Why is it that Americans are split, conservative versus progressive, right down the middle: one half the population versus the other half and not, say, 20% versus 80%? The 2017 election, like the last several, was exceedingly close to a 50-50 split (48.2% Clinton vs. 46.1% Trump). The split on social issues such as same-sex marriage and bathroom gender laws is also right down the middle. And yet at least 80% of Americans want to a) remove the rich from power, b) have real--not fake--democracy with c) no rich and no poor* (as this video illustrates.)
I believe that the explanation is that the ruling class goes to great lengths to deliberately split the American public into bitterly opposing camps, right down the middle, which is where a split is most effective for divide-and-rule.
How do they do it (deliberately or not)?
The ruling class orchestrates public debates on "social issues" in a manner that ensures that there will be two approximately equal sized camps, each regarding the other as beyond-the-pale horrible. The ruling class uses as many private opinion polling results and focus groups as it takes to determine the most divisive way to frame these debates. It uses the media it controls, some with progressive audiences and others with conservative audiences, to specifically censor views that would unite most people and produce something like only a 10% versus 90% split.
To see how this was done in the case of same-sex marriage, watch this video and read this short article. About ten years ago the Boston Metro, a free subway newspaper, asked its readers to submit letters about same-sex marriage and it then had a week-long focused discussion of this topic. I submitted a letter that expressed the view in the video and article linked above--a view designed to elicit support from 90% of people, to create unity where there was so much disunity. My letter was short and within the required word limit, was clearly written and respectful to everybody, and perfectly on-topic. The Metro did not print my letter, and yet none of the printed letters expressed a view remotely similar to mine. In fact all of the letters expressed only variations of two views: 1) The Bible says same-sex marriage is immoral, and 2) It is a violation of equality to deny gay people the right to same-sex marriage and only people who hate homosexuals would do so.
The editors of the Metro clearly made a decision to censor the the point of view my letter contained.
Something very similar is going on with the debate about transgender bathroom laws, as discussed here, where you can see how NPR censors a key piece of information that results in progressives thinking that conservatives are monsters on this issue.
The ruling class spent a lot of money to change the meaning of feminism from the good and unifying idea that men and women should have the same rights, to the current idea (taught in countless Women's Studies centers on college campuses) that men, just because they are men, are the enemy--an oppressive "patriarchy." This has turned feminism into a divisive ideology, as discussed in detail here.
The abortion issue has split the nation into almost exactly equal halves: pro-choice versus pro-life. Were it not for the role of the ruling class, this issue would not be as divisive and bitter as it is, as is discussed in "How the Ruling Class Uses the Abortion Issue to Divide-and-Rule." But today the pro-choice camp views the pro-life camp as women-haters, and the pro-life camp views the pro-choice camp as murderers.
Race is no doubt the most divisive issue in the United States. The progressive half of the population thinks the conservative half are horrible racists. The conservative half thinks that "anti-racism" is code for anti-white. How did this come to pass?
Let's look at how it happened in Boston several decades ago.
The school busing crisis in Boston in the early 1970s developed into a virtual race war with racial violence carried out with fists, knives and rocks, and a surge of support for an overtly racist leader--the Boston School Committee chairwoman Louise Day Hicks--who formed an overtly racist organization (ROAR) against blacks and those who supported integrating the schools.
The only reason that Hicks was able to build her racist movement was because the ultra-liberal Judge Garrity, who ordered the school busing, demanded that integration maximize the distance that little children would be bused and hence anger people for reasons having nothing to do with integration per se; he refused to even consider an integration plan that black and white parents proposed that would minimize the distance children would be bused and would have even eliminated some busing (by taking advantage of the fact that black and white neighborhoods were like a checkerboard pattern in Boston and building schools near the borders between black and white neighborhoods so children could go to schools that were both integrated AND near their homes.)
Furthermore, the liberal leaders (deliberately?) provided the racist Louise Day Hicks everything she needed ideologically. How?
Liberal politicians and the ultra-liberal Boston Globe argued that the reason integration was needed was because it was the presence of black children in a school that made it a bad school and this "burden" should be borne equally by whites and blacks. This racist reason for integration only fueled the racist opposition to it! Additionally, the Boston Globe not only accused any white person who objected to Judge Garrity's logistically nightmarish busing plan of being a "racist" but also accused any black person who objected to it (and there were many) of being an "Uncle Tom." No well-known black leader dared stand up against the busing plan. This ensured that black opposition to the busing plan would be virtually invisible and thus create the false impression that only whites opposed it, and only for racist reasons. The racist Louise Day Hicks absolutely needed these actions by liberal politicians and the Boston Globe in order to succeed in mobilizing white parents around a racist "blame the blacks" ideology.
Race conflict is being fomented today still. Read about how it's happening in these articles: How the 18:1 Law Makes the War on Drugs Racist and We Need THIS, Not Affirmative Action. and Why and How Big Money Promotes "White Privilege" Rhetoric and Is it a 'Privilege' Not to be Discriminated Against? and Racial Discrimination Against Non-Whites is Rampant and Harms Working Class People of ALL Races.
