“Race” – The Divide-And-Conquer Tool Of Tyrants

August 2nd, 2013   Submitted by Amanda B. Johnson

RaceImagine we live in a society where people are grouped by hair color.

School textbooks categorize historical peoples by their hair color, continually referring to them as “indigenous redheads”, “native brunettes”, or “immigrant blonde-silvers”. We see and hear the same references being made in magazines, on the nightly news, and over talk radio.

We are taught to refer to ourselves by the hue of the strands growing from our scalps. To identify with the hue. To feel a kinship with others who share it, and regard those of other hues as belonging to a different group.

Everything from employment applications to telephone surveys to the Census—all contain the following question:

“Check which of the following best describes your hair color: 1) Blonde, 2) Brown, 3) Black, 4) Gray/Silver/White, 5) Red, 6) Of mixed hues, 7) Bald or Decline to answer”.

Imagine it had always been this way. We wouldn’t know anything different.

End the imagination exercise here.

Would it surprise anyone that in such a society, there might crop up animosity among the different groups in certain situations? That a gray-on-bald crime might raise hostilities? That entire organizations would crop up, like the National Association For The Advancement Of Redheads? Or the Ku Klux Blondes? We might even see a Brunette History Month.

The ideas in the previous paragraph are laughable. . . or are they?

Is there any difference between grouping people by the melanin in their hair versus the melanin in their epidermises? Why would anyone find the former absurd, but the latter valid?

It would appear that a certain divide-and-conquer strategy—which has given rise to the term “racism”— has done its job after all.

A second and final thought experiment: imagine for a moment that you are a sociopath, and that you aspire to rule over a people, living off the sweat of their brows as a parasite. Your biggest challenge will be to keep the people’s eyes off of you and on one another when the problems inherent to parasitic relationships begin to arise.

As your taxation ushers in poverty, you can dodge the bullet if the grays believe that the redheads are milking the system. As your regulations bring unemployment, you’re safe if the balds believe the jobs are being taken by the brunettes. When your corporatism causes rioting, you are in the clear if the silvers believe that the mixed-hues are given legal preferential treatment. When you want to go to war and must convince the people to fund it, you would do well to demonize the savage raven-heads on the other side of the world.

Racism is the friend to and the creation of the controlling collectivist—a redundant term, to be sure.

The truth is that there is only one race at issue here, and that is the human race. It is just as inane to classify by melanin as it is to classify by height, age, shoe size, chin shape, or eye color. Such groupings are tools of the State, and as such, are to be soundly rejected.

Of course the State doesn’t want us to see each other as brother and sister. Why would they? Brothers and sisters tend to trade freely with one another. They tend to look out for and protect one another. They tend to love and cherish one another. In short, they tend not to give rise to rulers. The would-be tyrant finds no fertile soil in such a place.

Which is why we must do exactly that—trade freely, protect fiercely, and love deeply.

Because the parasitic State will fall. The human family will prosper. Hasten the day.

Tags:

40 Responses to ““Race” – The Divide-And-Conquer Tool Of Tyrants”

  1. Bob RobertsonNo Gravatar says:

    Hasten the day, indeed. Well said.

  2. Greg AllmainNo Gravatar says:

    I had been thinking of the cries of “reverse racism” that we’ve heard for some time, and also of the “critical race theory” ideology of Derrick Bell, Cornell West et al (i.e. America will always be a deeply racist society because government etc was built by white people for white people etc leading to systemic racism etc) and that through it all, none of these people who raise the cries ever realized that what they were decrying was, in fact, the inherent injustice and inequality and oppression of the State. That it doesn’t matter who’s in control (or what skin color they have), the apparatus of the State still leads to the same result. Every time.

    Nicely done Ms. BillyRock!

    • Michael BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      Within the apparatus of the State is privilege. Privilege for those who rule and privilege for those who benefit from the rule. Part of divide and conquer is bestowing privileges on certain groups more then others and it’s form is both racial or economic. This creates tension which directs attention away from the State as the problem and creates a crisis where the State is seen as the solution. Privileges can take the form of public sector unions, tax breaks for empire friendly corporations, or any group who can afford the lobbyists to write the laws that will benefit their interests. Religion has it’s own form of privilege and is Anthropocentric and has geocentric quality to it. In religion man makes god in his image and the same is true for the ruling tribe in the empire. Nationalism takes an identity and makes that the standard by which all things are judged. Racism isn’t some DNA molecule found it white people. Rather privilege is a part of the States hierarchy and race acts as a uniform for the ruling empire. So it maybe that gingers are ten times more likely to be sent to prison over Marijuana possession if native brunettes ran the criminal justice system.

