By Steven P. Kimball

To understand the 137 year long effort to eradicate our heritage and culture, we need to understand the Theory of Empire.

The Theory of Empire, also known as ‘Divide and Rule,’ ‘Divide and Conquer,’ and ‘Struggle of the Classes,’ may be stated in its simplest form as follows: An empire cannot be long or efficiently maintained through fear of imperial force. It must be maintained through fear of one’s neighbor. As long as the fear of one’s neighbor is greater than the desire for freedom and self-determination, the empire will be safe. Subjects in the conquered territory will happily accept the presence of the empire and its militia as a stabilizing force. If, however, fear of one’s neighbor is allowed to lapse, nationalism and the desire for freedom will surely rise to dangerous levels. The empire will be at risk until fear and distrust among the subjects can be recultivated.

Following is a thumbnail history of the development of the theory of empire.

Alexander the Great conquered the entire known world before he was 30 years old, through brilliant military strategy and brute force. However, after Alexander’s death, his empire fell apart even quicker than he had built it. The problem was no one knew how to keep an empire together except through the use of brute force, and force simply wasn’t enough without Alexander’s military mind.

The Roman Empire succeeded where Alexander failed. According to Edward Gibbon, author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, at the height of this empire the ratio of Roman soldiers to subjects was even less than our ratio of policemen to citizens today. Those few soldiers rarely fought, except to either expand the empire or to support one despot over another in battles to determine who would be emperor. The secret of the Romans’ success was an occupation strategy they called Divide and Rule. Under this strategy the subjects of a conquered land would be separated into ethnic or religious groups and, through the judicious use of propaganda and sedition, turned against each other. The use of this strategy required identifying and then exploiting pre-existing mistrust between groups. Once the conquered subjects had been turned against each other the Roman legions could settle back into a peace-keeping function, with each group willing to accept the military presence for safety’s sake. The Roman General Julius Caesar secured his reputation by adapting Divide and Rule into the military weapon of Divide and Conquer, used in the conquest of Gaul. It was that success which eventually enabled him to destroy the Roman republic and declare himself the first Roman Emperor.

Karl Marx renamed the Theory of Empire as the ‘Struggle of the Classes.’ This form, refined by Lenin, became the basis of Communist rule, and has since become the basis of power for leftist governments world wide. The Democratic Party’s favorite trick of dividing its constituents into separate classes, for instance, trade unions, low incomes, self-employed, gays, blacks and whites, and then promising each concessions without regard to promises made to any other class, is taken straight from Karl Marx and Julius Caesar.

Use of the Theory of Empire does eventually exact a high cost. As the empire recedes or loses influence, the religious or ethnic groups which have been deliberately separated and kept at a low boil with hatred for each other explode into violence. The shrinking Roman Empire left behind a quagmire of feudalistic wars and ever-escalating violence.

Modern empires have also flourished through the use of the Theory of Empire. The Russian Empire and its short-lived successor, the Soviet Union, made full use of its twin strategies. The U.S.S.R. government collapsed in 1991 and its empire began to recede. In its wake it left eddies of violence between religious and ethnic groups, the inevitable result of ‘Divide and Rule.’ The violence in Kosovo, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Soviet republic of Georgia, and Kazakstan are some examples of this violence.

The greatest empire which has ever existed, the short-lived British Empire, depended almost exclusively on the Theory of Empire. For example, in Uganda hatred between African tribes and between Africans and ethnic Asians was exploited. The withdrawal of the empire resulted in one of the more famous violations of human rights under control of the tyrant Idi Amin. He expelled 70,000 Asians and exterminated over 100,000 of his own people before being deposed in 1985.

In India the existing mistrust between Hindus and Moslems was fanned almost to the critical point, then kept under control through the presence of a small peacekeeping force. The empire lost control of India only after Mahatma Ghandi came to understand the methods used by the British. Non-violent action was an important part of the resistance; however, the true reason for the Indian victory was Ghandi’s success in deflecting the attention of Indian subjects away from their neighbors and onto the empire itself. The empire could no longer function in this environment of passive resistance, and was forced to retreat. One of the many legacies of hatred the empire left behind was the explosion of religious violence and the subsequent separation of Hindus and Moslems into the separate nations of India and Pakistan. This hatred is still in constant threat of exploding into a nuclear war.

