In addition, bring back on-the-job training (something only older people remember) so that the criterion for getting hired is what really matters--simply the ability to learn the relevant new skills. And furthermore, guarantee anybody willing to work reasonably the opportunity to do so (regardless if it makes a profit for a capitalist) and to receive in return the same standard of living as anybody else. This is egalitarianism, as discussed here. If THIS were the solution to making up for past racial discrimination in hiring and school admissions then white working people would be in agreement with it. But no, the plutocracy didn't choose THAT solution because it would not have furthered divide-and-rule.
- The government, specifically the CIA, funded Gloria Steinem's launching of Ms Magazine. Ms Magazine was funded so well that, unlike other magazines, it didn't need to rely on advertising. Following this the Ford (see here also) and Rockefeller Foundation began funding "Women's Studies" programs at countless American colleges and universities. The theme of Ms Magazine and the Women's Studies programs was, and continues to be, that our society is a "patriarchy," meaning that men as a class are privileged and the oppressiveness of society is experienced chiefly, if not exclusively, by women, for the benefit of men. Politicians go to absurd lengths to portray women, but not men, as suffering oppression. Thus Hillary Clinton, when she was the First Lady, delivered a speech to the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador, El Salvador, November 17, 1998, in which she stated, with a straight face presumably:
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
The men lost in combat--they don't count, certainly not as "the primary victims of war."
The Left, in the name of being for "equality," joins the government in declaring men to be the oppressors. The Left declares that men are all would-be (if not actual) rapists who have made ours a "rape culture" that condones rape. Nevermind that, if prison rapes (and, what is more frequent than people realize, cases of men being forced by a woman to penetrate her) are included, men are raped as often if not more often than women. Men naturally resent being accused of being evil rapists and oppressors merely on the grounds that they are male instead of female. For this, the Left accuses them of being misogynist "male chauvinist" pigs. Then the Right steps in, mocks the absurdity of the Left, and invites men and women who reject the Left's nonsense to embrace the Right's support for capitalism and all of the economic inequality that allows the plutocracy to remain rich and powerful.
- The government passes a Violence Against Women Act, but not a Violence Against Men Act. It sends the message that men assult women but not vice versa. But women do assault men. Martin S. Fiebert, formerly professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach and president of the California Faculty Association, and author of fifty-five peer-reviewed scientific papers--in other words a person who relies on data and not just anecdotal evidence from which to draw conclusions--posted online here: "References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouces or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography (last updated: June 2012)." This document begins as follows:
"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.
"Bibliographic references sorted by category"
As in the case of rape, the Left--in the name of "equality"!--accuses men of being violent against women simply on the grounds that they are males. This makes men angry, naturally, at people who claim to be fighting for equality. The Right then defends these angry men from this unjust attack. By doing so the Right aims to channel the anger of men against the very notion of equality in its real sense--economic equality among all who are willing to work reasonably.
Slandering Black and Hispanic Men, and White Men
Black and Hispanic men are subjected to racist incarceration by the government and slandered as criminals by the Right. At the same time white men, while not as bad off as black and Hispanic men, are unjustly slandered by the Left as racists. The Left unjustly attacks white men in the name of defending blacks and Hispanics, and the Right defends white men against the Left's slander by falsely declaring how criminal blacks and Hispanics are. This is how black and Hispanic men, and white men, are pitted against each other by the Left-Right-government "scissors." This is the reason why there are "angry white men." The Left does everything it can to drive white men into the waiting and seemingly friendly arms of the overtly racist and pro-capitalist and pro-inequality Right. The plutocracy understands this perfectly, and LOVES it. It's DIVIDE AND RULE AMERICAN STYLE.
At the same time the Left and the Right work together to pit men and women against each other. The Left falsely declares all men to be an oppressive "patriarchy" out to oppress and rape women. Men who resent this unfair accusation see the Right welcoming them with open and friendly arms and truthfully denouncing the radical feminist accusations as absurd. The plutocracy understands what's going on perfectly and LOVES it. This too is DIVIDE AND RULE AMERICAN STYLE.
This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.