Respect for all sorts of social division is increasingly being taught throughout human culture. Why are we being progressively taught this idea? And why is it that some divisions are to be respected — typically religious differences — whereas others are to be shunned? Why is every sort of newly-invented gender to be considered sacred when entire nations are branded enemy states?
Answer: unless one sees through the ruse, all this keeps us divided, confused and malleable in the hands of malign minds that see the human race as a resource to be kept stupid in order that it be exploited.
Do we respect groups we do not belong to when we see them clubbing together such that they exclude us in favor of their own members? Of course not. But what is any social group if not a collection of individuals identifying with one another whilst separating themselves off from those outside the group?
No matter how we might try, and whatever we may have been taught, it is perfectly natural and probably in our best interests that we feel at least some small level of dislike for every group we do not belong to. Perhaps we even feel some dislike for the groups we are affiliated with since we all know somewhere inside that our true commonality lies in our shared humanity, and therefore groups rooted in religion, ideology, nationality, race and so forth are divisive and socially problematic. This is not the writer’s idea; our troubled world is the concrete evidence.
Divide-and-conquer thinking lurks beneath the modern idea that accenting any and all cultural differences is inherently good, and this is exactly why we see the scheming forces of politics relentlessly encouraging so-called diversity. In short, they are tacitly fomenting hatred under the guise of respect-for-the-other. Again, this is not the writer’s idea; the etymology of diversity is linked to division, disagreement and perversity.
Similarly, at a time when so-called hate-speech is being banned, censored and demonized everywhere, the very parties enacting all this social control in the name of showing respect are only feeding the hatred they hypocritically claim to address.
Free speech is free speech devoid of all ifs and buts. Its existence requires that people can emotionally handle whatever they do not enjoy hearing. And the very nature of free speech is that anyone can, if they so choose, respond to whatever they disagree with or whatever might offend them. Moreover, resolving our petty and fleeting differences is a sound reason for debating matters in the first place. So, without the ability to criticize the ideas and stances of others — especially the dogmas of powerful social movements separating themselves off from humanity as a whole — the current scale and general misunderstanding of human problems is only to be expected. The fact is that, not only do too many in powerful places simply not want any enlightenment of the people to happen, but they are actively promoting the idiocy of social division as a form of supposed wisdom.
Artificial and socially-imposed would-be respect for diversity only breeds hatred, and it is the socially corrosive aspect of so-called multiculturalism that explains why we see all these ideas promoted from on high. The social harmony idealized within popular narratives of multiculturalism is in fact the last thing those who promote the concept would welcome; their ability to rule through division might be seriously undermined. Hence, they promote tolerance for the other precisely because they know the real-world result will be ongoing social conflict.
I can respect anyone for who and what they are — their so-called diversity included. But such respect is not for the other person’s desire to see themselves as essentially different from me; it is rooted in my own self-respect and tolerance for what I consider the stupidity of their desire to see themselves as fundamentally different.
Hatred can only exist within a blindness regarding our common humanity. So, when will it be realized that this so-called diversity is in fact the nefarious propagation of social division beneath a cunning veneer of respectability? Whilst tolerating any such foolishness might be commendable, promoting it is certainly not.