Chad Crowley @CCrowley100
Forced integration leads to nothing but conflict, for mankind is not a uniform mass but an order of distinct peoples, each carrying inherited marks that give rise to their ways of life.
From the first dawn of history, every civilization has been the flowering of a particular stock, whose inner character shaped its law, its art, and its understanding of the world. To recognize this is not to indulge in the bizarre contemporary notion of “prejudice” but to accept the most evident truth of human existence. Men are bound by loyalty to their own kind, a bond that begins with blood and extends outward through family, community, and nation.
The modern order has sought to cast suspicion upon this instinct, as though to prefer one’s own were nothing more than hatred of another. Yet the father who cherishes his child above all others is not guilty of malice. The patriot who loves his homeland above foreign lands is not animated by spite. Preference does not imply enmity. It is the acknowledgment that love and loyalty are not distributed equally, that there is a natural order of attachments, and that to deny this order is to sever man from his very foundations.
Conflict arises not from separation but from enforced proximity. When distinct peoples remain apart, they may regard one another without rancor, sometimes even with curiosity or respect. But when they are compelled to live under the same government, to share the same territory, and to bear one another’s habits in the small details of daily life, tension becomes inevitable. What begins as irritation grows into resentment, and resentment hardens into hostility. Distance preserves peace; proximity breeds antagonism.
No society that has attempted to bind disparate peoples under one roof has long remained stable. Trust withers, solidarity dissolves, and each group retreats into its own defenses. The louder the official proclamations of harmony, the more bitter the quarrels that follow. Even men of gentle temperament find themselves transformed, for the instinct to survive presses them into partisanship whether they will it or not.
Separation, therefore, is not a summons to strife but the only foundation of peace. A people left to itself will still know conflict, yet it will not suffer the ceaseless antagonism that arises when incompatible ways of life are crowded together. Nations apart may still exchange goods, share in learning, and converse across distance, but they cannot inhabit the same civic body without decay.
The present order condemns loyalty to one’s own as if it were hatred, yet it does not abolish hatred; it only redirects it. The system openly cultivates contempt for those who resist its demands, particularly those who remain rooted in soil and memory. The hostility poured upon them proves that hatred is not banished, only disguised, and used against the very people who affirm the oldest and most natural bonds.
What follows is clear. To live apart is to preserve the possibility of peace. To force peoples into unwanted nearness is to invite discord without end. The man who wishes to remain whole must seek the company of his own, not from malice toward others, but from fidelity to himself. This truth cannot be erased by decree, for it is written into life itself.