Liberal democracy has no fundamental social philosophy. It can't even protect its own infrastructure. Over the weekend of 8-9 May 2021, the U.S. was hit by a ransomware attack on a critical oil East-Coast pipeline providing 45% of jet fuel, diesel, and petrol. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, the White House domestic security adviser, in a rare moment of candor admitted:
This weekend's events put the spotlight on the fact that our nation's critical infrastructure is largely owned and operated by private sector companies. "When those companies are attacked, they serve as the first line of defense and we depend on the effectiveness of their defenses."
Of course, if there were the State, no issue would exist. Security is not an option; it is a necessity, and people must be protected, not at the whim of private interests.
Hedonism does not count, any more than an organism's eating defines its identity. Organism it is, and if evolving societies do not take care of themselves, they will become extinct. On a planetary level, witness the emerging Holocene Extinction. At a societal level, malevolent agents with troubled or selfish motives are assisting the disintegration of countries and governments by their "cancellation" and obsession with identity politics. Unless we direct our attention to organicity, we will be as flotsam in a river of anarchy and decay, an obsolescent species incapable of living up to its name, homo sapiens sapiens (the technical and correct name for not only the "knowing" but the wise – the second sapiens to emphasize the first sapiens). Individuals cannot save themselves as individuals. They need cohesion, but that is not found in liberal-democratic regimes. They have no social consciousness, the sad and maddening fact of even insects (bees, ants, etc.) cohering in social form. Where does one turn?
It is appropriate at this point to present somewhat of a sidebar, amplifying the first sentence of this essay and my response, also addressing Joshua Noyer's "Organicity" article appearing in this issue of The National Reformationist. Words convey ideas, but they evolve, just like organisms. Bear in mind, here, liberal democracy has not evolved. It has regressed, fostering liberal democratic sentiment: social and economic stratification, narcissistic rules (compare the royalty to "captains of industry", the super-rich, etc.), with no semblance of participating in a larger whole nor the whole affirming individual identity.
Up until 1922, when Mussolini took power, there was no major social system even touching organic social philosophy. "Fascism", for all of its defects, was the "only bar in town" with its rotgut whiskey, but it was the pause that refreshed (in response to the ambient sociopolitical drudgery of narcissistic and sterile liberal democracy). Call Italian fascism a "prototype" if you will, and if so, you know it is rare for the endpoint to be the same as the beginning. Second, the essential content in Hegel, Durkheim, Gentile, and so many more emerging for century-long modernistic thinking on organic societies (originating with Ancient Greece) was formalized in 1922, again, in very imperfect form. Only a reactionary, hence ideologue (one with ideas not subject to question or critical thinking), will try living in that past, expecting others to do the same. Think science, if for no other reason. How many competent physicians do you find subscribing to the disproven 19th century "miasma" theory, "bad" air being responsible for diseases? Conserve the indispensable etiology (origin) but scrutinize the answer. For technology, how many people use typewriters, although we rely on written communication? There is a reason why people call it "social science", and the National Reformation Party does exactly that! Scientists are not supposed to be fixed in their ideas; otherwise, they would be dogmatic sectarian religionists, figuratively burning heretics at the stake.
These are the externals, but becoming familiar with the vast work on social organicity also helps see why the National Reformation Party has to move on, learning, growing, and evolving, just as organisms do. Completely absent social discourse is social philosophy, but worse, a growing portion of persons are proffering what has been termed a "cancel culture", and if allowed to continue will surely threaten any semblance of social organization.
Focus on "cancel". A large and growing body of persons prefers to socially eliminate (cancel) others with no further thought than faux identity politics, creating one's being from faulty ideas. "Cancel" has the same meaning in mathematics. Remember fraction cancellation, the numerator on the left-hand expression "canceling out" the denominator on the right? If you advance seven to the right and retract (canceling) to the left on the number line, you wind up at zero. Those in the "cancel culture" aim to erase you (and your identity) for what they perceive are transgressions against one's desired gender or ethnicity. They are the Medieval witch burners. They want you to be "woke". This pernicious idea is part of identity politics. "Desire" should grab your attention. The "wokers" are narcissists (excess love of self), in the same family of concepts embraced by hedonism (living only for pleasure, usually physical).