    • JAMES BRIGGSNo Gravatar says:

      Promoting black racism has ended all social progress. Those you talk race are the reason there is poverty.

  3. Jon PNo Gravatar says:

    Very clever and insightful article! Accurate coverage of one of the State’s favorite tools… Divide and Conquer. I liked your reference towards the end… “The human family will prosper.” At first glance it made me think of the Divide and Conquer onslaught against the individual family unit as well. Break up the family and people are more dependent on Government. Great way for Politicians to buy votes.

  4. not youNo Gravatar says:

    i do not think the parasitic state will be falling anytime soon.

    • Martin BrockNo Gravatar says:

      Then we should look for ways to fall away from it.

      • not youNo Gravatar says:

        what i meant is that the collective State is no longer the “parasite”. it already owns and controls both the means of production and the means of exchange. The general population is now the parasite and is a liability, burden and “threat” as far as the State is concerned.

        As for ways to fall away from it, that hardly seems possible.

  5. Roman SkaskiwNo Gravatar says:

    It is desirable but incorrect to suggest that race has as little correlation with life as hair color. If you want to promote racial harmony, it’s better to promote methodological individualism than to suggest that the world is flat — ie that race is a meaningless social construct. Science is not on your side, and repetition of a desirable but fallacious idea only creates problems.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Care to elaborate on your statement that “It is desirable but incorrect to suggest that race has as little correlation with life as hair color?”

    • DarrenNo Gravatar says:

      Roman, the only way you can defend your comment would be to say that science has proved big differences in the abilities of different races. To the best of my knowledge science has proved the opposite.

      • Michael BarkerNo Gravatar says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

        The authors piece together evidence from their wide-ranging, largely self-taught fields of expertise to flesh out their thesis that cultural and biological evolution go hand-in-hand.

        The authors are extremely aware that they are baiting the bears of political correctness. Their thesis directly challenges the dogma of the American Anthropological Association, which stands behind its resolution that “WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, Homo sapiens, and WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined “races” has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits), THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people.

        Once we had agriculture, the human population grew enormously, which meant a much larger pool of potentially beneficial mutations happening – 100 times more than in the Pleistocene.

        At times in the Old World, when war wasn’t the main source of deaths, famine and malnutrition limited populations that reached carrying capacity. The poorest were so short on food that they didn’t reproduce themselves, while the elite had more than the two children required to replace themselves and had twice the number of surviving offspring as the poor. The least successful rich children became the new farmers, with the result that after a thousand years or so, everyone was descended from the wealthy classes.

        Once the ruling elites existed, they didn’t have a hard time controlling farmers, who couldn’t leave their land in protest, or they’d die, which stuck them with paying whatever taxes, being conscripted into wars and in general endure whatever the elites dished out.

        The authors suggest that in the end, people were ultimately domesticated by elite rulers, who weeded out aggressive fighting peasants, just as farmers weed out their most aggressive animals. The elites selected for a population that submitted to authority. Attention deficit disorder doesn’t exist in China – the elites completely bred that behavior out of the population. Maybe that explains why Americans have allowed the greatest disparity in wealth between rich and poor in our nation’s history to exist, haven’t marched with torches and pitchforks on Wall Street, and so on.

        The authors argue that, during the Middle Ages, the Ashkenazi Jews were, for various cultural reasons, a genetically isolated population that could make a living only in certain demanding careers, such as money lending and asset management. All of these occupations rewarded great intellectual ability, so over a period of hundreds of years, the Ashkenazi Jews became smarter on average than other Europeans. (According to the authors, the average IQ of the Ashkenazi Jews is 112, about three quarters of a standard deviation above the European mean.) This pushed the normal distribution of IQ scores among the Ashkenazi to the right, so the Ashkenazi were rewarded with a disproportionate number of geniuses relative to the size of their population. As further support for their hypothesis, the authors point out that the genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs that are associated with the Ashkenazi population seem to be errant expressions of genes that enhance the performance of the brain and central nervous system.

        So whether you want to admit it or not, genetics, I.Q. and race are intertwined. Further recognizing how religion, race and statisim are intertwined as hierarchy’s allows for a philosophy of liberty to mitigate these forces.

        • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

          Michael: Could you explain your last sentence?

          Research has shown that babies are born prejudiced. It is hard-wired for us to favor someone who is more like us than not. But babies are not fully formed humans. As they age and change, they slowly become less dependent and more independent at varying ages. Some even overcome family indoctrination and cultural indoctrination. The political indoctrination is the last and hardest to overcome because it is so intense.