There is also some indication that Britain intended to use the Arab-Israeli conflict to help it regain control of the Suez Canal. The canal had been completed by the French for an Egyptian company in 1869, and Egyptian company shares were purchased by the British in 1875. The British Empire considered the Suez Canal vital to its interests and insisted on maintaining forces there, an arrangement made more formal in 1936, influenced by events eventually leading up to World War II. After the war Egyptian nationalists began demands that the British evacuate the canal; the end of British influence in the canal was in sight.

The nation of Israel was formed in 1948, as the direct result of British involvement and encouragement of Zionism. The stage was set for a classical use of ‘Divide and Conquer.’

As Egyptian nationalists continued to gain support for exclusive control of the Suez Canal, Egypt refused to allow shipping to or from Israel to transit the canal. In 1954 Great Britain appeared to capitulate and signed an agreement to gradually withdraw forces from the canal; by 1956 all forces had been withdrawn, although the canal was at that time still considered an international asset. In 1956 Britain and the U.S. withdrew offers for assistance on the Aswan High Dam, and in retaliation Egypt seized the canal as Egyptian property. Israel, effectively locked out for all time, invaded Egypt in October 1956. British and French forces immediately attacked the canal, and in only three days British forces had raced the entire length of the country and had control of the canal and all its defensive installations. Although Egyptian forces had sunk 40 ships in the canal, effectively blocking it, this was only a temporary setback; ‘Divide and Conquer’ appeared successful. The British Empire had gained complete control of the Suez Canal. Then, in a completely unexpected move, Egypt appealed to the United Nations and won. The U.N. forced a truce in November, and British forces were withdrawn in 1957.

Although ‘Divide and Conquer’ had failed to gain ownership of the canal, its legacy of hatred continues today. It also appears that the forces of ‘Divide and Conquer’ are still hard at work in the Middle East, when we consider the actions of the protagonists. Arab forces have been consistent in their goals; they want their lands back. Israeli forces likewise have been consistent; they are fighting for their right to survive. U.S. Forces have been, shall we say, somewhat less than consistent. For instance, Iraq and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, were provided with military aid and encouraged in aggressive military actions – as long as the U.S. government approved of Iraq’s targets. The US. did not approve of Kuwait as a target, and the Gulf War was the result.

The Russian invasion of Chechnya was denounced by the U.S. government and by all U.S. based media, and Chechin citizens were portrayed as brave freedom fighters; that is, until the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, cited Abraham Lincoln’s invasion of the Confederate States of America as a precedent. Then all objections and all media coverage came to an immediate and unexplained end. Now Washington is demonizing Chechnya, apparently as preparation for an invasion.

The U.S.S.R’s invasion of Afghanistan was welcomed in Washington as the ‘Soviet Viet Nam.’ Weapons and military advice were provided to ‘freedom fighters’ such as Usama bin Laden as the war went on and on, for over fifteen years, until the Soviets finally withdrew. Now the U.S. is embroiled in Afghanistan, a land where the strategy of Divide and Conquer’ has never been successful at preventing its people from attacking an invader. Every empire which has attempted to absorb Afghanistan has eventually failed.

And now back to our country. The United States of America came into being because of an apparent oversight by the British. The English seat of power at Whitehall considered the people in the American colonies as British, since that was their ancestry. It simply never occurred to them that British subjects in a foreign land would eventually come to view themselves as being under the thumb of a foreign empire, so the doctrine of ‘Divide and Rule’ was not employed. The predictable result was the

[first] American Revolution.

