True

Diversity

 

+++++++

 

What Authentic

Diversity Means, and How a

 False ‘Diversity’ Has Become One

of Many Idols Befogging Our

Feeble Minds Today

 

 

 

+++ 1. The Irrationality of Modern ‘Diversity’ & +++

‘Identity Politics’, Along With a So-Called ‘Racism’, etc., or

the Tyranny of Accusing Someone of ‘Microaggressions’

 

The early twenty-first century is a strange time to be alive.

 

Since the mid-twentieth century and the outbreak of what real Catholics describe as the ‘Great Apostasy’, we have been taught that ‘discrimination’ is one of the worst sins that a person could commit, and that a purported ‘diversity’ is one of the best things you could wish for. To think otherwise automatically & inarguably makes you into an ‘extremist’, ‘bigot’ or a ‘supremacist’ (usually with ‘white’ in front of this last accusatory label).

 

The hackles on the back of your head already starting to rise, my dearest reader?

 

Then, please, calm down, be an adult, and listen before flying off into a rage.

 

Proof I am not an ‘extremist’, ‘bigot’, ‘supremacist’ or etc. is easy to see:

 

·        One, I was raised by a mother fervently devoted to the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King in the United States. She most definitely drove it into my head that you are not to look down upon, mistreat or otherwise denigrate, anybody who is ‘different’ from you or said to be ‘lesser’ than you.

·        Two, the best boss I have ever worked for (and I’ve had a lot of jobs…) was black. Or, if you will, African American. I had no problem following him and he was the most patient, most fair & most considerate manager I have ever had the privilege to serve under… especially in an oh-so-lovely ‘corporate’ setting.

·        Three, my father-in-law was Jewish. Yes, that’s correct, Jewish. Guess I didn’t have a difficulty with that, did I? And, though he and I were very different people, once he knew that my wife & I were truly in love, he kindly & diligently treated me like a son. I.e., our distinct ethnicities were not a problem for either of us.

·        Four, one of my best friends in college was gay. And in love with me. So… guess I could handle that one, too, couldn’t I? He remained my friend, I still hugged him, we politely disagreed about whether homosexuality was right or wrong, and… we were still able to have a whole lot of fun times together in peace.

·        Five, I almost certainly have Dutch Jewish blood in me, and probably have at least a tiny bit of African American heritage through my father’s family’s ever-so-long-ago roots in North Carolina. And, guess what? I’m perfectly fine with that. Even a little thrilled about my own personal ethnic ‘diversity’!

 

We could go on, but this is plenty if you’ve an ounce of logic or niceness.

 

Plainly, you’re not dealing with ‘bigotry’ or ‘racism’ in this small article. Just a person --- a human being --- who is bothering to say, “Hey, you know? I’ve lived all of my life with the idea of ‘equality’ at the top of my list as an American citizen. So how come it never seems like everybody gets treated like an ‘equal’, no matter what? How come there’s always something or someone oppressing somebody else? Will we ever get it right? Furthermore, could it possibly be that we’re barking up THE WRONG TREE?”

 

That’s the crux right there, dear soul. We’ve meant well, but we’ve gone astray.

 

The wrong tree means we’ve both twisted & misinterpreted the word ‘racism’ into something it’s not actually correct or wise to think; we’ve done the same thing to the word ‘diversity’; we use ‘identity politics’ to divide rather than unite; and we lob the accusation of ‘microaggressions’ (very commonly heard at today’s universities in the United States) as a way to shut down civilized discourse rather than to engage it.

 

In short, we’re NOT more free or equal today. We’re more TYRANNIZED.

 

It’s one thing to disagree or debate. And it’s not polite or civilized to unfairly hurt, slander, or otherwise mistreat one’s fellow human being, especially your own fellow citizen or neighbor. Notwithstanding, it’s also not polite or civilized to make it next to impossible for a fellow human being, citizen or neighbor to disagree, or to have a debate, with you about something that is very, very, very important to someone. To simplistically & stupidly stigmatize, shout into silence, slur, or refuse to listen respectfully to, a person who is earnest or intelligent, when grappling with a subject that is divisive, is to be an immature jerk & childish dictator… period. This is what today’s identity politics & microaggressions, etc., have done to us. We’ve become little, selfish, stuck up prigs.

 

We pretend this is okay by saying we’re fighting for ‘rights’ or uphold ‘diversity’.

 

When, in reality, we’re being bullies and make other people into our toadies.