          We can blame indoctrination and claim helplessness or teach ourselves the truth. But pleading helplessness by genetic or cultural disposition is to deny our humanity, our mind. Adult dependence does not come natural. It is inhuman. That has to be impressed on us early and often for years until we lose are ability to think.

          • Michael BarkerNo Gravatar says:

            My response was to Darren questioning whether “science has proved big differences in the abilities of different races”. I’m not “pleading helplessness by genetic or cultural disposition”. Rather Humanity has the ability to adapt quickly over short periods of time; Evolution hasn’t ceased and it doesn’t take millions of years to bring about change. I.Q. might be genetically linked to race but that doesn’t have any affect on whether people are free or not free. Economics and the philosophy behind what freedom truly is determines that. Cultural disposition is taught and absorbed by whatever society you are raised in. I believe in the non aggression principle but it is in no way a cultural disposition within our society. Violence and the celebration of violence is. The key to bringing about a non violent society is non aggression and free markets where their are no third parties trying to farm you. Getting their requires understanding the hierarchy’s that control us and that includes hierarchy’s that some Liberty minded people don’t wish too see.

    • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

      Roman: Define “correlation with life” and “methodological individualism”. I am unclear as to how you find Amanda’s idea fallacious.

      When we encounter someone we see/hear/smell a great many superficialities that color our interaction with them. We make snap judgements. As time goes by our feelings towards them change. That change is based on our mindset reacting to their mindset. Example: As a young man I initially rated young women by their physical appearance. After interacting intellectually (hearing them state their beliefs), I would change my opinion. I was giving their ideas priority over their physical appearance.

      • Roman SkaskiwNo Gravatar says:

        You guys can do your own research about differences between races. Do you really think evolution stopped at the neck?

        Since you’re probably too bigoted to hear the truth from a white man, I offer you Walter Williams:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKgHc6bWqZ4

        Look, differences don’t preclude peace and voluntary correlation, but you guys are simply wrong in stating that the world is flat — ie. that everyone is identical.

        Seth, Don — To answer your question, by “correlate with life”, I mean that everything clusters according to races. Everything you can possible measure about a person.

        I’ll add that this doesn’t not preclude individual greatness in anyone, but it is painfully and dangerously wrong to repeat the politically correct drivel of universal equality as this author does.

        • Roman SkaskiwNo Gravatar says:

          voluntary *cooperation

          • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

            When I say I am “identical” to you politically, I mean I have the same rights. This is because my humanity is identical to yours. The statement in the Declaration of Independence declaring “…all men are created equal…” could be used as justification for revolt against ALL the previous political systems, not just the British Empire. It was a break with the ancient denial of individual sovereignty. It did not recognize “the divine right of kings” or the superiority of the tribe, race, or any group over the individual. As such, it challenged the idea of rulership.

            Roman, what you call “… drivel of universal equality…”, I call the uniquely American principle that explains our past prosperity and worldwide popularity.

            The sacrifice of this principle for “national security” or “the common good” is the return to the old failed system. It is destroying the U.S.

            • Michael BarkerNo Gravatar says:

              “The statement in the Declaration of Independence declaring “…all men are created equal…” could be used as justification for revolt against ALL the previous political systems, not just the British Empire. It was a break with the ancient denial of individual sovereignty. It did not recognize “the divine right of kings” or the superiority of the tribe, race, or any group over the individual. As such, it challenged the idea of rulership.”

              Beautifully said. The problem is it was never really applied to society. The Declaration of Independence applied to poor White people. And the Constitution with it’s emphasis on private property, though good, also viewed human ownership as private property.

              “Universal equality” genetically speaking is bad science. High I.Q.’s don’t necessarily lead to greatness. Personal ethics rooted in Liberty does.

              • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

                Yes, Michael, a “personal ethics rooted in Liberty…” (all ethics are personal) is needed for survival of the species. It would be a counter force against the state and reduce or eliminate it. Documents do not. The Constitution is self contradictory. No matter. It’s the concept of individual sovereignty being adopted by about 10% or more that matters.

                Whatever the % that loved liberty at the founding of American, that way of life is almost extinct. We need to revive it. We need to champion it.

    • Jim CariganNo Gravatar says:

      I don’t think Amanda said the distinction among hair types was more significant than other genotypes. The point was that making significant social distinctions based on either, in general practice, would not be done rationally.

      I firmly believe that the ginger cats I have known behave somewhat distinctly compared to other domestic cats. That may or may not have a basis in fact

  6. DaveNo Gravatar says:

    Race is like anything else – different races arose due to geographic separation and biological differences, and these differences were exaggerated by bad people via state force to divide and conquer, and enslave. Absent this some people would self-segregate and some would choose integration. It is when these things are forced that we encounter huge problems.

