Walls divide, but they also preserve. We run our mouths about tolerance, virtues, and morality. We also use them to destroy matter and consume life.
Liberals and leftists can be just as polarizing. They want a world characterized by radical egalitarianism, absolute tolerance, and inclusiveness, and yet they’re apt to resort to violence and savagery when others don’t bend the knee to accommodate their idyllic world view. This is because their sense of moral supremacy, which in turn derives from their self-righteous belief that they are “right” in accordance with objective reality, grants them entitlement and allows them to suspend decency in favor of doing whatever it takes to achieve and maintain the way they think things ought to be. I would argue that the main driving force of their cause is a sincere desire to violently defend weakness, and perpetuate low-stress/low-resistance lifestyles.
My problem with this is that proponents of this philosophy have no clear vision of an end game. While the “level playing field” they desire is arguably a good environment to facilitate collaboration, it also fosters competition, and by extension, domestic conflict, which is of course undesirable. Furthermore, the scary thing about that, is that if their level playing field doesn’t lead to conflict, then you have a new problem to deal with altogether. Integration requires the removal and suppression of borders, those points of demarcation that clearly distinguish peoples and cultures. One would be hard-pressed to argue that multiculturalism and diversity do not inevitably see to the erosion of distinction, for when in close contact for long periods of time, such things as peoples and cultures inevitably change each other in a mutual exchange. This leads to an eventual “leveling out”, a bell curve distribution of normality that defies the very “diversity” that liberals and leftists claim to embrace and aspire to. If this outcome is not true, then the only alternative remaining to deduce is that of the former assertion. That tribalism and in-group preferential behavior is so innately part of us, that social friction from insular co-habitation in an inevitability. This kind of power struggle is not immune to the eventual outcome of “victory”, by way of force, or by way of majority influence. At least one or more parties involved have to compromise. Someone has to lose ground.
When liberals and leftists fight for “equality”, what they’re really fighting for is a paradigm of existence that both facilitates and perpetuates conflict and chaos. Traditionalists, conservatives, and right-wingers differ from this in that they support the implementation of checks and balances in order to assure the preservation and continuity of ways of life. This can be referred to as order, something that many liberals, leftists, (as well as their anarchist/Antifa counterparts) seem to have an aversion to.