Of course, you should not attack a person for "race", "ethnicity", or gender, if for no other reason than, as Dr. Martin Luther King once said famously 28 August 1963, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, ...", "race" not even existing, and "ethnicity" questionable at best. For sure, they are social constructs. Besides, doing so is logically fallacious. Dr. King was wearing his logician's hat.
Larger problems loom in identifying cancel culture standards. We have a "my god is better than your god" exchange, not an evidence-based argument but one of sentiment. I could discuss ideology (a set of beliefs not subject to question) here and foundations for belief systems (as in the all-important psychology) but, for now, the significance is the "cancel" methodology of dealing with opposition.
Additionally, "cancel" has implications for language.
I set forth four considerations in an ensemble, each overlapping with the other but loosely grouped: critical thinking, violations of basic knowledge formation, language, organicity, and identity. But first, we need to see why the "cancel" ideology is so destructive. It violates a fundamental law of being.
The most fundamental law
Diametrically opposed to a "cancel" dialogue is the most fundamental law, the unity of difference. Look at the following table of differences and see if you can find the lowest common denominator of each side:
You are reading a "table of duals". A "dual" means two distinct parts are necessary for each to exist. For some, the left-hand contains, includes, or produces the right. Here, the general-to-specific pair statisticians say the right is a sample, the left the whole population. The right is an instantiation of the left, the left is synthesized from the right, the right is deduced from the left. The left generates the right. The right "comes out of" the left. Others, like space and time, do not necessarily oppose or instantiate, falling into a separate domain, but still existing because of difference. Some are opposites. In all cases, you need each for the other to exist! Many come from cutting up the whole, each piece, itself being a whole, warranting further subdivision. When does opposition, or negation, turn into mere difference?
Many will see the "unity of difference" the "unity of opposites". (e.g., positive-negative, yes-no, left-right, etc.), but looking closely, you will see "difference" subsuming "opposite". Missing in the table is dimension. For example, black does not imply white, only another color. Here, two dimensions with the color palette overcome one dimension.
Left opposes, or negates, right, an opposite and a difference. Solid geometry superseded Euclid's geometry. Enter the third dimension. "Opposite", then, is a special case of difference, two dimensions a subset of three. Overall, though, we only need to contrast to apprehend. Think how you can distinguish subtleties in all senses – touch, taste, sound, smell, and sight.
true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations. The old metaphysic, as we have already seen, when it studied the objects of which it sought a metaphysical knowledge, went to work by applying categories abstractly and to the exclusion of their opposites. [Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830]
A dear friend of mine wrote distinguishing "polar opposites" from "contradiction", recalling Hegel's "antinomies", coexistence of opposed elements. "Polar opposites" reveals Hegel's essence, a globe coming to mind. The globe needs two poles; they don't cancel each other but complement, affirm, and, of course, co-exist. My words, "something exists" clarifies my friend's words, because "negation", "nothingness", and "cancellation" deny existence, and "contradiction" mean the same. (Think of the "cancel culture", its goal to deny your existence.) I point to our dimension and occurrences within it, then to everything not our dimension. Underlining both still is distinction, our dimension and nothingness instantiations of P and not P, just much as two different things in our dimension. The schema and apprehension method is the same for both situations. If the two cases are different, we are confined in Edwin Abbot's two-dimensional Flatland (Research and read this fascinating novelette.).
Prior to Einstein's general relativity theory, scientists looked to Newton's absolute space standing by itself, not changing, and eternal. We see a 2500-year-old debate over everything constantly moving or motionless, another way of saying reality versus illusion.
Heraclitus said, “The unlike is joined together, and from differences results the most beautiful harmony and all things take place by strife. [Patrick, G.T.W. (1880). The Fragments of the work of Heraclitus. Baltimore: N. Murray. https://ia600304.us.archive.org/27/items/thefragmentsofth00herauoft/thefragmentsofth00herauoft.pdf , XLVI, p. 96].
"For men to have whatever they wish would not be well. Sickness makes health pleasant and good hunger, satiety, weariness rest” [Ibid., CIV, p. 109].