 

And it all started with the fight against ‘racism’. This was a huge issue that most Americans, eventually, could get behind and agree with one another on. This is because, at heart, most Americans once believed that everyone in our country should have a fair chance at life. It doesn’t matter whether this belief was true or not. That we sincerely believed it to be true is what is relevant. Because what we believe in is what shapes attitudes & goals. Hence, however ‘imperfect’ the reality of life in the US for many, simply believing in this principle bound us together more than anything dividing us.

 

That unity is now lost. For a pretty obvious reason, too. By the 1960s, more and more people of a ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ political persuasion began to do more than merely ‘disagree’ with their fellow Americans. They began to condemn and started to act ‘holier than thou’ toward their peers. They refused to listen to, refused to care for, and refused to treat with respect, their fellow citizens. They looked down upon and disdained them. By the 1980s, more and more people of a ‘conservative’ or ‘reactionary’ political thinking returned the favor. They began to condemn and started to act ‘holier than thou’ toward their peers as well. They also refused to listen to, refused to care for, and refused to behave courteously to, their fellow citizens. They hated and disdained them.

 

Oh, sure, you can say that I’m ‘oversimplifying’ things. I won’t argue.

 

But, then, could you handle a really exhaustive analysis?

 

Probably not. That’s why I dare to simplify things.

 

The point is, it’s the 21st century now, and all this bad behavior has borne bad fruit. The wrong tree? To judge by the fruit, I’d say so. It looked good at the time to get solemnly pompous about civil rights in the 1940s, ’50s, ’60s & ’70s. Most Americans agreed, eventually, that we should treat our fellow Americans, of a darker hue of skin, with greater justice & kindness. This ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ we have tried to extend to ethnicities of every kind in the ‘melting pot’ of America. Yet then came unending identity politics. Everyone & everybody gets a label. And if not a ‘victim’, then, obviously, you’re an ‘oppressor’. This stops rational discourse very quickly.

 

Don’t get me wrong. I still think we should treat fellow citizens fairly.

 

I just think we should have gone about it in a very different way.

 

A far wiser, much more prudent & ultimately better way.

 

Because when is brutish tyranny ever a good thing?

 

We’re fighting another civil war now, although so far without rivers of blood.

 

Well, not so much blood. Not as much blood --- yet --- as in the 1860s. Must we be militant & violent again? Must we kill each other and hate mindlessly? Wouldn’t it be smarter to learn to be less ‘sensitive’ and more patient with one another? Wouldn’t it make sense to grow up, be an adult, and learn to listen and speak respectfully? Is it possible --- do you think? --- to hear an opinion that opposes yours, and, without throwing a tizzy fit, try to understand your opponent? Moreover, that, if we can’t persuade the other side to agree with us, figure out, instead, where we can be in agreement? And, where implacably opposed to each other, we try to figure out, nonetheless, how to give a maximum amount of liberty to the opposing side?

 

This would be true tolerance and true liberty in a truly free country.

 

Shocked & appalled? Outraged? Hating me with a passion?

 

Hmmm… that sounds kind of intolerant to me.

 

Yet perchance you accuse me of being ‘microaggressive’. After all, to speak about ‘identity politics’ like I have is really just ‘code talk’ for being an ‘extremist’, ‘bigot’ & ‘supremacist’. Ah, well, then. You’ve just made my point for me, poor soul. Because I have said nothing nasty or impolite toward others. I’ve actually spoken nicely about a variety of people, having lived, worked, befriended & interacted with these people at great length. Your only real beef can be that I dare to question the logic, wisdom & rightness of microaggressions & identity politics, and that I’ve dared to suggest that we should have gone about acquiring civil rights for some of our less fortunate citizens very differently. And I’ve said these things not to be ‘nasty’ (that’s your interpretation of my words, what you so badly want to think you heard me say). Contrarily, I’ve said these things to get everybody, here or anywhere, to be nicer & fairer to everybody else.

 

Including you. That’s right. I want to be nice to you. Think you might reciprocate?

 

For, while ‘civil rights’ were achieved with a lot of ‘marches’, ‘freedom rides’, ‘sit ins’ and huge public gatherings with very stirring speeches, etc., they were primarily gained, in hard reality at first, through two big things --- the federal courts and federal legislation. This then continued with another four big things --- federal executive orders & protocols, public schools, the mainstream media and corporate policy (especially policies of most massive, wealthy & highly influential corporations, which then filtered down to much smaller businesses as they followed suit, either out of genuine agreement or else the gargantuan fear that they’d go out of business or lose money if they didn’t comply).

 

After all, money talks. Loudly. Enough to make human beings go totally deaf.

