Variety’s Spice of Life Versus Diversity’s Murder of Culture

variety-is-the-spice-of-life

We must all obey the great law of change,” wrote Edmund Burke to Sir Hercules Langrishe in 1792, for “It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation.” Thus within the conservation of civil society and culture lies the most important link in bridging its reality with the fantasia undergirded by irony and paradox. Left-wing ideologues press for a diverse society and, in the process, construct a foundation consistent with universal outrage at counterrevolutionaries. The term diversity is employed to manufacture a system classified by dichotomy (that is, a choice of two possible conclusions) through the faux lens of neutrality. From the Old French word diversité meaning “difference, diversity, unique feature, oddness” are derived contemporary synonyms including “wickedness, perversity” in conjunction with its Latin cousin diversitatem, (“contrariety, contradiction, disagreement”). While becoming politically mainstreamed in the 1790’s, its contemporary modifier is primarily applied to elements of class warfare (ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc.) so characterized by identity politics.

There is too the presence of the other derivative, variety, meaning “turned different ways.” Originated in the Late Latin word “various,” its first notable application references a “change of fortunes,” while the Middle French variété and more directly from Latin, varietatem (nominative varietas) translate to “difference, diversity; a kind, variety, species, sort” in partly validating diversity’s prefix “di-” (applied to loanwords for “two,” “twice,” “double”) in describing the absence of monotony. It would ultimately morph into a “collection of different things” to describe art and music as “something different from others.”

John Randolph of Roanoke (1773-1833)

John Randolph of Roanoke (1773-1833)

History and semantics teach of valuable lessons for civil societies to heed whenever pressed with an agenda for progress. A cost-benefit analysis into how best to conserve a civil society is critical to understand what once worked, is tried and true, what is broken, and how one might fix his broken clock so it will not strike twice.

Conservatism therefore, over all other “-isms,” is predicated on the appreciation the laws of nature provide an orderly infrastructure. As John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, noted, “Change is not reform,” for “Early and provident fear,” per Burke “is the mother of safety,” for governments of “men of intemperate minds cannot be free” if “Their passions forge their fetters…. when they act from feeling, negating “the influence of imagination.” For Russell Kirk, “Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity, because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.”

For liberty to be possessed according to Lord Acton, it must be limited by “the prevention of control by others,” a direct contradiction of the libertarian intellectual Murray Rothbard’s contention that “If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of ‘impermissible anarchy,’ why may not… each person secede from government?” in manufacturing a “purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive state has ceased to exist.” But, if as Burke acknowledged, “The cold neutrality of an impartial judge” no longer exists to, as John Locke presented it, “preserve and enlarge freedom,” where might one experience that “Freedom of Men,” lest one and all “under Government is, to have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society,… and not to be subject to the… Arbitrary Will of another Man”? If people are naturally born free of preconceptions as Locke defined of the tabula rasa (“blank slate”), “Freedom of Nature is, to be under no other restraint but the Law of Nature.” Thus true liberty, per Lord Acton, “requires self-control” for it to be obtained given it is “a question of morals more than of politics,” for no man is an island unto himself. For civil societies to fulfill their obligations for securing popular peaceful cohabitation, it must conserve the historic cultural commonalities of “religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being.” If “in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom,” simply being the “absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body” inevitably succumbs to the slippery slope for why he will willingly “part with his freedom, this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control,” in which “Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins,” yet those with a “sound mind in a sound body,” per Locke, exist in “a short but full description happy state in this world.”

Cover of Leviathan by Sir Thomas Hobbies (1651)

Cover of Leviathan by Sir Thomas Hobbies (1651)

Surrendering to anarchy, per Sir Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan), requires society succumbing to its “war of all against all” given no other means for its conservation through ensuring property rights against the vices of others purely exist. “In such condition,” wrote Hobbes, that “there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth…, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society” can exist to aid “the life of man” who otherwise live in a “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” state ruminating over “the continual fear and danger of violent death.” Consequently, parents through “humouring and cockering them when little, corrupt the principles of nature in their children” will rarely acknowledge that “they themselves have poison’d the fountain.” “Despotic power,” wrote Lord Acton, “is always accompanied by corruption of morality” — a factor which without the secular creed characteristic of left-wing ideology, cannot thrive in preventing the destabilization of civil society. Achieved only through killing human curiosity by stifling the qualities Burke attributes to one “who grieves, suffers his passion to grow upon him,” left-wing ideologues force the collectivized capitulation to actual pain, “which no man ever willingly endured for any considerable time.” Leftists must suppress a people with “a degree of delight” in appreciating how Stonehenge might “turn the mind on the immense force necessary for such a work” in imitating the spices of life (or, “right vs. wrong”).

Left-wing revisionists echo Mao Zedong in that “Not to have a correct political point of view is like having no soul.” The leftist British philosopher Bertrand Russell calls for “social psychologists of the future” to “have a number of classes of school children on whom they will fay different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black,” applying “mass psychology,” through “the art of persuasion… that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the state with money and equipment.” Illustrating his point by referring to the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaxagoras’ description “that snow is black but no one believed him” as the ultimate end, this will never be achieved “unless indoctrination begins before age ten,” for “the influence of the home” serves as an “obstructive” barrier to the rise of an all powerful sovereign promoting diversity as an universal “opinion… that snow is white must… show a morbid taste for eccentricity.” Thus leftists, through an artificial humanist revision of the natural order, must universally deprive children of their natural curiosity for the spices of life, where variety in the abstract seeks the latent Machiavellian repression of the “independence of the mind” through “Diet, injections, and injunctions… from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable” — for which Joseph Stalin condemned all various “differences in a vigorous movement” in his editorial for Pravda #1 in 1912 by intimating that “true conformity’ is possible only in the cemetery.” Left-wing propaganda from Europe to America remain committed to stifling true variety through juxtaposing negative overtones “contrary to what is agreeable or right” for ostracizing—or worse—those on the “wrong side of history” in assuring “any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

Comments are closed.