    • Michael BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      “and these differences were exaggerated by bad people via state force to divide and conquer, and enslave.”

      Racism is the economic domination of a tribe as a way to marginalize and exploit weaker groups. Racism acts a kind of protectionism and replicates the image of the tribe as the standard by which all things are judged. It’s a lot larger then a few bad people.

      • DaveNo Gravatar says:

        True, Michael, but the effects are magnified with state force when the “standard tribe” runs the state force.

        • DaveNo Gravatar says:

          And this can, in fact, be run by a few bad people.

          • Michael BarkerNo Gravatar says:

            I guess what I’m getting at is you can have societies where the State practices apartheid or ethnic cleansing and it’s citizens allows this to happen. In Nazi Germany you had a complacent populace that went along with the wholesale genocide of the Jews by the State. In Israel today we have the Israeli State practicing apartheid and passive ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians over land dominance. In Rwandan the minority Tutsi population who had economic dominance over the Hutus were slaughtered over a 100 day period reducing the entire population of the country by 20%. (Both populations their were Christian and religion had zero effect in stopping the carnage) The Bosnian and Kosovo wars were a combination of ethnic, nationalism and religion over land dominance. Racism and economics played a part in all these conflicts interwoven with nationalism and sometimes religion. So we can have bad people run the State but it takes a compliant and willing population to practice crimes against humanity. Divide and conquer works for internal control but if a minority group gains some economic dominance then it becomes divide and eliminate. Racism is oppression and the State can use it as a weapon of war.

            • DaveNo Gravatar says:

              I don’t disagree, I’m just saying that you almost always need a massive state apparatus to get to the really bad stuff – ethnic cleansing, etc. Absent a state, or with a minimal state, someone could become massively wealthy, or one corporation can, but in order to maintain this economic empire, time and resources will have to spent maintaining it, not killing people (the customers who helped you become wealthy, and who you need to stay on top).

              The state gets our money no matter what, and if you don’t “freely” give it to them, then you go to jail. You almost always have to have a small group of people taking money from everyone via taxation, building a massive military in the name of “defense” (against some other state with different-looking or acting people) to get these types of large-scale racist events. Wouldn’t you be scared to resist what is going on when you are told to worship the state, they will protect you, and if you don’t give them your money, you will be jailed?

              I think even on smaller scales, you still need the state to have much racism at all – case in point, an article I published a few years ago….

              http://mises.org/daily/5281/

  7. VanmindNo Gravatar says:

    Definitely a tool, but not the tool. Think of tyrants in ancient China where 99.999% of the people looked like the same “race.”

    Sound, on the other hand … as Marshall McLuhan said, one must actively choose to look at something, but sound comes into the brain from all sides without so much as a how’dya’do. Tyrants in ancient China probably used the varying dialects of different provinces for divide & conquer strategies.

    How many bigots remain who assume that southerners are stupid because of the drawl? Ever laugh at the way foreigners pronounce words that are common to your language? Does a lisp on an “articulate” white person make you giggle louder than the urban slang of some non-lisper with darker skin?

    Ever seen Chappelle’s Show? Funny, funny sh*t. There’s one skit where a blind black man becomes a KKK-loving n-word basher, all because he can’t see the extent his own error. Compare that with Chappelle doing his famous on-stage “white man” accent — hilarious to the audience because it contrasts what they’re choosing to look at with the sounds their auditory system is forcing them to hear.

    There are no ear-lids. That is all any tyrant needs to understand. The masses are illiterate? All are stricken with Saramago’s white blindness? No problem, they will listen.

  8. A little simplistic and disingenuous ?
    We have to accept the fact that people will always discriminate, and it starts with discriminating in favour of their families.
    Human beings are naturally tribal, it there isn’t a tribe we very soon form one, we do it all the time, we keep sub-dividing ourselves.
    For example, say we are all UK citizens, (1 tribe) then we subdivide into say English, then county, town football team, and so it goes on.
    We cannot help ourselves, its in our genes, we like to make associations with like people, it gives us security

  9. Susan L.No Gravatar says:

    The introduction to this article immediately brought to mind Jane Elliott’s “Angry Eye” experiments in the ’60s (and beyond). It is a striking example of just how easy it is to convince people their superiority or inferiority to others, and the dramatic changes in behavior relative to the person’s designation. While Elliott used eye color for her experiment and BillyRock imagines using hair color as a divisor, in fact, we can be grouped by any number of factors, including invisible ones, like religion/religiosity, nationality, political affiliation, or personality trait.

