Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
Pin It


We all have an inherent desire to be around people that are similar to us, be it similar in appearance, similar in interests or similar in beliefs, but is this really a good thing? Is it possible that our desire to belong actually alienates us?

Human nature is an interesting if not fickle and eclectic mix of emotions and emotional responses. It is quite natural for humans to have a desire to be a part of something larger than themselves, furthermore, this also tends to large groups of like-minded people gathering together and uniting in a singular group. This habit or human trait is well documented and evidenced in our love of sports groups, types of music, literature of choice and even with the foods and drinks we love or love to hate as the case may be.

It is not so frequently noted, and certainly not so well documented or researched, that this same desire to unify, also provides the gaps necessary for us to be isolated, separated and ultimately divided as a single species. Whatever our individual idiosyncrasies and quirks may be, at the end of the day, we are all part and parcel of the same species and if anything, need to look beyond our differences to find our common ground and to unite as a single species … a single race if you will.

The concept of Divide and Conquer is at least as old as the ancient Chinese writings of Sun Tzu, and some of the lesser-known Japanese warrior-poets and warrior-philosophers of their day, in addition to many of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Romans may have sought to actively unite the world, but if anything, the necessary forms of governance and military to accomplish such a feat, only served to further divide the people and to foment en perpetuity, the idea of an “Us and Them” mentality among all of the decidedly “Un-Roman” peoples.

This is a pertinent lesson that should not be lost on modern society or its various and sundry governments. Thus, labeling is necessary to unite the people, but also one of the most prevalent tools used to divide the people as well.

On the one side of the discussion, labeling is both necessary and pertinent. If everyone is special than nobody is special. If everything is cancer than nothing is cancer. If a male is a female is a dog is a human ... this can go on indefinitely and never get anyone anywhere. If someone purchases a can of pears, they want to know that it is pears and not canned mystery meat. There is an inherent need to know and understand the who and what and why of the things that comprise our everyday life.

Any effort to disavow labels would result in chaos and a never ending battle of words and context wherein meaning was relevant only to the here and now and there would be no real context to any conversation … not without labels.

Thus, it is necessary that certain “facts” be well defined, quantified and labeled. The only other option is complete chaos and ensuing madness.Among the most controversial of these situations at the time of this writing is with “self-identification”. Scientifically, there is and always has been an X and a Y Chromosome. There is now and always has been a male and a female of the species in both plant and animal life. There are also numerous known and some well-documented cases of hermaphrodites and other exceptions … after all, it is the exception that makes the rule.

However, if the very masculine male living next door wakes up one morning and has a wild hair up their … keister … the overall public consensus is that the rest of the world must not only know this … even without being told, but also agree to it and bow to whatever their personal delusion may be at any given point in time. There are quite literally places in the world where you can be thrown in jail for not knowing, without being told, that this very masculine man now identifies as a female child … and failing to address him as such. In some places, they will not only demand that you be thrown in jail for not knowing this, without being told, but at the same time, make a demand that this man be allowed into the restroom with your pubescent daughter.

To say that this is sheer madness is an understatement. The labeling has been reduced to such a meaningless state that it has moved well beyond pointless and into the realm of the absurd … and weaponized as a means to control society and further to label others … often to the point of great detriment to the one now being stuck with an unearned label. In order to reduce the ability of society to label people, people are allowed to create their own label, and the rest of the world must know what this label is, without being told what it is … because that is not being sensitive to their needs … and if you do not, you are now worthy of being jailed for your crime of “thinking” or “believing” that a biological male is a male and that a biological female is a female.

As an interesting side-note, I happen to live where homosexuality is very open and common. The males, no matter how effeminate, are still addressed as sir, and the females, no matter how masculine, are still addressed as ma’am (or “mum” in the local vernacular). While there will always be bigots and idiots, for the most part, very few people care about the personal proclivities of others here.

However, an easily identified male is still addressed as a male and an easily identified female is still addressed as a female. Thus, there remains a viable social network and fabric, stable in nature, despite the commonality of “quirks” to the “natural” state of affairs. Some people do not fit directly or conveniently into that label, but they do not actively seek to disrupt the social balance and do away with any constant meaning to viable and necessary labels and create chaos and madness in the process.

While it may be a trifle uncomfortable for people who do not wish to conform to accepted standards to try to fit within a label that does not fully or accurately describe them, it is still necessary in order that there be some certain level of meaning to the labels, at least insofar as it is necessary to quantify the entity who is being dealt with. This is even more important when these “self-identifying” people … assuming of course that whatever they self-identify as is human in nature, have the right to scream about feeling hurt and having other people literally prosecuted for not recognizing whatever they may self-identify as at any given moment.

These arbitrary and varying standards can only lead to ruin and chaos as they will be conveniently used to protect whatever the victim class du jour may happen to be while at the same time being used arbitrarily to punish anyone who dares not bow down to the new gods of chaos and madness.

It is difficult to imagine, but I have personally shown this in my writing on many occasions, most notably when I am discussing more “sensitive” (read: politically incorrect) subjects. I can lay out ten points or a hundred points that we all have in common but people who perceive me to be “attacking them” will look only for that which they disagree with. Each and every piece of information that they agree with is casually dismissed and tossed by the wayside while they immediately jump up on their “Holier-Than-Thou Throne” and begin casting stones.

Why this is especially noteworthy, is that I generally include this within the writing itself and point out that it will happen, though generally towards the very end of the article where very few people are actually going to read it anyhow. It is very rare, indeed, it is the proverbial exception that makes the rule, when one of these people will even acknowledge any common ground for discussions to commence. Not only do these people refuse to confirm that there is any common ground, but attack me for pointing out the fact that we actually have a lot in common and more than enough commonality to commence to “discussin’ without the cussin’” but such is rarely their desire. It is far easier to attack the messenger and dismiss the entire message than it is to take a moment to be a little more introspective and objective, to actually defend our individual beliefs for the actual benefit of people on all sides.

Until we can return to a point wherein we can discuss our common grounds and our common interests, this division of humanity will continue, much to our own detriment. If you are so insecure in your faith or in your beliefs that even the mere mention or site of a differing point of view is perceived by you to be a threat, you my friend, are part of the problem and will never be part of the solution until you can change your attitude.


Let us know what you think please!

Comments Powered by Intense Debate!

Go to IntenseDebate

Pin It