“The harmony of the world is a harmony of oppositions ....[Ibid., LVI, p. 98]
“...both are and are not “ [Ibid., LXXXI, p. 104]
“For human nature does not possess understanding [understanding resulting from how contradictions operate to present anything to us for that understanding], but the divine does” [Ibid., XCVI, p. 107].
“God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, plenty and want” [Ibid., XXXVI, p. 93 ; ]
“You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters and yet others go ever flowing on. They go forward and back again” [Harris, W. (2021). Heraclitus – The complete fragments. http://wayback.archive-it.org/6670/20161201175133/http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/Philosophy/Heraclitus.html ]
Opposite change is permanence. Parmenides (c. early fifth century BCE) said:
One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that it is. In it are very many tokens that what is, is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete, immovable and without end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for now it is, all at once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin for it. will you look for? In what way and from what source could it have drawn its increase? I shall not let thee say nor think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be thought nor uttered that what is not is. And, if it came from nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner? Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at all. Nor will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides itself from that which in any way is. Wherefore, Justice does not loose her fetters and let anything come into being or pass away, but holds it fast. ... And there is not, and never shall be, any time other, than that which is present, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable.
(Parmenides, 544 450 BCE) [Parmenides (544 - 450 BCE] Poem of Parmenides. [H. Diels, Die Fragment der Vorsokratiker, ed. W. Kranz, 6th ed. (Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1951). http://www.kyoolee.net/FRG_Parmenides__Poems.pdf See also: http://philoctetes.free.fr/parmenides.pdf ]
Parmenides, himself does not allow change at all, including his thinking. Heraclitus saves himself by:
“The harmony of the world is a harmony of oppositions ....[Ibid., LVI, p. 98] and “...both are and are not “ [Ibid., LXXXI, p. 104]
Plato in the Theatetus refers to the "dualistic philosophers", saying with respect to "give the name of 'being' to both of them together? ... 'the answer is plainly that the two will still be resolved into one.' " [1759 - Jowett – Dialogues Plato cf: 176-61] Further still, The Sophist  says a stranger refers to " reciprocation of opposites", their being contradictory.
Aristotle said, “Everything, therefore, that comes to be by a natural process is either a contrary [“ contrary, the privation”, Ibid., 191a13-191a21, p. 453/15 Ross, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ] “or a product of contraries.” [Aristotle, Physics, 188b21-188b26, p. 449/10]. He says it is not the former, concluding, “…our principles must be contraries.” [Ibid., 188b36-189a9, p. 450/11].
Regarding the binary nature of things: “it is impossible that there should be more than one primary contrariety” [Ibid., 189b19-189b27, p. 450/11]. “…Clearly then also to come to be so-and-so from what is not means ‘qua what is not’.” [Ibid., 191a35-191b9, p. 454/16]. “…a thing comes to be from the privation, which in its own nature is something which is not—this not surviving as a constituent of the result.” [Ibid., 191b13-191b17, p. 454/16]
Aristotle said, “Whether the form or what underlies is the substance is not yet clear.” [Ibid., 191a13-191a21, p. 453/15].
Come modern times. Cosmological research suggests of the unity of difference, i.e.,
… the Universe after the big bang is the CPT [(charge, parity, and time symmetry)] image of the Universe before it, both classically and quantum mechanically. The pre- and postbang epochs comprise a universe-antiuniverse pair, emerging from nothing directly into a hot, radiation-dominated era" [https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251301 ].
Here, we focus on
The spacetime is (C)PT symmetric in the sense that the tetrad geometry according to an observer who moves forward along the xi=const thread is identical to the tetrad geometry according to an observer who moves backward along the thread and reverses the spatial one forms ei→−ei. ... This is precisely the boundary condition responsible for producing the famous oscillations seen in the CMB power spectrum, with the correct phases. [Ibid.]
Key phrases are "symmetry between past and future", "contracting half of our Universe" [contrasted to our expanding half - as the antiverse contracts, this one expands in compensation], and "matter-antimatter asymmetry on one side of the bang is the opposite of the asymmetry on the other side" [Ibid.]. I think this article confirms the above discussion on dimension, the first and subsequent ones following the same innate process "emerging from nothing".
