Divide, Diversify and Conquer

“The quickest way to control a population is to turn it against itself. Divide, Diversify and Conquer.” That’s how the British ruled India. 

If you want to run a City or Country for the benefit of all the people who live in it, by contrast, you’d do the opposite of this. 

 

You’d deemphasize racial and gender differences along with wokeness, and NOT highlight them for political purposes.

 

You’d understand that in a society and community of many different ethnic groups, tribalism (Neotribalism) is the greatest threat to unity and order. And you would resist using the existence of racism and gender as an excuse for failure.

You would never allow anyone gender or race to blame an entire racial group or one gender for the sins of its ancestors. As this would serve only to embitter and divide the population. It might make a politician's job easier in the short term, yet over time it would wreck the City; community and indeed the country itself.

Politicians and businesses once understood this.

 

Politicians, today no longer oppose segregation. They no longer insist on treating all genders and races equally. They now consider gender and race the centre of human identity.

They demand that individuals be exalted or punished because of their gender or skin colour. Human citizens must be judged on what they do, not on how they look or who their parents were or what their ancestors did or did not do. 

Our elected politicians and political parties, at one time, stood for and said they did not believe in collective punishment or reward. They stood for and believed in the Individual. That’s why they opposed segregation.

 

Today activist protestors from numerous high schools, universities and colleges are demanding spaces entirely off-limits to WHITE people and are demanding segregated meeting areas within these publicly funded institutions of learnings, for Blacks ONLY.

 

And that is NOT what the honourable Reverend Martin Luther King stood for during his short life. And NO media, politicians, professors etc. have acknowledged the irony of banning people, WHITE people, or others based on skin colour.

 

Tell me, in the USA for example, when the Brown versus Board ruled that school segregation was ILLEGAL, then how are any of these today's efforts to divide people by race, colour, and gender legal???

 

For generations, it was an article of common sense and faith among politicians and businesses that integration was the key to racial and gender harmony. Bigotry grows from ignorance, was the assumption. The more personal exposure we all have to different groups, the more we’ll come to see that everyone’s basically the same. And that understanding is far less divisive than what we are now seeing today.

 

It’s sad that we no longer hear much from our so-called political leaders, academia, or business executives about the importance of racial and gender harmony. As the emphasis now is on our differences which is the essence of the diversity agenda, #IMHOPEOPLE.

 

And not surprisingly, this has led to an explosion of racial and gender hostility in North American life. It was once considered the greatest possible sin to criticize someone for his/her skin colour or gender. Yet today and now it is regarded as a sign of enlightenment. And it's everywhere, in academia, politics and business, but especially on campuses throughout Canada and the USA. and within the administration of cities, municipalities and towns.

 

The identity politics and policies of today may make a City, State, Province, or Country easier to govern, and it also makes them all much harder and unsafe to live in. Identity politics is based on the premise that everyone is a member of a subgroup, usually a racial or gender category.

The point of achieving political power is to divert resources to your group. Which is another word for tribalism!

 

And this my friends is the most divisive possible way to run a Country, City, Province, Municipality, State or Business. Because they are not about ideas, they are based on inborn characteristics, tribalism, wokeness and identity politics which are inherently unreasonable.

As there are no winning arguments of different opinions, or even having them. There is only victory or defeat for the groups. And this is NOT democracy its fascism at its worst.

 

In North America, virtually every non-white and or gender groups reap advantages from being racially and or gender-conscious and politically organized. So how long before someone asks the simple rational question: Why should the whites in North America not be allowed to think of themselves as a group and thus organize and agitate along racial and gender lines, too?

 

And when this happens and at this rate of identity politics it will, and when White people become another interest group politically fighting for the spoils, Democracy throughout North America as we’ve known it shall be over. In the sense that we’re all in this together, united by citizenship in a common endeavour of some kind, as Citizens of a Country, City, State or Province, that shall end forever along with democracy, free speech, diversity, and integration.

 

All thanks to politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, special interest groups and lobbyists have developed a whole series of institutional problems and the lack of political legitimacy because of how politicians, academia, judges, and businesses fail to behave morally; ethically and transparently in matters that are central to the lives of most people and treated such obligations as unimportant.

 

They ALL equally are responsible for encouraging today's permissiveness in the bedrooms that have found their way into the halls of Justice, Boardrooms, Political Parties and Governments. Diversity through wokeness is a new failure of society that is putting us all back into tribalism of Divide, Diversify and Conquer.

So-called self-proclaimed leaders, thanks to the media, in business, education and politics through their actions or non-actions have continued doing their utmost, NOT to create environments where people of all backgrounds, regardless of colour etc., can maximize their own potential.

Therefore, we need to work together democratically, to take power back from political parties, businesses, and academia, in my view.

 

 

PS Seeking wisdom based on facts then read Ship of Fools by Tucker Carlson (Author, Narrator)

 

The Motives of Scientists

Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment, they get out of the work itself. 

Yet, of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists.

As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician, or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyl trimethyl methane? Of course not. 

Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he/she is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. 

If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some non-scientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t care about isopropyl trimethyl methane or the classification of beetles. 

Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case, he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyl trimethyl methane. 

In any case, it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. 

The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up. 

The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of humanity most archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. 

Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement. 

In my view then, conceivably, science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of humanity or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research and then profits from said research.