Video script:

Right now the dominant ideology in the west is diversity.

Celebrating differences, inclusivity, and global connection

Yet when you step back and look at the bigger picture, the effect can be the opposite

By promoting global ideals and universal standards, we are erasing traditional cultures.

Forcing societies into one framework and undermining their unique identity.

What looks like liberation can actually be cultural oppression.

Comment

There are two main issues I have with this video. 

The first is fairly basic. “Diversity” is not an ideology. It is an aspect of ideologies, common in leftist ideologies, but it is not itself an ideology. There is no “Diversity-ism”. Furthermore, calling “diversity” dominant in the west is a radical misunderstanding of the Western political climate. I struggle to think of a single Western nation that actually practices the ideas often attributed by leftists to diversity.

The second is a misunderstanding of what culture is. The core point of the video is that “promoting western (leftist) ideas and standards on second and third world cultures erases a fundamental part of their identity” if you accept the paraphrase. If you don’t, please make clearer and more concrete points. Explain what the “one framework” is and how this framework undermines “unique identity”

In my interpretation of the somewhat vague statement, these “fundamental parts” of “traditional cultures” are bigotries challenges by ideas of not wanting to be bigoted. To be specific, “traditional ideas” that pertain to gendered oppression, like “we must wear this garment”, bigotries against certain gender expressions like “men should not wear dresses”, or bigotries against sexuality like the cultural exclusion of homosexual people. 

What most leftists want is for these bigotries to shift away from “if you break our cultural rules you will be punished” to “if you break some cultural rules, that’s fine! Be yourself”. This does, in a way, erase the traditional aspect of culture by advocating that we don’t punish people based on immutable aspects of their identity. 

But this doesn’t erase the culture. Fundamentally, culture is its people. Their language, food, little rituals, this is what makes a culture. To genuinely erase a culture is to target these aspects of it.

This video also forgets that “culture” isn’t some definite category that people fit into. It’s a description of these shared norms over groups of people. These shared norms are ever-changing, as the people that make up the cultures themselves change. Every generation adds their own little thing, and forgets some other aspect of the culture. Cultures are living, breathing people.

My posted comment

This video makes two assumptions I think are worth challenging.

First, “diversity” isn’t an ideology. It’s a value that appears in certain ideologies, especially left-leaning ones, but there’s no such thing as “diversity-ism”. And while some Western institutions promote diversity rhetorically, it’s a stretch to say it’s the dominant ideology. I myself struggle to think of a single Western nation with a ruling party that actually promotes diversity.

Second, the video frames culture as something fixed that can be “erased”, but culture is actually dynamic. It’s not just a set of rigid rules. It’s people, their language, food, art, and everyday practices. These things evolve as generations grow and change. When leftist ideas challenge “traditional values”, it’s usually about reducing harm. For example, moving from “people must be punished for breaking gender roles” to “people can express themselves freely”. That does change certain traditions, but it doesn’t erase the culture itself.

True cultural erasure would mean eliminating a group’s language or practices entirely. Critiquing harmful norms isn’t the same as cultural genocide, it’s part of how cultures naturally grow and adapt.

Creator’s response

Appreciate the challenge 😉 

First an ideology is a principle or value that someone ACTIVELY follows or promotes. That’s what we have in the west now with businesses actively promoting diversity as a principle value in the company. 

Second erased was definitely the wrong word to use. If I only stuck to oppressed it would have been more accurate. Do you think it’s been weaponised in the west at all? 

I’m ultimately trying to look at things from new perspectives without our “norms” cause I’m seeing patterns emerge that we should at least be thinking about.

My thoughts about the response

It’s actually a really refreshing response that makes me think this creator is just genuinely curious and is actually challenging aspects of society. 

The clarification of diversity as a prevailing principle in company politics clears things up a lot. To my knowledge, the majority of western companies would report to value diversity, and a large subset of those companies would actually act on that value as well. 