 

Almost the exact same thing has occurred, since the 1980s, with ‘identity politics’ & ‘microaggressions’. There have been ‘pride’ marches and… well, not so much ‘freedom rides’ or ‘sit ins’, which seem kind of dated nowadays… but still big public gatherings and stirring speeches (albeit, the speeches grew increasingly strident, arrogant, rather insulting, and less and less elevated or noble…). Then came the federal courts and legislation. Along with executive orders & protocols, lots of indoctrination in our country’s public schools, megatons of cheerleading from the mainstream media, and --- like gigantic titans smashing skulls left and right, influencing or intimidating everyone --- massively wealthy corporations crafting policies that followed the overarching goal, we were told, of making us more ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’… or so it would seem to be.

 

Well, except for those who disagree, ever so politely, with their ultimate goal.

 

They weren’t included. In fact, they are coldly and resolutely excluded.

 

(Read: ostracized, reprimanded, threatened, suspended & terminated.)

 

Which, you would think, then destroys a real & genuine diversity. I mean, who’s courageous enough to stand up against Goliath? Who’s willing to risk a career, be the outcast, or find one’s self unable to support a family? Who’s brave enough to be tarred & feathered in the mainstream media or social media as an ‘extremist’, ‘bigot, ‘supremacist’ or ‘unloving’? The latter is the allegation of microaggressions turned into a big, huge macroaggression. In this case, ‘diversity’ doesn’t really mean diversity. It means uniformity of thought, dear ‘friend’ --- and you’d better get in line or else!

 

Thus, is it any surprise where this culminated? The proponents of identity politics achieved their greatest victory in 2015 with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Many states in the US had legislatively defined marriage to be between a man and a woman solely (although a few had done the opposite). It never was defined as such before, because no one, just a century or so ago, had ever presumed otherwise. For time immemorial, in most places most of the time, marriage, formally or informally, was always something human beings presumed to be about, and for, a man joining with a woman. This is why it was controversial when two gay men filed a suit against the State of Iowa in a US Federal District Court. They had received a marriage certificate in Maryland, where it was legal. The surviving gentleman (the other had died) then demanded that the Iowa death certificate list the deceased gentleman as his spouse. Together with five other consolidated lawsuits of a similar nature, Obergefell made its way up the ladder of federal courts to the US Supreme Court. In a sharply & heatedly divided decision (i.e., the Supreme Court justices themselves disagreed ardently), our Court of Courts suddenly (again) found a ‘right’ in our Constitution, never before seen, recognized or taught --- and never stated explicitly in its text --- under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, requiring all fifty states to legally acknowledge marriage redefined, simply because a few states had done this. It didn’t matter that the will of voters in other states was against this. God… or, er, the United States Supreme Court… had spoken, and we must bow to worship. Identity politics had won; the war was over. Or so it appeared. Because, you know, there is supposed to be ‘religious liberty’ in the United States. This principle is explicitly affirmed in our national Constitution. Any educated person knows this is true.

 

Has it suddenly disappeared? Of course not. It applies to our situation.

 

That’s what I mean by saying we should have handled the problem of ‘racism’ differently. Partisans of identity politics have stolen the ‘civil rights’ mantle and --- touting ‘love’, ‘diversity’ & ‘inclusiveness’ ---- have draped it around their shoulders. The courts --- particularly federal courts --- have generally bought into their claim. This is just another civil rights battle, say they. Or, that is, the same battle still going on.

 

And yet it’s not. No intelligent, learned, logical & honest person can agree.

 

It’s not about ‘love’, ‘diversity’, ‘rights’ or a purported ‘inclusiveness’.

 

Au contraire… it’s about hatred, uniformity, slavery and exclusion.

 

In a word, TYRANNY. Good-bye, Republic; hello, God-Caesar!

 

+++ 2. Et Tu, Brute? +++

 

Maybe it seems odd for a real Catholic to say these things. Perhaps both Catholics and non-Catholics wonder how a real Roman Catholic like me can venture these suggestions. It’s simple --- we’re not in a Roman Catholic country. Thus, until we’re Roman Catholic (as horrifying as that idea is to a non-Catholic…), the best a Roman Catholic can hope & pray for is a country where the leaders & people are truly tolerant of, and give real liberty to, those who are real Catholics. It doesn’t mean a real Catholic approves of everything his or her fellow citizens do or believe. It doesn’t mean we give up or deny the True Faith. It just means we don’t fantasize we can ‘control’ or pretend to ‘rule’ others.

 

To wit, we face reality and ask only that we be left free to be Roman Catholics.

 

In return, we are not ‘combative’ unless it regards the most grievous of sins.

 

And even then, if ‘outgunned’, we fight as MARTYRS… not as soldiers.

 

You savvy? This is first & foremost a spiritual war for all real Catholics.

