.png){kind=small}
Divide and Conquer
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." -Malcolm X
The only freedom the rich care about is the freedom for them to make as much money as possible. This often runs at odds with the freedoms the rest of us care about.
​
Those with power cannot (or don't want to) fix any problems in society that their greed has caused by putting profit over people and giving welfare to the wealthy. To avoid accountability they invent new problems to divert our attention. While we're blaming each other for our problems, our anger is not pointed at who are actually responsible.​
How they make this strategy work
"When the axe came into the woods, many of the trees said, 'At least the handle is one of us.' "
-Turkish Proverb
​
Figures that deploy divisive strategies are often rich and powerful and have nothing in common with the struggles of normal people. But they pretend that they are the same as us in various ways.
Elites need you to feel you can relate to them, so you’ll side with them and therefore against the people they’ve decided to scapegoat. By siding together with normal people, it is easier to “other” outside groups and to create an "us and them" mentality. The purpose is to manipulate normal people buying into an agenda that only suits the rich.
In reality those that are holding all the cards – with all power, wealth, and influence – have managed to convince working people that the real enemy is those who the same or worse off than them.​
It's a grift. Appearing relatable
Whether it is Boris Johnson trying to be man of the people when he is a privileged Eton educated millionaire, the Conservative government complaining about the state of the nation even though they had political power for over a decade, or GB News claiming to be anti-mainstream and against the "liberal elites", when they are owned by billionaires and staffed by high-profile politicians.
Donald Trump ran his campaign as a conservative Republican. He tried to appear relatable to his voter base by pretending he was religious. These videos below who he clearly doesn’t know anything about the Bible.
While trying to be relatable, and a focus on culture war issues, such as curbing immigration and building a border wall between Mexico and the USA, he also passed laws in which billionaires gained $1 trillion during his time as President.
The establishment elite pretending to be anti-establishment
In another attempt to be relatable, a common feature of establishment politicians and the media to pretend to be anti-establishment.
​
They co-opt terms like “elites” to signify those with more progressive views and use it as an attack line. The irony is the people saying this are the true elites in terms of money and power. ​​
Claiming they represent the silent majority
Figures that employ the divide and conquer strategy often describe themselves as a voice of the silent majority.
​
They often pretend that an issue has been "silenced" by the "liberal elites" and that their opinion is too socially unacceptable or not "politically correct" enough to hold. They often make these claims when there is no evidence to support this. For example on the issue of immigration, politicians and factions of the media peddle the lie that it is rarely talked about. Even though it is constantly discussed in Parliament and in the mainstream media.
​
Rather than representing legitimate views of a silent majority, they're stirring up anger and hatred by manufacturing problems with little basis in reality and, often, outright lying about threats we face.
"Just saying what everyone else is thinking..."
​
Commenters and politicians also claim to or say what most people are thinking, making our their bigotry is actually bravery.
​​Controversial statements made by these people are often made without any proof of being true. But once hateful words are said, they cannot be put back. And if said by someone with a public profile, it becomes a news story, a debate which needs to be "balanced", often unfairly. This gives the bigoted view more airtime, which normalises it.
​
It makes people that hold these often fringe views to feel more emboldened and justified to speak their mind more openly. This broadens the window of things that are acceptable to say in general conversation.
​
That's how BNP policies became Tory manifesto pledges. See the example below of former Conservative Party Chair Lee Anderson, who claimed that "Islamist extremists" were taking over the UK. Even though the comments saw him sacked from mainstream politics, it still had the effect of opening up the debate on an issue which is demonstrably untrue, using Muslim people as the scapegoat.
"It's not the kind of language I would use, but..."
The words of people who take part in the Culture War can be sanitised by more moderate people without condemning it.
​
Braverman or Anderson can spread divisive bigotry while getting more "respectable" wings of their party to distance themselves from the language but agree with the sentiment.
The consequences of their actions
Speaking to hate will create more hate. It emboldens hate groups and activates individuals with hateful beliefs into taking action
​
Violence
​
It would be almost impossible to see the frequency of culture wars peddled by politicians/ the media and politically motivated violence and not draw a connection.
The media claims they are reflecting the "legitimate" concerns of the public. But in reality, they're the ones who manufactured these concerns through their discriminatory, biased rhetoric and, often, lies.
There are many examples of mass shooters in North America that have been radicalised by mainstream reactionary journalism.
-
The Quebec Mosque shooter had searched for prominent bigoted media pundits hundreds of times and consumed a lot of their content before the attack
-
A man responsible for a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York in 2022, cited his motivation as the “great replacement” conspiracy which theorises white people are being replaced by minorities in the US. This is a constant topic of discussion by a FOX news anchor and America’s most listened to pundit, who mentioned this racist conspiracy theory over 400 times in his shows.
-
The “great replacement” theory was also mentioned in the manifesto of the 2019 El Paso shooter, and echoes the language used by Donald Trump
This is known as stochastic terrorism, where the individual responsible is not part of a recognised terrorist group or network.