The situation in 1860 was radically different than those now in power would have us believe. The South was the only area of the country where slaves were being systematically freed and and successfully entering free society. Slavery was on its last legs in the South, but not necessarily in the rest of the country. The excessively brutal laws requiring return of runaway slaves were a last gasp effort by those few Southerners who favored slavery to maintain the status quo. Under the Jefferson Davis Voluntary Plan for Manumission [a program which has been successfully suppressed in modern history books,] slaves were assigned work quotas and were being paid for exceeding those quotas. They were also allowed to maintain outside jobs for pay after their work was completed. Money earned was used to buy freedom for themselves and their families; in this way they were entering freedom with a strong sense of confidence and self-worth, and with the knowledge of the value of their labor. These newly freed people were successful, some unbelievably so; the construction company which earned the contract to provide all roads and bridges in the Confederate war effort was started and owned by a former slave. At the start of the War for Southern Independence, 60% of all slaves were in the Northern states; 4 ½ million slaves in the Union vs 3 ½ million in the Confederacy. The numbers of slaves have been hidden in the 1860 Census by simply declaring a miscount on slave population in every county in every state outside the South. The New England states were still working on ending slavery there; not by freeing slaves, but by exporting them. Pennsylvania was the first state to begin this process, with a law in 1792. This law required that all slaves born after 1792 be freed on their 30th birthday. The intent, and the effect, of this law was to give Pennsylvanian slave owners sufficient time to sell their human property elsewhere. The remainder of the New England states followed suit, and began exporting slaves. In this way New England shipping companies gained a monopoly on slave trade, providing slaves both from New England owners and from Africa to over 190 countries and colonies. The last state to finally free all slaves was Massachusetts, in 1868; the New England slave trade continued with the blessings of the U.S. government for another 24 years after the so-called Civil War, when its last slave market, Brazil, finally ended slavery in 1888.

Before the start of the War for Southern Independence northern and Southern states were divided over the issue of slavery. Northern objections at that time were not so much on the presence of slavery, as on the presence of blacks; slave or free. This attitude was demonstrated beyond any doubt by the northern black laws. These laws prevented newly emancipated blacks from emigrating from the Southern states, with penalties ranging from monthly beatings to imprisonment and deportation as slaves to death for the entire family by hanging.

The War for Southern Independence forever changed the basis of American government from the consent of the governed to the acquiescence of the survivors ; in other words, Empire. The New England government was now faced with the problem of how to most efficiently maintain and exploit that empire. At that time familiarity with the classics, including Latin and the history of the Roman Empire, was considered the basis for a well-rounded education; it is no accident that Latin is now seldom offered in the American education system. That familiarity with former empires suggested that the only way to control the subjugated Confederacy was through the strategy of ‘Divide and Rule.’ The implementation of this strategy seemed natural to the Northern conquerors, since part of the plan was to force a ‘civilized,’ that is ‘Northern’ set of values on the South. That set of values included hatred and mistrust of all blacks.

Segregation was forced on the South at bayonette point, in imitation of the Northern system of apartheid. Black puppet governments were set up in every Confederate state, under the control of New England’s Union League. National census figures indicate that over three million Southerners, black and white, disappeared from the face of the earth during this terrible dictatorship; the occupying forces were ordered to burn all county courthouses and insure the destruction of all records, to cover up this horrible orgy of genocide. Virtually every piece of documentation written before the 1960’s refer to that time in Southern history as ‘Negro Rule’; the role of the Union League and of the military occupation which kept the black government in line through the use of terror remains for the most part hidden even today.

By the end of World War II an equilibrium had been reached in the Southern states. Southerners had gotten used to segregation, and were no longer at each others’ throats. There are some of us who can still remember segregation in the South. We had separate entrances and exits, sat in different areas of busses, restaurants, and theaters, and had separate schools, doctors and hospitals. Every large retail store had separate facilities marked ‘White’ and ‘Colored.’ The worst punishment I ever received as a child was for drinking from a water fountain marked ‘Colored.’ I remember this punishment vividly; it was because ‘a policeman might see!’ This was nothing to do with right or wrong; it had everything to do with law. We were the survivors of a people who had Northern laws forced upon them at bayonette point; like any subjugated people, we learned to take the laws of the conqueror seriously.

And yet… as children we came home, and black and white children played together after school. We helped each other in time of need. We went into each others houses and sat at the same tables. We treated each other with respect. But we pretended not to know each other in public. At work, in the stores, in restaurants, we followed the empire’s rules, and accepted them as normal.

The Federal Education system had played an integral part in ‘conditioning’ school children of both races to accept segregation as normal; anyone who can remember a prickle at the back of the neck, that feeling of ‘wrongness,’ at seeing someone of another race where they supposedly didn’t belong, has suffered from that conditioning. I still remember my exposure to it. In my first years in school, the children’s book ‘Little Black Sambo,’ about a little African boy who tricked tigers into racing around a tree until they turned into pancake butter, was required reading; it has since been banned as racist. I also remember a film we were required to watch, which claimed to explain the Federal government’s ‘humane’ treatment of blacks when it tried to ship them back to Africa after the ‘Civil War,’ and the supposed unreasonable objection of some of those blacks and of some do-gooders who stopped them. This propaganda film showed black actors, immaculate in top hats and tuxedoes with tails, walking down the gangplank of a three-masted schooner, and reclaiming huge steamer trunks and piles of cargo which had been graciously provided for them to form the new all-black utopian nation of Liberia.