 

We are not looking to ‘beat up’ people, murder anyone, or --- God forbid --- start a torrent of bloodshed, waging guerilla warfare or outright military battles on a colossal scale. It may come to that, regardless. Something almost no one --- least of all Catholics who are wise --- wants. But we are not salivating for it or trying to make it happen. Today is an era of martyrdom for Roman Catholics. If not actual death at the hands of cruel persecutors, then a ‘dry’ martyrdom as we suffer under tyranny & wickedness.

 

Meanwhile, we grapple with the actual situation. The actuality that we are tiny & few. The actuality that the world is getting more and more wicked, with sin rampant, and that there is nothing we can do to oppose it, apart from our prayers & sufferings. The actuality that the one single thing we dare to hope for… and work for… is that here, in the United States, we try to get our government to do what it’s supposed to do --- what it claimed it would do --- which is to be ‘antimajoritarian’ (a multisyllabic word that only a political scientist professor at a university would use) and thus protect minorities from being tyrannized at the hands of a majority that is prejudiced against us, persecutes us & condemns us with blithe satisfaction & brutal glee. This is what Catholics face.

 

Does anyone care? The United States government is supposed to care.

 

That’s part of what the guarantee of ‘religious liberty’ is for.

 

Yet it’s not just us. Real Roman Catholics aren’t the only ones who suffer. As a matter of fact, because we’re so few and mostly out of sight, we don’t suffer as much as others of some form of ‘traditional religion’. Evangelic Protestants, for instance, are bearing the brunt of it. That is to say, Evangelic Protestants (EPs) who are of a more conservative nature, and fervently so. They’re the ones being dragged into court lately, slapped by lawsuits and punished with state fines of thousands of dollars. They’re the ones right now… a few brave EPs, at least… bearing the brunt of the initial assault. But it won’t finish there. Unless enough Americans realize what’s going on, care about it, and push back, politely insisting on their constitutionally guaranteed rights, then the bullies will only become more emboldened, draping the mantle of ‘civil rights’, ‘tolerance’, ‘love’, ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’ and fighting against ‘aggressions’ (whether of the ‘micro’ or ‘macro’ sort), around their shoulders, pretending to ‘protect’ all of the ‘powerless’.

 

When, in reality, they smash, walk upon & tyrannize us who are the helpless.

 

In very ancient times, the Roman people started out as a Roman Kingdom. Later, for various reasons, they decided to be a ‘republic’. What this meant in practice was that a group of men known as ‘senators’ wielded authority whilst employing certain persons to administer the Roman Republic in its day-to-day affairs. Then along came Julius Caesar, a very successful general and one of those persons selected to administer authority on behalf of the senators & republic. He was talented and had a lot of ambition, and --- whatever good or evil may have come out of it --- he eventually decided that it was propitious to seize the reins of power and became Rome’s first emperor. (Or, we should say, the man who began imperial rule… although, technically, he did not take for himself, nor was he given, the official title of ‘emperor’. Neither do historians always call him by this title.) Suddenly, Roman Republic became Roman Empire. Unluckily for him, some powerful men disagreed with his plans vehemently. And one of those men, Brutus (who was a good friend of Julius), chose to act militantly & violently against Julius Caesar. Not out in the open, though. That would have been perilous, and he probably would have lost both his war and his life. Remember, our dear Julius was a highly successful and very popular general, too, amongst the Roman people. A civil war could split the realm in two with great bloodshed, and those who wanted the republic back would likely die trying.

 

What to do? Why, when open conflict doesn’t work, turn to skullduggery.

 

And so our intrepid Brutus (there were actually two men with the name of ‘Brutus’ involved in this plot, so it can be a little confusing…) arranged to meet with Julius at a public theatre where, at the opportune moment, they could kill him in relative privacy. A lot of myth & uncertainties surround Julius’ assassination. For instance, while opposing accounts from ancient times claim different things were said or different persons first struck, Shakespeare’s famous play about the assassination of Julius Caesar --- itself reflecting a popular saying amongst English speakers during the Elizabethan era --- perpetuates the notion that Julius, as he lay dying, said, “Et tu, Brute?” Which is just Latin for, “And you, Brutus?” That is to say, “You, too, my friend, want me dead?” Really, we can be pretty sure the dying Julius Caesar never said this. Ah… but Shakespeare! Who can resist his way with words? Hence its popularity.

 

Now, “Et tu, Brute?” can be applied allegorically here in two ways.