Companies usually promote diversity for two reasons, both are ultimately in the pursuit of profit. The first is that espousing diversity gives the company a good image. The second is that a diverse team of employees actually increased throughput, as problems can be tackled from a wider range of perspectives. However, many companies in the United States have began abandoning “diversity” as the political and cultural climate shifts away from valuing diversity. 

Secondly, I think the extent to which the west has cultural influence over the second and third worlds is miniscule. The branches of western companies that are set up in these places often don’t carry the values of diversity with them. Often, this is because culture in those areas is more “traditional” or conservative. For example, during pride month, western branches will change their social media profile pic to pride flags, and might do something similar to their physical stores. In more conservative areas and countries, they don’t do this because they have no reason to, in fact it would likely harm their profits because of the more culturally conservative aspects of these societies. 

The weaponisaton of diversity is a deep subject, and it’s not often targeting minority cultures or traditional cultures in the second or third world. In fact, diversity is often used as a way to divide workers, creating new minorities that can be blamed for the world’s issues. I’m not sure adding this as a comment would be a great idea, as it is essentially Marxist theory, however masking it in a more approachable way might help.

I really like how this creator is trying to “look at things from a new perspective”. They might not know it, but it’s a fundamental aspect of critical theory. From the content of the original video, I suspected the creator was centrist in that they are clearly influenced by common media talking points like the challenges against “diversity” often posed by right leaning media sources. While, they weren’t actively portraying diversity as a bad thing, rather just looking to criticise some aspect of it. I think that’s commendable.

Although, “I’m seeing patterns emerge that we should at least be thinking about” is really vague. Humans are built to see patterns emerge, even when there are none. If he were to actually mention the patterns, which might be tied to criticisms of diversity politics, I would be able to actually understand what this creator is getting at with this criticism of diversity. 

To directly answer the question posed in the response, diversity isn’t being weaponised against “traditional cultures” by companies or by the majority of leftists. It is, however, being weaponised by right-leaning media sources in an attempt to distract people from real economic issues.

Further investigation

I’ve looked at their channel. Their earliest video is from 6 months ago. The most stand-out titles to me are “Why I Left the Left”, “Small Business is Being Wiped Out”, “Digital ID: Welcome to the Matrix”, “And Aussies are protesting a war we’re not even in”.
I’m trying to understand this person’s politics, and “Why I Left the Left” is a great place to start. 

The video is a critique of the left. Their core points are:

• When I was seeking purpose in life, the Left gave it to me
• They said that I was morally superior for buying into slogans, I thought i was better than everyone
• I was depressed, and even tried veganism until my health started rapidly deteriorating.
• They hijacked my heart, telling me I was on the side of good, compassion, and truth
• When I critically looked at the left, all I saw was guilt, fear, censorship, and division.
• I like the right now because they are saying “what everyone knows deep down”. You can’t run a society on feelings.
• The media portrays the right as cartoon villains
• I thought you’re either on the left or on the right.

I think this video’s profound. If this were a more popular channel, I would consider the “why i left the left” to be fake. Usually, it’s people like Ben Shapiro mischaracterising the left, or something like that. However, with this creator, I genuinely believe that they were engaging with leftist politics that were shallow, virtue-signalling. I don’t deny they exist. 

I actually empathise with the creator. I was once involved in the RCP, the Revolutionary Communist Party, mostly because I am a radicalised leftist and I could still describe myself as a revolutionary communist. The RCP has good ideas, but when I actually critically read Lenin’s State and Revolution I found an unfinished mess that didn’t actually say any of the things other RCP members said it did. I’m currently on my critical leftist spiritual journey of political clarity.

So my rejection of some RCP principles comes from a critique of some of their fundamental sources. I don’t read often, and I can’t wait until I am motivated to properly critique Lenin’s other works, and read Trotsky. But, I am still a leftist, as I engage with leftist media sources that make really good points. I can see how that if I wasn’t predisposed to leftism by my upbringing, I might have leaned more right wing because I was consuming right-leaning media. This is exactly what I suspect is happening to this creator. 

