Hewn in Veins of Blood: Divine Law, Nationalism, and the Hierarchy of OppressionJordan Shanti I Politics & Government I Commentary I May 3rd, 2014
The law is a social code put into place by those who have property and personal interests to protect. Contrary to what those who hold the scepter proclaim, the law is written neither by god, nor by popular opinion. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of capitalist politics understands that the laws are made through a series of money transfers and corporate-friendly loopholes, and are then enforced through again another set of bribes and underhanded deals. It is, of course, in the interest of the state to promote the idea that the law is established by general consensus, mirroring the universal consciousness of the nation - even among an educated population the law is seen with a sort of divinity, as though god is personally invested in the law of any given state. Yet, when the will of two different states contradict, of course god always seems to jump to the side of whoever has the bigger weapons and deeper pockets. Strange, it seems, that god would seek to exert his will through corporate corruption, bourgeois bribes, and devious drones.
When the issue of borders and immigration arises, there is of course no question as to the justice of the laws which are in place, or the reason which the laws were originally set and still remain in place, because as we've already established, the law is supposedly put in place by god. You can't question divine authority. The question of so-called "illegals," or undocumented immigrants, is most often settled without ever questioning the purpose of those laws.
"If they want to be in our country, they should do it legally. The law has been established by the Lord, and is in place for a reason."
But please do tell: what reason is there ever to draw lines through a grassy plane, dividing the elm from the oak, the orchard from the pasture? The two farmers standing in a field looking out at their land are suddenly divided by some arbitrary and imaginary line, and from that time on are each subject to the whims of a different set of corporations, politicians, and club-happy police officers. If one of these farmers then seeks to travel to his neighbor's farm, he is breaking the law of the land, and henceforth the law of god. But what god would interest herself in policies which divide, fragment, and commercialize her earth? If she so desired, she should have drawn the lines herself in veins of black stone, to indicate from the very beginning that she didn't intend for us to dwell together in peace or friendship, but intended instead for us to focus our efforts and natural resources on competition and oppression.
But the lines which designate borders, drawn arbitrarily down fields and through mountains, are instead hewn in veins of blood. What truly separates the first farmer from the second? The first farmer's son, commanded by the state, now murders the nephew of the second farmer in the battlefield. To what gain? In what interest? Both had fought for their respective "nation" because they were ordered to by their divinely-inspired government. Never mind that god, for some reason unknown, sent only the poor and uneducated to fight. Never mind that he pitted them against each other. "Nay," both sides assure themselves, "the Lord is on our side."
But if one of our farmers seeks to cross the invisible border, she is now in conflict with the interest of nationalism (read: racism), and has thus been stripped of her right to place her feet upon the earth. So, if an agent of the state seeks to apprehend her, he is more than justified in doing so. What right has she to tread upon the land of a foreign tyrant? Does she, in her illiterate ignorance, not understand that capitalists have a vested interest in the division of states? If they permit free tread, next it will be free trade. God forbid. If the state cannot account for each human within its blood-drawn borders, how can it fully exercise its right, its duty to oppress and extort?
If the "mexican" enters the land of the white, how can the white government ensure white supremacy? There must be documentation for immigrants, in order to maintain the present order of oppression. Whites should be oppressed by their government on an appropriate scale meant for whites. But mexicans must not be oppressed on the scale of white oppression, unless they are willing to give up their own culture and crawl like a rat through the maze of submission to prove that they acknowledge white superiority. Only then may the mexican be allowed to live in the white's land and be oppressed under the white code of oppression.
The white state doesn't ask much of them. The state merely asks that they acknowledge white cultural superiority, before they can live in our land. In fact, in our magnanimity, we allow a selection of people from any race. Humans from around the world are allowed to live upon our land and submit themselves to the local exploitation of our government, as long as they agree to place the yoke of western superiority upon their brown shoulders.
Under the current order, the american state is hard-pressed to ward off foreign invasion of culture and capital. There was even a case within the last few years that, amongst the indiscriminate killings instigated by remote control, toy, killer airplanes, an american citizen was targeted and killed. Of course, he was not white-skinned, and not in the country at the time. But he, as a citizen, was an honorary white. Nevertheless, the state deemed it necessary to kill him because he allegedly had friends who didn't approve of america's attempts at global domination.
We showed them. But what a shame, because he was a citizen.
There is no shame in the other thousands killed by these killer toy airplanes, or the millions killed in the massacres in vietnam, cambodia, afghanistan, indonesia, or even the brown-skinned people who originally inhabited american soil. Not shame, but national pride is in order for such discriminate killings. Such instances are unavoidable though, and not in any way contrary to the stated ideal. I don't in any way mean to imply that the white government is opposed to oppressing whites; I only mean to say that there is an essential order which must be adhered to.
In our post-modern society, we have moved past the prejudices of our past. A Black man or a Hispanic woman can now have the same opportunities that in the past were only afforded to white males. Gender and skin color can be somewhat overlooked now, for it is truly the heart that matters. Anyone who has proven to have surrendered their own culture or gender in favor of white culture and a man's position is warmly embraced into the western culture as an honorary member white.
In the hierarchy of the state, there are several factors determining a human's position. First, of course, is their humanity. This qualification immediately sets them as intrinsically far higher than any of the feral lower life forms - animals, forests, river systems, death row inmates, etc. Second, is that they have adopted the ideal of "westernism" and forsaken their own cultures and values. Third, and of course closely related to the second, is that they have acquired significant capital. The fourth is the willingness to use that capital and position to oppress others. Even if one meets all the former criteria, if they are not willing to accept the position offered them and partake in the systems of oppression, the former are all made void. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and all the way down, aren't as strictly arranged, but still play an important part in the hierarchy of oppression.
It should be noted that the forces which promote such oppressive systems and ideologies are rarely evil overlords or people with dark makeup, black trenchcoats, and menacing smiles. It should further be noted that those with dark makeup, black trenchcoats, and menacing smiles, are typically those on the bottom of the hierarchy; indeed it is their bones capitalism is built upon. The thieves, drug-addicts, prostitutes, and terrorists may in fact be some of the less-corrupted souls left among the masses of asses.
I leave you now with the following questions. And may your search for the answers involve much sweat and many tears. And potentially some handcuffs:
What place does the state have in regulating which farmer may cross which blood-hewn boundary?
What place does the state have sacrificing the blood of the poor in order to secure its own interests?
How can a group of rich, corrupt, dishonest, and removed men create systems which promote equality?
Why would they want to?
What interest do you have in recognizing oppressive laws (such as immigration laws)?
Does god determine the political destiny of a nation?
Why, then, does he choose the wealthy, sociopathic, and violent to lead?
What is the role of an honest and just person living in a society of oppression and domination?
What are you going to do about it?
"In a society that imprisons unjustly, the only place for an honest person is in prison."
- Henry David Thoreau