 

The side of identity politics & microaggressions looks at the other side, which wants freedom to be traditionally religious without persecution & ‘mind control’, and views them with great disgust. “Bigots!” they scream. “Intolerant anti-gay pigs!” And, with Donald Trump’s winning of the US Presidency in 2016, along with a Republican sweep of both houses in Congress (not to mention Trump’s appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States, who is a ‘textualist’ or ‘originalist’ in dealing with federal laws or the US Constitution, much to the chagrin of any zealous progressive, who loves finding new ‘rights’ or new interpretations in the Constitution or federal laws that were never explicitly written into them, or constitutional amendments, by leaders who composed their texts in the past), they feel betrayed, angry & frightened. “These evil extremists are going to ruin our country and threaten our liberty to make everyone, everybody and everything better, fairer, more equal and more modern!!!” they cry.

 

Et tu, Brute?

 

After all, we’re each of us Americans, citizens of the same country, right? We’re compatriots, as the saying goes. Aren’t we supposed to be on the same side? When in agreement or facing a crisis that threatens both, yes. When disagreeing and seeing each other as the enemy, no. In any case, people who believe in ‘identity politics’ or the idea of ‘microagressions’, etc., etc., feel stabbed in the back. Notwithstanding, they’re not dead like Julius Caesar. Wounded, indeed. But very, very, very, very incensed.

 

Meanwhile, the side of traditional religion & conservatism looks at the other side, that they see as wanting power to tell everybody else what they’re expected to believe, think, say & do since this is only proper and the way everyone should be, and views them with equally great disgust. “Dictators!” they holler. “Hypocritical anti-American & anti-liberty thugs!” And, with Ms. Hillary Rodham-Clinton’s failure to win the US Electoral College in 2016, along with Democrats’ failure to get control of either house in Congress (not to mention Pr. Trump’s attempting to do away with many of Pr. Obama’s accomplishments, laws, rules or legacy, much to the wrath & horror of progressives, who view Obama as heroic, being our nation’s first black president and gung-ho for the New World Order), they’re cautiously elated, fiercely loyal to Trump’s ‘don’t worry about the facts, defy fake news, and tell it like it is’ mouth that offends his opponents, and hope, maybe, that the America they were raised to believe in continues to exist, with what they think of as ‘liberty for all’. “Those evil extremists have been ruining the best country in the world and threaten our liberty to believe, think, say & do as we see fit, what we American people are all about, holding to our values, and staying truly free!!!” they cry.

 

Et tu, Brute?

 

Probably neither side --- whether contemporary ‘progressive’ or the new Trump ‘conservative’ --- will completely like my portrayal of them in the paragraphs above. Although I’m guessing so-called ‘conservatives’ will like it better than the self-styled ‘progressives’. No matter. I’m really not interested in our country’s typical politics.

 

I don’t consider myself a member of any political party in the US, period.

 

This is because no political party in the United States fully represents me.

 

I like to evaluate issues on their own merits as a real Roman Catholic.

 

Mindlessly adhering to positions for this or that party is illogical.

 

Ergo, I’m going to step on somebody’s toes sooner or later.

 

The point remains:

 

Aren’t we all Americans, living in the same country? Isn’t what makes us citizens of America the fact that we agree enough on enough things that we can be at peace with each other? Can’t we just live and let live? Or must we continually scathe, battle, lampoon & vituperate one another? Is this how we want to conduct our lives?

 

As a result, Americans who believe in ‘traditional religion’ or ‘conservatism’ also feel stabbed in the back. (By the way, Julius Caesar was stabbed repeatedly at the hands of many men, 23 times altogether. But it was the stab in his aorta that did him in, per the medical examination soon afterward.) And they’re not dead, either. Not yet, at least. They’re very, very, very, very incensed as well… having the upper hand, slightly.

 

For now, leastwise. Come the next election, or the one following that one?

 

Hmmm. Who knows? Nobody on earth. Only the future will reveal it.

 

So… will our future be bloody, peaceful, or more of the same?

 

Will someone’s life-sustaining aorta be pierced --- fatally?

 

Will there arise a Brutus or two or three or more?

 

Will ‘God-Caesar’ dominate, in spite of this?

 

And will all of us bow down to adore him?

 

+++ 3. The Truth and the Choice +++

 

What I’m saying goes for everyone around the world, to some degree or another.