So, we really do not have opposites, as distinction incorporates opposite. I go further. Each difference collapses into the other as superposition, or singularity. That is another topic I discuss in my forthcoming book, Zero is Greater Than One, the issue date to be announced later. For now, it is enough to realize we live not only in a three-dimensional world, turning contradictories into differences, but in a multi-dimensional world including spacetime, and perhaps beyond. Spacetime is four dimensions, perhaps a fifth and beyond waiting to embrace a new table. Ours is a total environment, cancellation still destructive.
We apply the law with philosophy and critical thinking, the first locating our values, the second applying them. In a previous article, "How to read a newspaper" [The National Reformationist #13], I discussed critical thinking, providing three very valuable websites:
and two critical thinking self-assessments:
Critical thinking, philosophy, and the law aside, we look at language, a vital way of exchanging ideas with others. Miscommunication is problematic enough but when language is weaponized, social integrity is threatened, a major target individual identity. Without the individual, society does not exist, and without the society, the individual cannot last (barring individuals living in the wild – even that not a guaranteed lifestyle in this day and age, especially). More explicitly, weaponized language in the hands of would-be tyrants is exemplified by gender and "left"-"right" in politics.
Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) advocates can tear apart society effectively. A person born a female or male biologically (physically) is no different from any other organism. For a human, if s/he thinks otherwise, the problem lies in the psychology or the physiology; they don't match. An outgrowth of LGBT ideology is exemplified by sports, transgender males ("converted" to females) playing on women's teams. Clearly, the male physique overpowers the other teammates, providing unfair advantage, another oppression of women.
Another consequence of LGBT is language distortion, savaging words for social gain, the word "gay" a perfect case in point. For centuries "gay" meant "happy", famous philosophers like Nietzsche writing The Gay Science [German: Die fröhliche Wissenschaft - 1887], The Joyful Wisdom or The Joyous Science. Starting in the 1960s, along with increasing and rampant drug use and social anarchy, we began seeing the word perverted to mean homosexuality, when, in fact, "homosexual" is the correct and scientific term for one preferring sexual association with another of the same sex. One question I have is if homosexuals are so proud to be so, why do they need a distorted meaning of what once was an undefiled word - "gay"? Digging deeper, we'll discover political gain motivating it. My critique here does not imply my advocating mistreatment of or discrimination of homosexuals.
At least, transgender persons recognize the disparity between biology and psychology, desiring to make them harmonious through hormone therapy, operations, and so forth (since we have no way of changing the neurocorrelates of thought). The success has yet to be established, given the athletic example above. Psychological and other "counseling" methods have proven to be failures. Neuropsychology appears to generate the problem, although neuroscience still looks for solutions.
"Problem? Whose?", you may ask? Fair question. But, get back to the language distortion. We do not have special terms for other maladies, like birth defects or other physiology. Is it a matter of pride? It is not a matter of shame. It is just something that is. The legitimate discussion focuses on tolerating physical difference, not the difference, itself. Rather than politicizing it, turn attention to the larger school system, its curriculum, and why philosophy and critical thinking are not mandated all across the board.
Look more closely at this, as well. A major part of one's identity is gender, and if you fiddle with that too much, you do so with the person's very being. It is not a plaything for ideologues with a power-hungry agenda or with social-psychological problems.
Bludgeoning with language effectively has canceled substantial social philosophical debate. U.S. demagogues just love to sling "left-wing" and "right-wing" at each other, their muddles ideas of "socialism" common ideological fare. As with the mathematics example, not only do these words cancel each other out, but more significantly their true meanings. This way, social philosophy gets canceled in the process, no real debate occurring, explaining why U.S. politics is so vacuous.
Without recounting the entire historical backdrop, "left-wing" and "right-wing" emerged from the 1789 French Revolutionary period, all representatives in the National Assembly loyal to the king and religion sat on the speaker's right and the revolutionaries on the left. The terms became more refined as the Industrial Revolution produced masses of increasingly impoverished workers. Slums, hunger, concentration of wealth, and large corporations should be well known to anyone familiar with 19th century history. These conditions were direct outgrowths of unchained hedonism wrought by liberal democracy. That is, governments (given the ideology stemming from the philosophy of Adam Smith, John Locke, etc.) were there only to protect private property. There was no State. It took Hegel's The Philosophy of Right (1820) and later, Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society (1893), to form an adequate response.