    While Jane Elliott used this behavior modification technique to demonstrate the ease of external manipulation in an attempt to educate people out of their prejudices, imagine how successfully the technique would work towards more nefarious ends. Unless the majority of us worldwide wake up, we are nothing but lambs to the slaughter.

  10. Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

    Susan: Most people live their lives half asleep. Always have. It is the job of the intellectual to wake them up. Meanwhile, the few (less than 2%?) who are awake need not perish with them, or join their destroyers. Knowledge is power. We have opened our minds and empowered ourselves. All our survival requires is that we act on our knowledge.

  11. Steve MerrittNo Gravatar says:

    A stimulating article bathed in naivety. ‘Races’ are biologically real (though we can’t delimit them precisely), and are certainly not ‘sociocultural constructs’ The ‘sociocultural constructs’ thing is simply political correctness imposed on biological reality.

    The truth is unpleasant and therefore unpopular: humans (primarily in the western world) have invented a social “reality” that denies reality itself.

    The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence — the process of divergent evolution — to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.
    -Richard McCulloch

  12. michael barkerNo Gravatar says:

    “The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence — the process of divergent evolution — to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.”
    -Richard McCulloch

    Richard McCulloch’s “declaration of racial independence” is hard to take seriously from a Statist committed to racism as the main feature of government.

    What we know now is that “isolated populations” were not so isolated and that evolution took an accelerated leap forward when agriculture came into society. Humans can evolve quickly and though race is a factor in regards to IQ, Human adaptability can improve over a few generations not ten of thousands of years.

    The naïve are those who believe their race is somehow superior and that a homogeneous race will continue to improve upon it’s perceived superiority. To the contrary homogeneous species will reach a genetic plateau bringing about their own decline.

    • michael barkerNo Gravatar says:

      This article from a leading psychologist follows the same line of thinking.

      http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Gottfredson.htm

      To me their seems to be a disconnect within the Liberty movement. That is the denial that racism is a factor in anything. Racism is oppression and is the uniform of the ruling tribe. We have science that clearly shows IQ and intelligence is genetically tied to race. We have history that shows that the ruling empire was often times the one with the greatest intelligence and that racism was used exploit and marginalize weaker tribes. Yet we have Liberty minded people like Stefan Molynex who won’t accept that racism is hierarchal just like religion and statisim is.

  13. MassinissaNo Gravatar says:

    I’m all for fighting racism, but if you think that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of whites, blacks (native humans), and asians apart, only changed hair or skin color, then you’re very much deluded.

    A white man is genetically closer to a white woman than to an asian man.

    There’s no drug that gets sold in the markets without being tested on at least the three major races. Many drugs have different effects on different racial groups. Do your research.

    And we can figure which race is someone only by studying their bones.

    It is not a social contruct.

    We should appreciate, respect and embrace our differences. I’m all for that. Trying to ignore them is stupid. Trying to abolish them is near to criminal.

    Oh, and I’m doctor.

    • StevenNo Gravatar says:

      I am an Electrician…We are ALL the same where it counts.It is that simple and no amount of psychobabble will convey me to other than than the facts I see before me.the differences are subtle and only used to advance the goals of the criminally insane rich of this shot hole!!.We now must fight and eliminate the enemy.57 and tired but willing to shed all blood.US Navy 1974-1980 where we THINK.

  14. NJWeedmanNo Gravatar says:

    LOL – She’s making a good attempt at rationalizing or analyzing whats going on from a naive point of view – the REALITY IS people are RACIST. Racism is real, all whites arent racist and most blacks who speak out against racism arent either -.

    Why is you speak out about racism are you called the racist – ( I.e. – Professor West, Al Sharpton, Jessie etc., etc., ) Walter Williams is so confused he even works for FOX NEWs -lol

    http://www.njweedman.com/index.php/my-thoughts-blog/256-13thamend mentslave

    • DarrenNo Gravatar says:

      Hi Ed,

      Your post is a strange one to put on an anarchist website. We oppose the racist war on drugs. We oppose the govt having a police force & kangaroo court system to implement the war on drugs with. We oppose the lock’em up punishment view of justice. We propose instead that the standing law enforcement establishment be disbanded to be replaced by private companies & community militias. We support the private provision of law & security so there will be no incentive to go after victimless “crimes”. We also favor a system of restitution rather than punishment for real crimes. Will this be perfect? No, but it will be far better than what we have.

      What Amanda is getting at is exactly what Booker T Washington meant when he wrote in 1911:

      “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” (My Larger Education p. 118)

      Don’t let yourself be played by these race baiting clowns.