The UK has restrictive gun laws, but this does not stop ideologically-motivated violence from taking place.
In October 2022, a man attacked a migrant processing centre with a homemade bomb. This was not considered initially as terrorism by police, as the suspect was not part of a group, although this was later changed.
In Knowsley in February 2023, there were riots outside a hotel holding asylum seekers which led to a police van being set on fire. This was instigated by rumours and misinformation on social media.
​
Throughout August 2024, there were riots throughout England which largely anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. These included attacks on mosques, hotels housing asylum seekers, immigration lawyers, refugee charities and specific individuals. These were also sparked by lies spread online, including by serving MP Nigel Farage.
But it is not just social media to blame for violent radicalisation. There is so much reactionary and hostile anti-immigrant rhetoric, both among our politicians and in the media. When the following can feature in the biggest tabloid in the UK, is it any surprise when we see attacks like this?
Rolling back on rights already won
​
Not only is the divide and conquer strategy to distract us from how badly the establishment is failing us, it is also a strategy to roll back on rights which we have already won. An attack on the rights of any group that falls victim to a culture war is an attack on all our rights.
​
Human tragedy at the hands of other humans never starts with bombs or guns, it starts with words. Just look at the call for some politicians to leave the European Convention for Human Rights (EHCR), a campaign created by the anti-immigrant culture war. However, the EHCR covers more than just the rights of immigrants. Abandoning could have creeping affects all our lives and our basic human rights.
Example: Climate Activism
Climate change has increasingly become a culture war issue.
​
The protesters from organisations such as Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain, have faced a lot of criticism for their methods of raising public awareness of the impact of climate change and the imminent threat to humanity if changes aren’t made to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
​
Certain factions of the media and politicians are working hard to turn the public against these protests. It is no coincidence that the continuation of using fossil fuels serves the interests of the elites (they’re making money). But divide and conquer has been used in this instance, to manipulate us and to sow hatred toward those fighting for the future of our planet and those who live on it.
Because the billionaires who make money from fossil fuels, and those on their payroll, do not have any real arguments as to why we need to take action to save the planet, they resort to bad faith arguments. For example, personal attacks which brand protesters as upper-middle class hippies with nothing better to do, i.e., not like you, normal people. The following example is particularly illuminating:
The article personally attacks eco-movement protesters as posh people who are not “tortured by the curse of time and money to worry about existential doom.” Note the use of “us” by article author Zoe Strimpel here, a journalist who attended a private boarding school and went to Cambridge University.
​
Let's not lose sight of the reason why climate protesters are doing what they are doing. You may not have agreed with how they acted, but did they deserve to be physically assaulted because you were an hour late for work?
The government can then capitalise on the division whipped up by the billionaire apologists and the media to justify imposing authoritarian laws, which will not only be used to stop these protesters, but also against others.
​
It is a scope creep towards the state having more power and control over our lives.
Turning climate change into a culture war issue as an election strategy
​
From mid-2023, we are seeing the Conservative roll back on net-zero commitments. Despite environmental issues being a key part of their 2019 election manifesto, they are now turning it into a wedge issue to gain a few votes from Labour and get good headlines in the billionaire-owned media. They're doing this by telling outright lies about what net-zero plans were, as the community notes on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's tweets show
Example: Strikes for better working conditions
The rich, through big business have cut pay and cut corners to make more profit. The government are enabling this through various laws which put profit over people.
Now, lots of industries are taking strike action because they’ve had enough of years of exploitation while the people at the top are richer than ever.
The billionaire-owned media, whose loyalty are to other rich and powerful people and not the public that consumes their content, are likely threatened by the increased empowerment of the majority as that could also negatively impact them.
Certain politicians and the media pit “hardworking members of the public'' against nurses, rail workers, ambulance drivers (whoever it may be) as if these people are not also hard working members of the public. The media puts a wedge between those that are striking and everyone else, even though we are one in the same, with the same struggles.
See the below article from the Sun. There is no good defense of rail companies' record profits while the staff see a fall in pay and working conditions (a similar struggle experienced by many of The Sun readers). So they use bad faith arguments to help their case, such as attacking Mick Lynch (an elected trade union leader), comparing him to the Grinch who wants to ruin Christmas for us all, rather than directly engaging with his arguments honestly.
Also note the irony of the above article from the Sun and the video below, which features two Sun and TalkTV commentators complaining striking workers have too much power and are unaccountable. Both outlets are owned by one man: Rupert Murdoch, an offshore billionaire with a large share of our media, and a stranglehold on UK politics.
Another example of the establishment media turning on strikers is The Telegraph's framing of facts in an article published in 2022. ​
​
The Telegraph cites the fact that the UK Government have bailed out rail companies by £50 billion since 2016. They use this fact has an attack line against striking workers, framing their apparent greed against British households who are funding their salaries.
The Telegraph fails to mention the greed of those at the top of the organisation. An investigation by OpenDemocracy has found that rail operators still pay millions in dividends despite not being profitable without Government support. Just one company alone, FirstGroup, paid £50million to shareholders in 2021. And the six largest operators paid £5 million to their CEOs in 2020. Furthermore, rail companies are compensated by Government when strikes are on, meaning they get paid regardless, while workers do not.