 

If nothing else, the United States’ imperial hegemony of the globe, being the biggest power on earth for most of the last century, means that what happens here in America has repercussions everywhere in the world. Yet it’s more than just that. The United States is still the richest and most powerful nation on earth right now. Nevertheless, it’s simply one part of an even bigger New World Order. So what we’re talking about here is applicable to Europe, too. They’re getting shook up, as well. Their very precious European Union is facing serious opposition. Former Communist nations from the eastern Soviet Bloc --- Poland & Hungary --- are going maverick, defying the EU’s directives and upsetting ‘progressives’ (or ‘liberal Modernists’, as I like to call them, being an excellent Catholic term) all over the continent. Their seventy years of mostly untrammeled rule of Europe is being contested. Europeans are finally waking up, looking around, and asking, “Is this the best way to go? Are we losing our cultures & identities, including our lives & security? And all for what… a global monoculture that wipes Europe out, leaving it no longer European? Preserving our ethnicities matters!”

 

Likewise other parts of the world. India has a surging ‘conservative Hinduism’ on its hands. Israel is dealing with desperate & powerless Palestinians using any means they can to be free to live in their ancient land and survive like normal human beings… and the rest of the globe is finally catching on, realizing that Israel is not always the ‘good guy’ or land of poor downtrodden ‘victims’ that we’ve been taught to believe. Africa grows weary of the richer, more modern nations’ colonial oppression of them. Yes, ‘progressive’ Africans exist, and some African nations are more modernized than others... but most Africans don’t like being told to ‘limit’ their families, have fewer children, practice ‘contraception’, legalize abortion, or being forced to believe that the LGBTQ+ way of life is ‘good’ or ‘normal’. And how are the richer, more modern nations colonially forcing & oppressing them when it come to these and other modern totems? By holding the club of ‘foreign aid’ and ‘economic trade’ over their heads, trying to browbeat Africans into submission, the United Nations being the mascot for this. Ironically, Pr. Obama faced African resentment in these matters. At first Africans enthusiastically loved him, thinking, “Hey, America’s got a black president. He’s one of us!” Then, 2 or 3 or 4 years into his 8 year presidency, they realized, “He’s not black. He doesn’t even like us! He’s just like every other leader in the West, even if his father was Kenyan.” How do I know this? Because I read news from reputable sources all over the world, in the original language if possible. And because I happen to work with a man from Africa here in America, knowing him very well and being friends with him. A better man I’ve rarely ever found. And we could go on and on. The point is made.

 

The entire earth faces a similar problem.

 

‘Identity politics’ or ‘racism’ or ‘diversity’ are all of the same beast. An Oceanic & Apocalyptic Beast. You can read about this in great detail in the long book, Helplessly Ignorant, particularly Parts 4, 5 & 6 as thus far posted. In this relatively short article, I’ve got to be brief. This is the Great Apostasy. If truly Catholic, you know what I mean. For those who aren’t Catholic and don’t know what I mean, simply know that the goal has never been ‘freedom’, ‘equality’, ‘tolerance’, ‘love’, ‘diversity’ or what-have-you.

 

The true goal has been to overturn everything once taken for granted. This means Catholicism is at the center of the turmoil --- and whether you can believe that or not. It also means that anything ‘traditional’ is either outlawed, shot down, ridiculed, ignored or barely tolerated. Hence why I include people of ‘traditional religion’ in my observations, despite not being able to see eye to eye with them about everything. I’m really Catholic, remember? Irregardless, people of ‘traditional religion’ have some important things in common with real Catholics. Therefore, we both face a similar threat. And that is?

 

The loss of our freedom to be Catholic or traditionally religious. Or, should we say, choosing to be Catholic or traditionally religious now entails the possibility that you could be shamed, stigmatized, punished, fired, sued, fined, imprisoned, slandered, or otherwise treated cruelly & unjustly. And all because you remain loyal to what you believe is true or right. That’s the beast we face. A snarling, savage, nasty critter.

 

Take ‘diversity’, for example. No real Catholic, who is wise & decent, thinks all ethnicities other than his or her own ethnicity are ‘lesser’ or to be treated ‘unfairly’ merely because of a person or people’s ‘ethnicity’. We only believe that every human being is made in the Image of God --- thus infinitely priceless --- and that, whether they are Catholic or not, they both can and may preserve their unique ethnicity as it is. Which, when you think about it, is the practice of TRUE DIVERSITY. No real & wise Catholic thinks marriage between a man & woman of different ethnicities is an ‘intrinsic sin’, as theologians would say. Yet neither do we think that every ethnicity must permit an endless amount of intermarriage that then DESTROYS THAT UNIQUE & PRECIOUS ETHNICITY.

 

Get it? There’s a difference between phony ‘diversity’ and true diversity.

 

A phony ‘diversity’ promotes laws & policies that ultimately destroy unique cultures, ethnicities & countries. This is GLOBAL MONOCULTURE… meaning, everybody winds up mixed together over generations until nobody remains unique, having lost their independent culture, ethnicity, country, way of life, and anything that matters to human beings in his or her part of the world, having developed into what they are. Claim to cherish ‘diversity’? Then how can you believe in things that destroy our diversity?

