The Prince Divides Us

Who is dividing us against each other?

If you just thought of some group made up of ordinary people like Southerners, blacks, conservatives, immigrants, union workers, gays, “Evangelicals”, Muslims, Jews, liberals, Tea Partiers, environmentalists, red states, blue states, etc.


Otherwise, you are just another useful idiot for those who are dividing us.

The front men are easy to identify, but who are their backers? What may seem like the most harmless divisiveness is actually serving as an effective distraction while they perpetrate wars, financial fraud/bailouts, etc. When the divisiveness itself is more than a distraction, it can manipulate enough voters to manufacture a majority for candidates or policies that reduce our wealth and our freedom.

America’s Founders made a great leap forward when they founded America on the liberal principles of tolerance, individual freedom, small government, and equal application of the law … I know … These principles don’t sound anything like the bullies in academia, the media, and government today who call themselves liberals, but let’s not get sidetracked. The liberal principles on which America was founded would logically and inevitably someday include all races, nationalities, religions, genders, etc. It should thus be no surprise that America is the least Racist country in the world. Therefore, it is difficult to divide us.

I know … there have been very big and very real issues dividing Americans since before the Revolution, but that is similar to the history of every country. What is different about America is that by 1970, these issues were pretty much dealt with, and it was then just a matter of healing – but those who benefit from divisiveness won’t let us heal. In fact, they manufacture new divisiveness—and most of us are useful idiots for them.

Part of the new divisiveness is the way the original divisiveness was resolved—as if were intentionally designed to foment new divisiveness. Examples are Title IX and racial quotas. Nevertheless, we could easily overcome these new attempts to divide us if we were only allowed to discuss it—but debate is not allowed.

Whenever I try to debate such issues, within seconds, I am branded a racist. Whenever some movement, like the Tea Parties, tries to break out of the cage, the entirety of academia, the media, and government are mobilized to neutralize them. It is even worse for those individuals who are the putative beneficiaries of government action—like blacks, women, or gays who are conservatives or libertarians. Such brave independent-thinking rebels must be neutralized on an individual basis at the earliest opportunity, or else just one of them could bring down the whole charade.

What is unusual about the front men who have been trying to divide us since at least the 1960’s is that they are trying to gain power over their own people by dividing their own people against each other in a manner very similar to that which Machiavelli prescribed for how a Prince could gain power over a foreign people. A Prince would not divide his own people because that would weaken his own kingdom and make him vulnerable to the influence of foreign Princes taking advantage of the division among his own people.

To summarize Machiavelli in his 1513 treatise “The Prince”: To emulate the most successful kind of Prince, you should find a disgruntled minority in a population and offer to champion them against the majority, and that minority will then recognize your authority over them and over those they hate. They will invite you into their fight. They will invite you into their land—even if you come from another land, and even if they have less in common with you than with those they hate, and by siding with you, an outsider, against their own people … then their own people, the majority in their land, will be demoralized and defensive. Then you must unite the people you just conquered, both with each other and with those you already rule. After consolidating your power by uniting the people, you can extract wealth and power from them to use when you find another people to divide and conquer.

Some of the earliest division in 20th century America was sewn by an assortment of fascist and communist sympathizers. Some liked all flavors of collectivism, while others liked a particular flavor of collectivism. Some were working for the USSR, some were just sympathetic to the USSR, some were just sympathetic to communist or fascist ideas, some were just useful idiots who resented the success of others, and no doubt some of these would-be Princes were just posers who liked how they could apply Machiavelli to get political power for themselves at the expense of the whole nation, but they had the one common characteristic—they applied Machiavellian principles to divide the American people.

Around 1913, the majority of collectivists (communists, fascists, socialists, and progressives) in America were actually pro-American and wanted to unite America. It was then that these collectivists took over the Democratic Party.

In the 1930’s, the collectivists in Europe, such as Mussolini and Hitler,  were rapidly losing admirers in America. Then, of course, there was WWII, after which the original collectivists of Europe had lost all credibility.

