People A hold values that are antithetical and irreconcilable with people B’s values.

People A and People B live in the same society.

There is no way for People A and People B to cohabitate in the same society, as People A and People B cannot compromise, based on the fact that their values cannot be reconciled.

In the above argument, we see what is self-evident in every clash of cultures, in every clash of peoples that have deeply held, antithetical, and irreconcilable beliefs: they will not cohabitate. What happens when you question this? You’re demonized. Why? Because you’re a threat to your manipulator’s livelihood; a livelihood founded upon the manipulation of disparate peoples under the guise that they are equal, will acclimate and assimilate to the host culture, and will ultimately not manifest a change that will be contradictory to the host culture’s beliefs. In fact, they are not, they won’t, and they can, so that it may no longer be your, your families’, or your ancestor’s society, country, or culture, unless you avoid your demonization.

But why would they do so?

A divided people are easier to control. Julius Caesar’s expedition into and conquest of Gaul highlights this idea. He divided the tribes that inhabited the region, he played the Germanic groups in Gaul against the region’s Celtic tribes, of which there were many, and by keeping them divided, by cutting off their supplies, by driving them towards an emotional, indecisive, and imprudent response, Caesar won the day.

In fomenting division between peoples, another may take what is not theirs. We can easily observe this in children. When three children are sitting at a picnic table, and there are six peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in front of them (two for each), and two of the three children begin to quarrel, play, or become distracted in some manner as a result of an animus between them, the other child may take what is left of the sandwiches for himself, if he wishes to do so.

So why not communicate? When two people meet in the woods, both are armed, both are alone, and neither can understand the other, there are, at least, three options: 1.) they can walk away from each other; 2.) one, or both, can fire upon the other, if they feel sufficiently threatened; 3.) one could walk away and the other could still fire upon them. When individuals are unable to communicate with each other, they are less likely to trust each other, and when they are less likely to trust each other, they are more likely to view the other as a competitor, or a threat to their existence and wellbeing. In this situation, any onlooker of the instantiation of this exchange, like a vulture, can pick the remanence of the situation’s remains clean. In turn, for some, it would become evidently obvious that the inability for two people to communicate could serve as a mechanism for the one observing their quarrel to avoid their attention, allowing them to profit off of the situation’s booty.  If one wishes to profit off of such conflict, can manifest a situation where two or more groups are unable to communicate, and believe they can profit off the situation without being found out or harmed themselves, it would behoove them to do so, according to their aims. 

The point: Pluralism, the notion that a multiplicity of values can peacefully coexist, without, at some crucial moment, becoming necessarily antagonistic towards each other, is a trojan horse; it is a mechanism that allows for a larger, or more powerful group of people to inspire division, cause confusion, decrease resources, and take its spoils for themselves; or — even — to use such strife for their own benefit by playing sides against each other, in turn, accruing profit from either’s desire to dominate and control the other, in order to preserve their insoluble values: what they hold, without question, to be true.

The notion that antithetical, cultural values can be reconciled is farcical, is absurd, and results in horrors of human strife (a square is not a circle!). Though there may be truth on either side, to claim that a people divided by language, by their cultural philosophies, by their core, indivisible values, by their cherished heritage, by their a priori ideas, can assimilate to the hosts they are clinging on to without someone stepping in to take advantage of them is naive, dangerous, and unnecessarily cruel, or savage, to permit.

This is not to say a multiplicity of ideas shouldn't be held, a polyglot shouldn't exist, a plethora of frameworks and philosophies shouldn't be considered, or values shouldn't be reconciled and reasoned about while their usefulness is tested, but rather, such a system must necessarily be constrained by a structure that unites them together; i.e., such a system cannot exist as a plurality, be pluralistic, or be constrained by Pluralism, but must be a Monism. Without this monistic system, a system that unifies disparate views under universally accepted premises and mechanisms to communicate within the group, a system of control manifests, profits off of the conflict brought about by the pluralistic system's contradictions, and maintains its rule by keeping the divided eyes off of its actions.

But do you want to do harm to others?

When the hand of such a manipulator is shown, when their trojan horse has been found out, their only alternative is to force you to bend knee by inducing fear in you. They will tell you that your resilience to those that will intrinsically change your culture, your values, your way of life is going to do them harm, or may come back to bite you; it’s the classic, “Think about the children,” mechanism; a form of agonistic buffering, sans, or with, the use of a youth; a means to decrease your aggressiveness by playing your desire to inhibit, or negate harm upon another that is less powerful, or to reduce harm done to yourself, against you, so that the one activating the mechanism may more easily control you, and in this case, get what you have.

Key Syllogisms:

1.

People A hold insoluble belief “X."

People B hold insoluble belief “~X.”

People A and B cannot reconcile their beliefs.

2.

People A cannot communicate with People B.

A lack of communication sows division.

People A and People B will become divided through their inability to communicate.

3.

A divided people are easier to pit against each other.

People A and People B are divided.

People A and People B will be easier to pit against each other.

4.

Pluralism is a doctrine of multiplicity.

Monism is a doctrine of unity.

Pluralism is contradictory, as it must include in itself that which it cannot be, Monism.

(e.g. the Paradox of Tolerance)

5.

A divided people are easier to control.

People A and People B are divided.

People A and People B are easier to control.

6.

Sowing division may be profitable to the one outside the division, or sowing the division from within, via the proceeding conflict, as division produces strife.

People A and People B are divided.

People A and People B’s division may become profitable to someone within, or outside, their conflict.

7.

The Fear of Harm can be used as a means to control others.

People A and People B need to be controlled.

The Fear of Harm can be used as a means to control People A and People B.