 

This is precisely what modern totem words like ‘racism’, ‘tolerance’, ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, ‘love’, and so on and so forth are doing to us. And if you can’t see that, then either you’re blind to what’s going on or else you’re a part of it --- and don’t want it to stop. Whichever, more and more people are starting to catch on. It’s slow. Most of humanity is still fairly clueless and mixed up. Some fools get extreme and make everybody think, “Oh, don’t want to be like them!” Yet the truth is the truth:

 

You don’t uphold a true ‘diversity’ by doing what destroys it. Clearly!

 

If you believe human beings are valuable (whatever their ethnicity!), and you want humanity to be varied in ethnicity or culture, then you neither ‘forbid’ all change and intermixing nor ‘command’ all change and intermixing. You strike a balance. And that balance will NOT be the same for everyone, everywhere, all the time. Nonetheless, balanced it must be, or else we end up destroying true diversity and usher in a monoculture, with no individual & unique ethnicities or cultures left.

 

Savvy? It doesn’t take a genius. Just a little clear thinking.

 

So how should the US have handled civil rights for ‘minorities’ and how is any of this relevant to contemporary ‘identity politics’, etc.? It would have been more painful, slow & patience-testing, but we as Americans should have waged the battle for treating black Americans more fairly by changing hearts & minds --- and NOT by judicial decree or a federal government passing legislation that penalized certain people or states harshly. Such an approach only spawned resentment (like the period of ‘Reconstruction’ did amongst southerners in the United States after the Civil War), and, as we have seen lately… and even after having an African American president… so-called ‘racism’ continues to afflict us and continues to divide us. Yes, lots of things are better now, according to many Americans, not least of which are black Americans. But, no, not everything is better, and, in many ways, things are worse. And why? Why is this the case? Because human hearts and human minds have NOT been changed. Or, to put the matter a bit more precisely, some hearts & minds were changed, while, along with these changed persons, we’ve overlooked the hearts & minds that haven’t changed (thinking, foolishly, that the courts & legislation with heavy penalties have taken care of that…), and, were that not enough, the aforesaid courts & legislation, along with stigmatizing, have created a backlash that is growing and risks spreading more violence & hatred. Then, to top it off, this civil rights process has morphed into something completely different, while passing itself off as the ‘same’ thing (read: identity politics), and, employing the same old tactics --- with even more ferocity --- then tries to cow everybody in America into mindlessly or fearfully swallowing it whole. To wit, transgender politics, the redefinition of marriage, and etc., etc., ad infinitum.

 

So, if we could go back in time, how could hearts & minds have changed?

 

I don’t claim to have all the answers. And many heads are better than one alone.

 

But I can propose a simple solution that strikes a balance. It could have been put to the test back in the 1940s, ’50s, ’60s & ’70s, and it could still be put to a test here & now as we grapple with ‘identity politics’. It’s easy. You get tough, as a government, with every citizen --- of whatever side of the fence --- who employs brutality & violence against any fellow citizen. Meanwhile, you leave every citizen truly free to follow one’s conscience when it comes to matters of morality & religion. Yes, brutality & violence are often justified by individuals as a matter of morality & religion. Howsoever, no, this lame excuse does not pass muster since brutality & violence against lawful authority is the cause of greater evil & senseless destruction than is the government resolutely fighting such unsanctioned brutality & violence (as a Catholic, theology teaches that this kind of brutality & violence is an unjust war, in contrast to a just war). An example of how this could play out in everyday life is allowing those who own businesses to do as they must, following one’s conscience. As long as it doesn’t involve brutality & violence toward other citizens, then give them the real freedom to do so. Via posted signs or a social media presence, every citizen could know what the owner of that business upholds. Should an individual citizen disagree strongly with the business’ stance, he or she withholds support of, or transaction with, that business politely & civilly. If such withholding of support or transaction is not realistic at that point in time, one can, notwithstanding, politely & civilly, voice one’s disagreement with their stance.

 

Comprehending? Sure, there’d be sticky points to figure out. Yet it can work.