In the 1970’s the collectivists in the uber-fascist USSR and China had lost all credibility. Also, the communist flavor of fascism had also lost all credibility. Therefore, in America, we were left with just those posers who had begun trying since the 1960’s to divide us for own their personal benefit. The 1960’s also saw a resurgence of the various forms of fascism (other than communism), such as socialism and progressivism, all of which we just called “big government”—so they didn’t know they were fascists—because we didn’t call them that.

Until the 1960’s, the majority of true believers in collectivism were actually pro-American and wanted to unite Americans, who would then take over the rest of the world through Machiavellian principles, thus leading to a world government—a New World Order. The true believers in collectivism who were trying to divide America also wanted a world government—a New World Order. They just didn’t want America at the top of it.

In the 1960’s, the collectivists trying to divide America took over the Democratic party, and the displaced pro-American collectivists, the FDR type collectivists, took over the Republican Party. Both Republicans and Democrats have been championing fascism/socialism/progressivism, whether they realized it or not, and they didn’t care too much which –ism resonated with the people because all of them were forms of collectivism, which we now call big government.

Since the 1990’s America has been the only superpower, so the political class feels there is little chance of a foreign power gaining control in America by dividing our people, so today, even the putatively pro-American collectivists—the Republicans, are also reaping the personal fruits that come from dividing the people. The Republicans are always behind, aren’t they? By playing the pro-American angle; however, the Republicans have been forced by our liberal founding principles to appear less collectivist as well as to appear more pro-American

To both parties, ideally, the individual would be nothing and the government would be everything. Conformity for the benefits of conformity are paramount to them. The government is the obvious solution to every problem. Of course, we the people now know that government is more likely to be the cause of every problem, and that brings us to the one true divide.

The only important divide in America; The only true divide in America, is WE THE PEOPLE vs. THE PRINCE.

In other words, the only important divide in America; The only true divide in America, is WE THE PEOPLE vs. THE POLITICAL CLASS.

With today’s advanced media, it is possible for the Prince to make two leaps beyond Machiavelli. Today, the Prince can use the media to actually manufacture animosity among a people and turn them against each other, and with today’s advanced media, the Prince has even convinced us that he is in fact—the people!

Only by thinking for ourselves, can we see beyond the Prince’s deceptions. Only by thinking for ourselves, can we see beyond the Illusion of Legitimacy.

In a world of princes and peoples, the central government is not the people. The central government is—The Prince.

The political class is The Prince.

Can our liberal founding principles save us? Is there anything in our history that we got right? Is there anything we can learn from our history that could help us fix America?

According to the political class, the answer is—NO! They don’t want to you to go there. If you go there, the political class and their useful idiots will call you a racist, as a little bit of spittle runs from the corner of their mouth. Therefore, we must be on to something!

Prior to 1913, the kind Princes we have today—the banal bureaucrats who aspire to get all up in our business—were practically non-existent. Prior to 1913, if you wanted to be a Prince in America, you had to be an entrepreneur. You had to provide a product or service for which the people would voluntarily trade you the fruits of their labor.

Before the “Progressive” era, there was simply no opportunity for the Bill Clintons and the JFK’s. They would have been selling snake oil from a trailer as they moved from town to town, and they would have loved it, as they moved from town to town impregnating and abandoning the women.

Before the Progressive era, America was a time and place unlike any before or since. The more honest among those-who-would-be-prince, basically minded their own business because they and any other entrepreneurial individual could acquire power that was transparently and obviously commensurate with their talent by simply competing in a free market. They were entirely free to compete to provide a product or service for which the people would voluntarily trade the fruits of their labor. Imagine the healthy self esteem that comes from such honest success, and contrast that with the transparently obvious shame that would have come from any other means of success.

After 1913, government was becoming an alternative opportunity for the Bill Clintons and JFK’s, but it was organized crime that offered the biggest success for the dishonest majority of Princes.