My only issue with this video is that it portrays the left like a single entity, and the right like a single entity. Core to my philosophy is that society is ultimately people doing things. The so-called “left” is actually just a bunch of people each with their own unique perspectives. Some may be in a more cult-like “virtue signalling” circle, where they espouse leftist talking points because it makes them seem superior. Some, like myself, are on the left because we have weighed both the right and the left and decided for ourselves which side is more fair and will lead to a better world.

But this view is informed by leftist media, and my own personal critiques of both it and right wing media. If I had not the philosophy of dialectical materialism, this would not so much be the case. 

Diversity Paradox

Their “The Diversity Paradox” is my next watch.

• Israel or palestine is often viewed through a simple lens of right verses wrong, but reality is far more complex.
• For centuries, the middle east has overall been stable. Communities worked together, traditions thrived, and wealth and resources largely stayed within the country. Living standards were solid (??) and culture and identity were strong.
• Western influence through trade, political influence, and the globalisation of economies has lead to economies destabilising.
• Cultural identity clashed with imported norms.
• The social fabric between those communities began to tear because of this western influence.
• Some of these nations tried to regain control through their traditional values and local governance. Iran, for example, returned to its traditional cultural norms that are painted as oppressive by progressive values.
• “Western fashions” are marketed as freedom, while a country’s return to its traditional cultural norms are painted as oppressive. 
• Resistance was never about oppression, it was about reclaiming autonomy for the nation and the people living there.
• The dominant ideology in the west is diversity (this is where the short begins)
• Through promoting “global ideals and universal standards” we are erasing traditional cultures (The creator’s previous comment should be considered for the interpretation of this point)
• Because our ideals are the right ideals, apparently, foreign intervention follows (this is actually a really good take, if it were only applied through a more leftist lens)
• The narriative is controlled by the winners; leaders defending their culture and their nation are labeled as evil villains. 
• Countries become dependent on foreign aid, loans, and global institutions, forcing them into our systems that they didnt choose (again, a really good criticism)
• Traditional cultures destabilised, resistance framed as evil, then forced into global systems. It’s a repeating pattern across history.
• When we look at Palestine, or any nation, we need to stop applying a western lens. What may look oppressive or backwards to us is often a culture reclaiming stability after foreign interference. 
• The west is now entering the same cycle. The “European culture” aka Christian traditions, local culture, and longheld societal values are being destabilised.
• Social cohesion is weakening, our economy is stressed, and cultural identity is being questioned, echoing the pattern we see in Palestine, Germany, and historical civilisations.
• Nations are often framed as bad for simply wanting to follow their own path. The progressive values like this are even being pushed on Russia and China. They want the same thing, to keep their traditions and keep their money in their country
• We should start asking why aren’t we told certain things? Why are we always the good guy? And why are our ideals being pushed on the world?

Again, I kind of like this video. Not because of its politics, but because of its profoundity. This is a genuinely critical person informed by right leaning media, but their own thoughts and realisations seep through and stick out like a sore thumb. 

I see this again and again in honest right wing discussions. They know the root of the problem identified, partially because it’s just so obvious. But then they are not informed enough to come to the correct conclusions. So, I feel the need to take the role of the educator, while also taking the role of a critical student. 

response for The Diversity Paradox

Although there is something to be said about the stability of middle eastern countries before western colonisation, he is absolutely right! Western influence has destabilised the middle east, but it wasn’t western values implied onto incompatible cultures. In fact, most division in the modern world was deliberately manufactured by the large ancient empires of old. 

I now feel motivated as ever to read it, but I’m aware of the book “A Line in the Sand” which goes across first hand accounts of how these massive empires deliberately divided the middle east. I don’t know if its included in the contents of the book, but the middle east was also made deliberately divided within itself, so that the empires could control it more. 