Missing in contemporary discourse but very much the core of political-economic philosophy in the late 18th through the 1950s (at least) was who owned and controlled the means of production and distribution of goods and services? Extensive literature exists, from that of Marxists arguing that classes stem from these relationships to the relationships (also defining""ownership", "control", and possession", as well as corporate structures). For example see James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution (1948), and Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, The Modern Corporation an d Private Property 1933). I return to these below, applied to your labor power ownership. Suffice it to say now, though, "left-wing" up until recent times signified the extension and refinement of the original French meaning of "revolutionary" to incorporate the social ownership and control of the means of production and distribution.
Suffice it to say, "right-wing" developed into reactionary thinking, including the desire to preserve and protect the old order, i.e., the ideology of limited government. As an aside, the likes of Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Harris, etc. are conservative, the ones wanting to erase "reforms" reactionaries (mainly the Republican Party wanting even more limited government).
Herein is the kernel of social philosophy – the development of society. One of the foundations of National Reformationism is organicity. Who is a citizen and how does s/he relate to society? What is society, and where does the citizen fit in? Most significant is the raison d'etre – the reason why. To us, it is the search for truth, an in instantiation of the Latin for religion, "to cohere or bind". I leave it to you the reader to explore the etymology of "religion".
Here, in summary, are the philosophers realizing that society is organic, each component articulating with the rest making the whole possible. Yet, without the whole, the components would not thrive.
For your perusal:
WriterWritingPlato (circa 428/427 BCE - circa 348/347)RepublicAristotle (circa 384 – circa 322 B.C.E.)PoliticsThomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) - artificial but acting as organismLeviathanJean Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 - 2 July 1778)The Social Contract and DiscoursesHenri Saint-Simon (17 October 1760 – 19 May 1825)Du Systeme Industriel, The Political Thought of Saint-Simon Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (27 August 1770 – 14 November 1831)Philosophy of History, Philosophy of RightJohann Caspar (also Kaspar) Bluntschli (7 March 1808 – 21 October 1881)The Theory of the StateAuguste Comte 19 January 1798 – 5 September 1857)Cours de Philosophie Positive, The Positive Philosophy of Auguste ComteEmile Durkheim (15 April 1858 – 15 November 1917)The Division of Labor in SocietyOswald Spengler (29 May 1880 – 8 May 1936)Decline of the West
(Links valid as of 8 May 2021)
We now can apply the previous to the "cancel" ideology. As you can see, the backdrop is that most fundamental law, its violation a cancellation of society, itself. It should be increasingly clear that evacuating the contents of "left" and "right" negates this vital conversation. Canceling organicity is the same as death. Applied to social philosophy, we have social dissolution. How so?
Bound up with the cancel culture ideologues is a contradiction. Race is a social construct, and those discriminating on "race" need extensive education, not obliteration. Little substantive difference exists between Black Lives Matter advocates and Nazis, "racism" common to both, the obvious problem of a "mixed race" person selecting between "white" and "black". Regarding "ethnicity", boundary problems abound here, as well. When does a person from Slovenia become an "ethnic" Slovak?
We come to identity. Remember Burnham, and Berle and Means above. Let's see why these three authors are critical to understanding identity. But, we need to know a bit about it, first. Elsewhere, I have written in The National Reformationist about "externals" (the phenomena, not the philosophical foundation) enshrouding identity politics and its reasons: "You and the other", "The George Floyd protests and the rage of identity politics", and "The logical and social foundations of occupational organicity" [The National Reformationist #13].
As we live, we interact with the environment, those interactions become a part of us throughout spacetime. Humans are volitional creatures; they are ultimately able to make decisions freely, this meaning that each choice, the advantages are balanced with the disadvantages, each relevant to each person interacted with. No one is forced or coerced into making a decision. Here, full identity means the power to choose.