In the years around 1913, under President Woodrow Wilson, government itself was becoming a kind of organized crime, and so government corruption of the free market had begun. For example, Prohibition not only created organized crime, but also, the advent of the Federal Reserve, government regulation of business, and the income tax, had begun to transform the mainstream business world into a kind of organized crime as well. (We call it crony capitalism today). Both government and mainstream business were not only transforming into a kind of organized crime, but the the whole economy—the whole American system—had been fatally infected.

Then FDR transformed government into the preeminent opportunity for the Bill Clintons and JFK’s. On top of hidden Ponzi schemes like the Federal Reserve, he added more explicit Ponzi schemes like Social Security and Fannie Mae. He even confiscated our gold so that we could not protect ourselves from government Ponzi schemes. FDR and the Federal Reserve turned an ordinary stock market crash into The Great Depression—sound familiar?

The Supreme Court struck down most of FDR’s schemes, which prompted him to try to expand the size of the court and then fill the new seats with justices guaranteed to pass his schemes. However, at the last minute, one of the justices started changing his votes and began upholding the rest of FDR’s schemes—almost as if his life depended on it.

By the 1960’s, the dishonest Princes had nearly exhausted the possibilities of gaining power through the traditional Machiavellian means of uniting the people while dividing and exploiting foreign peoples. In the 1960’s, under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, the political party of Wilson and FDR began furiously dividing the people against each other and making us as dependent as possible on government (them)—all as a means to expand government as an opportunity for the dishonest Princes.

Around 1913, the dishonest Princes began transforming the whole American system into a kind of organized crime and a kind of Ponzi scheme, but America was lucky because our competitors were destroyed in WWI and WWII, and some continued to destroy themselves with communism.

America’s luck has run out.

By the 1980’s the political Party of Wilson, FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and Obama, had fully transformed the whole American system into a kind of organized crime and a kind of Ponzi scheme—which is crashing now. (Don’t be deceived by the MSM or the slow motion of the crash.)

Thanks to our founding principles, it is some consolation that women and minorities are allowed to participate in The Great Ponzi.

Some have described this century of progressivism (a.k.a. fascism) as “Emancipating Slaves—Enslaving Free Men.”


  • Anonymous says:

    Other than me, does anyone read this hyperbole?
    All I can tell is that everyone is wrong, except you, but I'm not sure what it is you're right about? Is there an article in this windy blog that specifies what your philosophy is?

  • Jim says:

    I wondered when someone would make this criticism. I plan to create a FAQ, but I keep thinking, "Who would want to read that?" I could also organize my articles now that there are more of them.

    I am not starting from a specific philosophy. I am open to all ideas. I am figuring it out from scratch. That is what independent thinkers do. Enjoy the journey.

  • Anonymous says:

    Jim your thougth process is unbelievable… I just feel truly sad that no one around me are as interested in reading this as they should. Great great article.

    Greetings from Luanda, Angola.

  • Anonymous says:

    I would agree that divisiveness is seeded among us constantly as means to keep us from unifying into a cohesive group against our “masters” and no one disagrees with each other openly because we are taught this is offensive; however, I would argue that your piece indicates you are still feeding into that divisiveness and perpetuating the voice it has been given. Why must we always label things (i.e. conservative=good, liberal=bad, or vice versa)? Yes, we can/should identify them as different, but different & disagreement is good because it is what makes our society healthy and only when we can set aside labels and discuss the subjects before us independent of those prejudices can we truly be free of the divisiveness set upon us. Independent thinking is not linked to any party or faction, it exists within the individual who is willing break themselves from the habits we are taught from the time we are born. As an aside, I would also argue that the plans to turn this country into virtual playground from corrupt politicians began far before 1913. Check my information, but I believe Andrew Jackson thwarted attempts to create a central bank in the United State and we all know he who controls the money, controls the politics. Even though Jackson succeeded in extinguishing those efforts, the plans were already set in motion to create a state controlled by an elite.

  • >