The problem was, that ‘conditioning’ was too successful. After World War II Southern nationalism began to flourish again. Confederate battle flags began to be seen more frequently, and Southern pride was growing by leaps and bounds. Industry was moving to the South. Black and white alike had become used to segregation and had almost completely lost the fear of their neighbors; and, conversely, segregation was slowly beginning to unravel. According to the Theory of Empire, the American empire was in danger.

The answer was the Civil Rights movement. Its purpose was to reinstate the fear of one’s neighbor. Integration of schools was carefully staged in small but slowly increasing numbers, to produce the maximum effect. ‘Conditioned’ Southerners had no choice but to react to their feelings of ‘wrongness.’ Few can forget the televised sight of Governor George Wallace standing up against Imperial forces in an attempt to stop one lone, small, scared looking black girl from entering a college. Civil Rights was producing the desired effect. Soon the entire country was discussing the merits of ‘de jure’ vs ‘de facto’ segregation. The courts ruled that the differences between the two, which sounded suspiciously like the medieval arguments over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, really boiled down to this: De jure segregation, which was the name given to segregation in the South, was evil and had to be rooted out. De facto segregation, as Northern segregation was named, was perfectly ok and should remain.

Southern schools were slowly integrated, in a manner carefully timed to produce the maximum unrest. After the shock value of continued integration had diminished, bussing was introduced. In virtually every Southern city children in the youngest grades were bussed to schools in the poorest ghettoes; parents driving their children to these schools drove past dilapidated and crumbling houses, and unemployed and despondent looking blacks watching them drive by. They were forced to leave their young children in schools surrounded by fences, in some cases topped by barbed wire. High school children were bussed out to the suburbs, so that those in the more affluent neighborhoods would be forced to see young blacks on the way to school driving past in their banged-up and smoking cars, the only transportation they could afford to buy. At first two sets of standards were used, one for blacks and one for whites, to convince both the children and the parents of both races that black children really didn’t belong there, that black children were not smart enough to compete.

Affirmative Action was introduced, which really had two main purposes. The first was to get unqualified blacks working beside whites. The qualifications for black employment were lower than those for whites, by law. Whenever two people were available for a job, one black and one white, the black would get the job if neither were qualified; if both were qualified the white would get the job and a higher ranking job would be made available for the black. The second, and more sinister purpose of Affirmative Action, was to make sure blacks remained convinced that the only way they could compete with whites was with preferential treatment.

From the early 1960’s until the early 1990’s the empire seemed safe. Integration was complete. Racial tension and the fear of one’s neighbor seemed assured for all time. But, the Federal plan for integration had one serious flaw: it did not take Southern blacks into account. To the empire the most important trait of Southern blacks was that they were black; in reality their most important trait was that they were Southern!

The Civil Rights movement was designed to force these Southern blacks to fail. The intent was for them to become frustrated and lash out. But, like all of us in the South, these Southern blacks were descended from proven survivors. Their ancestors, like ours, had been beaten, starved, robbed, burned out, and threatened with extermination. All they needed was the slightest hint of a chance, and they grabbed it. They succeeded despite every encouragement to fail. In every affluent neighborhood in the South today you see blacks and whites living and working side by side, getting along, and comfortable with each other.

Here, then, is why the NAACP’s efforts at cultural genocide and the fight to resurrect racism must continue. Southern nationalism once again started to reappear after the U.S. government had intervened in Kosovo, and Southerners began to realize how similar Milosovec’s actions were to Lincoln’s. Civil Rights had failed to keep black and white Southerners at each other’s throats. Marx’s ‘Struggle of the Classes’ simply doesn’t work when members of the opposing classes are having barbecues together, baby-sitting each other’s children, and dating. Now, the Federal government is faced with the task of finding a way to once again force Southerners to fear their neighbors. And once again, the NAACP is doing its part.

Original Link:

Copyright © 1998 – 2002 PG/Media