The articles linked to above about Affirmative Action and White Privilege explain why the framework in which race is discussed and debated in public discourse is, itself, a divisive framework. Have you ever read or heard this criticism OF THE FRAMEWORK ITSELF in the mass or alternative media? No. Because it is censored.
Israel/Palestine: Splitting the WORLD's People Down the Middle
Most Americans, based on the mass media censorship of key facts, believe that the Israeli government is trying to protect Jews from vicious anti-Semitic violent terrorists who, solely because they hate Jews, deny Israel's right to exist. Most Arab-speaking people and Muslims in the world, on the other hand, know that "Israel's right to exist" is a euphemism for the right of the Israeli ruling class to carry out violent ethnic cleansing of non-Jews (Palestinians) from more than 78% of Palestine, for no justifiable reason (especially since it was Muslims who, historically, provided a haven for Jews fleeing from European Christian anti-Semitism.) You can read more about this here and here.
The mass media censorship of the truth aims to make the English-speakers of the world and the Arabs/Muslims of the world view each other with fear and extreme mistrust. Read more about how, and why, United States rulers work hard to make Muslims and Americans fear each other here.
Trump versus Clinton, or the Trump/Clinton TEAM?
The campaign themes of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton constituted (whether deliberate or not) a sophisticated effort to divide-and-rule Americans with the issues of race and fear of Muslims and Hispanics. This is spelled out in detail here.
Solidarity, or Fake Solidarity, with Muslims?
The latest ruling class divide-and-rule framework is spearheaded by former Secretary of State Madeleine "Yes, killing 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it" Albright. She has announced that "I am ready to register as a Muslim." (Albright, by the way, was not the first person to talk about "everybody registerering"; that idea has been mentioned online for a while now.)
If Trump creates a Muslim registry, then I will register as a Muslim and I urge everybody else to do likewise, in solidarity with Muslims against wrongful discrimination against them. But there is a true solidarity framework and a fake solidarity framework way to advocate that everybody should register as a Muslim.
The ruling class is waiting for us to fall into the trap of using the fake solidarity framework. The fake solidarity framework says that there are two camps, the bad racist conservative people who HATE Muslims, and the good compassionate progressives who do NOT hate Muslims. The goal of progresives, in this framework, is to lecture the haters to stop hating. This is divisive, and totally pleasing to the ruling class.
The true solidarity framework says that the two camps are, on the one hand, good and decent people who are frightened to death of Muslims because they have been told Muslims hate Americans and want to kill us, and on the other hand good and decent people who know the truth about Muslims and Islam (available here) and know these KEY facts: #1) 9/11 was a false flag inside job designed to make Americans fear Muslims; #2) the FBI has orchestrated almost all of the subsequent domestic terrorism plots for the same reason; #3) the ruling class uses drones that target and kill innocent Muslims to help Islamic terrorists recruit so that there will be a credible bogeyman Muslim enemy to keep Americans fearful and obedient; and #4) the U.S. government supports Israel's violent ethnic cleansing of non-Jews (Palestinians) not because this makes life better for Israeli Jews (in fact it makes life worse for working class Israeli Jews as discussed here and here) but because it provides a bogeyman Muslim enemy for the Orwellian War on Terror (as discussed here.)
The goal of people in the second camp of the true solidarity framework is to educate everybody about the tactics and lies the ruling class uses to make us fear Muslims, by treating people in the first camp with respect, knowing that they are frightened, not hateful. This is the approach that will upset the ruling class's game plan for maximum divide-and-rule.
Is it DELIBERATE?
Most people do not think that the ruling class is deliberately thinking about how to orchestrate and frame public debates to be maximally divisive. It's hard for most people to even imagine how that could happen. What do they do, most people wonder, get in a smoke-filled room in a secret undisclosed location, require everyone there to give the secret hand-shake, and conspire about how to do this ugly deed? "Let's see, how should we get this transgender bathroom issue to divide the population? Who has a suggestion for that? How can we make sure same-sex marriage splits the nation into two camps who hate each other, right down the middle? Anybody have some good focus group results to help us with that?" This seems just too bizarre to take seriously.
Most of us have never personally encountered people who are THAT awful, that devious on such a huge scale. Who has ever seen a person orchestrate a NATIONAL debate designed to deliberately pit hundreds of millions of people against each other? Is it possible that such persons even exist?
If such persons do not exist, then the only explanation for why all of the above divide-and-rule "social issue" frameworks do exist, with the censorship they require, would have to be random luck--bad luck for us and good luck for the ruling class. We would have to assume that the ruling class is just extraordinarily lucky!
One can be forgiven for doubting that such incredibly evil persons exist. But they do exist!