 

For instance, if a business refuses to serve African American citizens, then, by law, require them to post a plain sign saying so in polite terms. Social media nowadays can additionally and easily make such stances known by anyone & everyone. But be civil! Stop the stupidity of ‘rage’ & ‘trolls’. Simply note the fact of the business’ stance. If one’s conscience opposes this stance, then you may say so publicly… but politely, courteously and with civility. Perchance many citizens will agree with you. If we continue the example of a business refusing to serve black citizens, both they & Americans who are white, etc., yet sympathize with them, could in turn refuse to patronize this business. If difficult because this business is crucial in some fashion, government could intervene with great restraint, in order to prevent what amounts to brutality & violence toward an American citizen --- but the smarter approach in the long run is for these citizens, who disagree with the business’ stance, to organize a separate solution completely, on their own. Recollect American ingenuity & independence? A rugged ‘self- reliance’? Um hmm. Sounds old-fashioned, I know. But would it kill Americans to practice it in this case? I think not. You just gotta have willpower. Determination. A willingness to stand upon your own two feet. I’m not fond of ‘conservatism’ or any brand of American politics. Yet I can find things in any independent party that I like. Moderation is key; but self-reliance is good.

 

(By the way, I don’t pretend that this is the only solution or best solution. As I said above, many heads are better than one. Mayhap I or someone else could come up with a better solution than this. Or several solutions, including a variation on this one, that might be ideal. And there would be sticky points, problems to solve and work out. All the same, I’m confident we could solve everything and make things work. We’re an intelligent people, right? I’d like to think so --- even if a lot of our amusement or entertainment increasingly ‘dumbs us down’. And recollect… just because an idea seems to be ‘outlandish’ or ‘strange’ doesn’t mean that it can’t succeed. Oftentimes people, encountering the new, require time to see the need or what is truly possible.)

 

So how would this relate to proponents of ‘identity politics’ in this case?

 

Again, easy. Require all businesses to post their stance, via signs, social media or whatever. Make sure it’s polite & civil. In response, American citizens can choose to patronize these businesses or not, depending on their convictions regarding the stance. They could patronize and politely & civilly voice their disagreement. Who knows? A rash of sanity & logical discourse might even break out. Horrors! The very thought!

 

I jest, of course. This would be a far better way of changing human hearts & minds, though. As our beloved William ‘Billy the Shakes’ Shakespeare had a very amusing character in one of his many theatrical plays observe, “Murder cannot be hid long; a man’s son may; but at the length, truth will out.” The point being that, if you care about the truth & right, then, “The truth and right will come out into the open in the end, being unmistakably clear for everybody to see.” I am that confident about the truth because I am that confident in Our Creator. Even if you, personally, don’t want to believe in a Creator… well, okay, but I’m still confident in Our Almighty Maker. So sue me!

 

Any real & wise Roman Catholic is.

 

This is the Truth. The Choice is yours.

 

Which America do you want to live in?

 

Being Catholic, I want a Catholic America. Totally.

 

But, seeing as that’s not the case right now --- and barring a sudden miracle --- then I’ll take a truly free America instead. One that lets me be a real Roman Catholic without persecution, stigmatizing & brutality against me or other real Roman Catholics.

 

In return, I’ll be polite & civil to you, my fellow American, despite you disagreeing with me about Roman Catholicism. I’ll gladly give you the maximum freedom I can to act as you see fit, with the understanding that you also give me the maximum liberty you can, permitting me to act as I see fit, both for myself and for my family, or anyone in my personal care and under my responsibility. See how it works? It’s not perfect. I.e., everybody wants more, we all want everyone else to agree wholeheartedly.

 

I get that. It’s only human. Ah, but we live in a very imperfect world.

 

Don’t we? Indeed we do. Which is why we should strike balances.

 

The Truth and the Choice is for All Humanity in Modern Times.

 

The Religion of Modernism has influenced every human being everywhere, to some extent or another. For hardcore Modernists, I issue a cordial warning. “Be careful, dear souls. You may want to think that your agenda is unstoppable, that it justifies anything and everything you do, trying to get everybody to talk & act just like you. I tell you, watch out. Kingdoms rise, and kingdoms fall. Your kingdom has been ascending continually for many centuries now. You’re pushing fast. Recoil may hurt.”

 

Badly. And that’s no threat. I’m a powerless nobody. It’s just truth.

 

That doesn’t scare you, does it? Or maybe it does. Oh, well.

 

Truth wins in the end, despite being a powerless nobody.

 

Haven’t you figured that out? Shhhh. Say it quietly:

 

“Truth triumphs. The meek inherit the earth.”

 

Stay tuned. This one’s a cliffhanger.

 

Shhhh!

 

+ + +

 

Pilate’s query met:

www.TheEpistemologicWorks.com

 

Note:

if you’ve come to this webpage directly from a search

engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage

 --- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---

please type the website’s address (as given above right before this

note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the

enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.

 

Please go here about use of the writings

on this website.

 

© 2018 by Paul Doughton.

All rights reserved.