Both the mental and physical work together to form one's identity. We create and use knowledge to transform natural objects, intellectual and physical property. Said John Locke, one of the founding philosophers of liberalism, in his 1689 Second Treatise on Civil Government, "So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property" [Chapter 5/27, p. 11]. Our identity allows us to mentate (think, have emotions, etc.) and do physical labor. Part of a person's being is inextricably intertwined with the entity, material and non-material, and part of that entity becomes a part of her/his identity. Created entities are deposited in a storehouse and accumulate. A portion not needed then is exchanged for what others have accumulated and is needed. Theoretically, pieces of identity are swapped, each party satisfied no force or coercion was used in the exchange, each person able to freely withdraw with no adverse consequences.
While numerous factors can bring on alienation, here, I will present arguably the main one, i.e., a computably large part of our identity is bound up with our ability to work.
There is no better way than looking at disposable hours, ones truly ours when we can do as we want. True, work can be recreation. Another complication is the boundary between coercion and unencumbered choice. Data report how theory and hypotheticals become actuality, mainly radical income stratification, poverty, no schooling, and mental distress. Such data prompts exploring reasons for how one loses control over her/his life.
Simple arithmetic will quantify the problem, i.e., how our identity is distributed.
168 – hours in a week (seven 24-hour days)
-56 – hours we are asleep
112 – awake time – all we have to work with – to be divided into work and free-time
-40 – total work hours in a week – 5 eight-hour days – 35.7% of the awake time (40/112)
72 - "disposable" hours – 42.86% of the total week – less than half!
Yet, most persons prepare for the workplace and travel there. They need clothes, professional and vocational preparation, transportation, and so forth. If we add in morning preparation (an hour a day), commute time (one hour), and ancillary time, like clothes shopping (one hour), skills preparation, and so forth, it is not unreasonable to add an extra three hours daily. Now, we have
112 – awake time – all we have to work with – to be divided into work and free-time
-55 - an 11-hour workday (5 days x 11 hours), i.e., 3x5=15 more weekly hours - 49.1% (55/112).
57 - "disposable" hours
In other words, our work-related identity, then, is entangled half our waking time. Now ask who "owns" your labor power? By trading it for money, you lost it, i.e., their buying, your selling. More explicitly, you sold part of your identity. Go back to Burnham, and Berle and Means.
If I have no say about how my labor power is distributed or am not compensated for it adequately, my identity has been expropriated, not under my purview but someones else's. When you are not compensated fully, you have "wage slavery".
If you think there is a choice, consider one's family obligations, consequences of leaving the workplace without necessary resources to obtain life's necessities, and so forth. You do not have the simplistic "freedom of choice", for while technically accurate, this bourgeois canard substantially fails in the real world. You are coerced. Eat dirt or die. Social programmes? In the U.S., you actively have to be searching for work, and if you refuse job offers, you usually do not get social services, leaving you poor, homeless, and often starving. Radical income stratification stands like a mountain overshadowing neoliberal ideology. "Social Darwinism" is the credo, nature taking its own course, with all the attendant laws of natural selection ostensibly making the species stronger and more survivable in the end. Capitalism rewards predatory behavior, cooperation for high-road values. Returning to the previous of how the "cancel culture" mentality disgorges meaning from "left-wing" and "right-wing", capitalism gets a free pass, the debate effectively canceled due to evacuating the terms of meaning. Somewhat hilariously, I read this morning a commentator's reference to "left" to include "bankster owners". If this is anywhere near what the average person believes, indeed, we are in real trouble.
Societies are organic, individuals having to work together, each with her/his own specialty (virtue), but if one preys on another, ultimately the organism will be consumed. Think "parasite". So too and paradoxically will diverting everyone's attention to identity politics. Identity is not cancellation. Neither is it dividing individuals according to physiology, the immediately flawed "race" and "ethnicity" nor politicizing gender. Otherwise stated, a component working at odds with the whole (alienated) compromises the ability of both to survive. True, the whole may reject a foreign component, but its immune system cannot sustain repeated assaults. Once healthy elements can become diseased. Here, we can see how criminals, one of the most alienated groups, impose a heavy burden on society for society's failure to integrate them. Anti-social behavior usually stems from alienation, the absence of the State, and rampant narcissistic and hedonistic values. Analogizing, healthy cells turn cancerous.
Once again, the most fundamental law of the unity of difference incorporates the substance of identity. As usual, here is the solution: