Imagine 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.