​
The consequence of divide and conquer against trade unions is that it creates an attitude that we all must accept getting poorer as a fact of life. This should not be the case given the fact money is still being made by people at the top and the rich are richer than ever.
​
But if you're ever looking for which side to take during strikes, always ask more questions of the side with more power and money.
Example: immigration
“It’s the economy, stupid” is the famous line used by Bill Clinton’s campaign team when discussing what really mattered to people. But when the economy is tanking in the UK, and the party who has been in power since 2010 has been making things worse, they and their supporters need to plunge new depths to maintain their popularity. Immigrants are used as a scapegoat because they can be blamed for services getting worse.
​
Falling for the lies about immigration, whether economic or from people seeking asylum, is playing into the 0.1% hands
Newspapers have been using immigrants as a scapegoat for years to defend the interests of the wealthy and perpetuate hatred. It is an effective technique. The following graph shows the public’s concern with immigration aligns far more with how much newspapers talk about it than the actual numbers. This shows the impact the media has on manipulating public opinion.
Since Brexit, public interest in immigration declined. However, the ruling politicians clearly saw an opportunity to reignite the conflict for their own gain. In October 2022, with Tory polling at an all time low, incoming Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made reducing immigration, both legal and illegal, a key priority.
By turning people against immigrants, it creates a “problem” that doesn’t exist. They can claim to be the only party that can offer the solutions to fix it (even though they’d been in power since 2010).
Immigration is also used to increase wealthy elites’ relatability with the public. Here, look at the irony of former home secretary, Priti Patel, claiming to be in opposition to “metropolitan elites” when she herself is a millionaire.
When the damage that this tactic could do is pointed out to them, they act oblivious to the harms their words and actions can have.
The example above highlights the end point of dehumanising of large parts of society. The consequence of this hatred, as history has shown us, is disastrous.
Example: Benefit claimants
Despite the rich getting richer, the exploitation of workers, and evidence that the wealthy do not contribute their fair share to society, governments prefer to balance the books by punishing those on benefits, rather than pursuing those that are not paying their fair share of tax.
​
In order to justify, and get public support for, cutting services and cutting benefits, politicans and the media portray those on benefits as moral failures who are too lazy to work.
One example is Suella Braverman, in the video below, attacking benefit claimants while she was campaigning to be Prime Minister 2022.
As of September 2023, 38% of people on benefits are in work. Most benefits supplement low-incomes or support people who cannot work.
​
An argument for for cutting benefits is that it will incentivise work, but studies have shown that this tactic has pushed people into lower paid jobs, with fewer career progression prospects.
​
Poverty
According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there are almost no examples of generations of families who have never worked.
​
It is undeniable that poverty causes many problems in society. But in one of the richest countries in the world, there is no excuse for anybody to live in poverty- it’s a political choice.
Demonising the poor is convenient for the 0.1%. It gets the government out of facing the societal consequences of making people in this country poor. If we treat the symptoms as moral failings of individuals rather than failures of government, they can get out of spending less to try and fix it. They criminalise the homeless so that they do not have to house them. They criminalise drug addicts so they don’t have to address substance abuse as a public health problem.
Look at the below front page of the Daily Mail (who are owned by offshore billionaires) from 2022 which sums up every point made so far. Also note the irony that a front page with a headline saying "Something for Nothing Britain" also features a photo of Boris Johnson
The sick and disabled
Now, those with long term sickness and disability are increasingly scapegoated.
​
Since 2020, the number of those who are sick and disabled has increased significantly. Rather than interrogate the cause of this, the Conservative government at the time want to redefine sickness/disability, particularly mental illness, so they can stop paying benefits to those who have previously qualified.
​
Governments intent on a culture war always need new targets to hide for their failings. There are millions of people on waiting lists for treatments via the NHS, people are still living with long-term impacts of long Covid and there is a mental health crisis in the UK where it is difficult to get adequate support. Rather than look to fix the causes, it is easier to attack those suffering. Because solving these problems would take a lot of money, and the easiest way to raise this money would be to address the soaring inequality in this country by taxing the super-wealthy, which nobody is willing to do.
​
So once again, the most vulnerable are forced to solve a problem they did not cause, all while being demonised by the politicians and the media who stand up for wealthy interests rather than the majority's.
Example: LGBTQ+ rights
If you feel there is more conversation about transgender issues in the media than ever, you’d be right. Between 2015-2020, coverage increased 400%
Why the obsession when it did not exist before?
The LGBTQ+ community is misrepresented in the media, and are portrayed as a threat to everyone else. As there is no data or facts to back up their arguments, they resort to bad faith arguments to sow division.
As ludicrous as these conversations are, it can lead to debates which have terrifying consequences.
With these increases in attacks on trans people in the media and politics, it is not surprising that in 2022, the Home Office reported a 56% increase in physical attacks on trans people in the UK, a record high.