HERE'S THE PROOF
Go to http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin . What you will find at this website of the U.S. Naval Institute is an article by Lieutenant Commander Pat Paterson, U.S. Navy, titled "The Truth About Tonkin." The author is (or was when the article was posted) "the African desk officer at Special Operations Command, Europe in Stuttgart, Germany. A 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, he is also a surface warfare and foreign area officer." This article is based on formerly secret documents only recently declassified for public inspection: it takes many decades for us to learn the truth about these things.
If you spend the half-hour or so it takes to read this article, you will learn what really happened in the famous so-called Gulf of Tonkin Incident that was used by President Lyndon Johnson to get Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which dramatically escalated the War in Vietnam.
Specifically, you will read how Defense Secretary Robert McNamara "distorted the evidence and mislead Congress" and "intentionally mislead Congress and the public" and "lied" and how "McNamara's intentional distortion of events prevented Congress from providing the civilian oversight of military matters so fundamental to the congressional chrter" and how "McNamara deceived the American people and Congress."
Referring to the American sailors who supposedly shot at attacking North Vietnamese ships in self-defense in the Gulf of Tonkin, this article quotes President Johnson remarking, "Hell, those damn, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish."
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara LIED, deliberately, for the purpose of getting Congress to approve the escalation of the Vietnam War (the first overt attack by the United States on North Vietnam). The Vietnam War resulted in killing 1.3 to 3.9 million (estimates vary) Vietnamese peasants and 58,000 American GIs, and it split the American population (not to mention the world's population!) into mutually hostile camps. It was based on the most explicitly deliberate lie there ever was!
Not only did Robert McNamara lie to jump start the atrocious Vietnam War, there is strong evidence that the reason people such as McNamara wanted that war had nothing whatsoever to do with the official purpose of stopping Communist aggression. Had this been the actual motive then the United States government would not have been providing enormous quantities of military equipment to the Soviet Union, which delivered them, in turn, to the North Vietnamese against whom American GIs were sent to fight. And yet this is precisely what the United States government did, and had been doing for decades, as discussed in great detail here. The purpose of the war was to implement a strategy to keep the American plutocracy rich (from selling high-priced weapons to the government) and in power (by keeping Americans fearful of the Communist bogeyman enemy in an Orwellian war of social control.
McNamara was president of the Ford Motor Company before President Kennedy appointed him Defense Secretary, after which he went on to become the President of the World Bank. He thus travelled in circles where you and I don't ever go, among the kind of people--the ruling class--that you and I never get to know personally and seldom even see. These are indeed the kind of people who would deliberately tell a lie to start a war.
These people live in a very different culture from the one we know. For them, it is praiseworthy to tell a lie that enables the very rich to gain at the expense of ordinary people, and especially praiseworthy to tell a lie that divides ordinary people right down the middle for divide-and-rule. This is known as "serving one's class." They imbibe this culture with their mother's milk and learn it as children at the dinner table and at their private schools and clubs. A few can enter this circle from the ranks of the "commoners" but only if they demonstrate total loyalty to the upper class culture.
These are the kind of people who control the United States, who have (or are beholden to those who have) billion dollar fortunes. These people know that ordinary people want society to be equal and democratic, not ruled by and for the exclusive benefit of a billionaire class and its highly paid servants. They know that to prevent ordinary Americans from making ours a genuinely equal and democratic society they must be divided against each other to be controlled. These people employ experts in social control to figure out what lies to tell and what phony divisive public debates to orchestrate.
The lies (remember WMD?) are concocted at the very top. Everybody lower in the hierarchy learns very quickly what to say or not say in order to please those above them and hold onto their careers. The underlings don't need to know WHY they must say and do what they must say and do, i.e., why it is important for divide-and-rule; it is sufficient merely that they know what to say and do. Those that don't intuit what pleases and displeases those above them don't remain in, or ever get into important corporate or government positions.
The Metro newspaper editor who did not to print my letter about same-sex marriage may not have had a clue about how and why the debate on that issue was orchestrated for divide-and-rule at the very top of the hierarchy; he/she merely needed to know that it would displease those higher up if the Metro printed a letter expressing a view different from the two approved views. It is a career ender to displease those higher up, and that's all it takes to ensure that people throughout society, like that Metro editor, go along with and help enforce the lies and censorship that make divide-and-rule work.
Reject the Divisive Frameworks
We can't make the world what we want it to be as long as we remain inside the 50/50-us-against-them frameworks the rulers use to keep us in line. The Left accepts these frameworks and merely takes the "progressive" side. This only makes the ruling class laugh with pleasure. We need a very different approach. This is what www.PDRBoston.org is all about.
* I contacted the Gallup Poll company division of Gallup, Inc. recently to pay for a national poll of all United States residents (not just registered voters) asking about these exact questions. I spoke to Gallup representatives on two occasions by telephone. They were very friendly, said they could do what I wanted, and seemed pleased to take my money. But as soon as they heard what the exact questions were that I wanted in the poll, they said they would not do it. Other polling companies informed me they could only poll registered voters or people online, which is not suitable in this context.
This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.