This is why Israel exists. It was a british ploy to divide and conquer. Now, Israel is a western puppet. 

If I were to get real communist about it, these “traditional values” which concretely source from women’s oppression, other gendered oppression, and the oppression of freedom of expression, are exactly about control. He is completely correct in stating that Iran and nations like it introduce these values to help regain control. What is worth criticising is that the reasons these values work for control is because they oppress their own citizenry. 

He is also exactly right in saying that the same thing is happening in the west, but is wrong in saying that it is a cycle, and is a little misguided on his other interpretations of western politics. 

In the west, we have managed to largely break free of these “traditional values” that seek to oppress our own people. We have managed to promote self-expression, non-conformity, and women’s rights because they were used to control and oppress. With our rights, we the people have only seen the first taste of freedom, and it is easy to look up to the sun and try to follow it. 

What is happening in the west is also exactly what has happened in the middle east. The rulers of the nation are dividing and conquering. Their division is the topics of diversity. DEI, transgender people, progressives in general. They want to distract us with these issues, and then re-introduce the oppressive elements of our old culture that made us so much easier to control. 

While traditional values might lead to a stable society, let it be known that societies are made up of people. In these traditional societies, wealth disparities were awful. They were stable in that the rulers oversaw massive armies and police forces that curtailed the rights of the citizenry to make it easier to exert control. To make it easier to hold a stable regime.

I suppose, I would urge a critical thinker to consider if “stability” in a nation is inherently good. Does stability always reflect fairness? Does stability reflect compassion? 

My conclusion is obviously no. Having another come to that conclusion is a challenge. 

We may be in unstable times, but it is not because of progressivism. It is because of the degradation of capitalism, it is because the rich divide us for power and money.

So how am I supposed to communicate this, get this honestly critical youtuber to critisise the right wing instead of continuing down this train of right-wing sympathies? 

My final comment

​It’s really refreshing to see someone actually engaged in critical discussion. 

I think you make a great point about diversity being promoted by companies as a core value. A lot of them definitely do it, but in my view, it’s rarely because they genuinely care. It’s usually about profit. 

What’s interesting is that diversity gets used in two different ways: some companies push it to appeal to progressive audiences, while others attack it to appeal to conservative audiences. Meanwhile, the people with real economic power stay in the background and benefit from everyone being divided. 

I think sometimes what looks like a culture “returning to stability” is really just those in power tightening control again, which can seem stable but isn’t always fair or healthy for the people living under it.

Their final comment

You’re more awake than I first thought. I think you’re spot on about it being used as a tool for division. Which seems counterintuitive for “diversity” doesn’t it?

That’s where my thought process flipped with this. What if it is a trick? If every culture world wide pushes diversity, does it not end with the MAJORITY of the world really just living under one idealogy? In turn making the world less diverse in the name of diversity?

My final thoughts

Yes, I am more awake than you think. I’m more awake than you, in fact! I’m WOKE! I’M A RADICAL TRANSGENDER COMMUNIST!!! HAHAHAHAH HA COWER BENEATH MY DOING NOTHING THEY SAY I DO!

anyway, this response kinda ignores a couple things I’ve said.

I disagree with their definition of ideology. An ideology is a collection of ideals and principles rather than a single idea or principle. Single ideas or principles are just ideas or principles, like diversity is an idea, or a principle.

They also didn’t really engage with culture as actual people and their rituals. What they seemingly mean by the world becoming less diverse in the name of diversity is a sort of ideological diversity. Diverse ideals only really challenge the aspects of culture that oppress, and I argued that removing these oppressive elements of a culture don’t actually change the culture itself. Take, for example, Muslim women who are perfectly free to not wear traditional headwear but choose to do it anyway.

Living under one ideology might seem less diverse, but it’s meaning of diversity is really a type of political diversity. Under this political diversity, the most diverse world would be one where Nazis and utopian communist societies co-exist. And the least diverse world would just be the entire world under one ideology, and it wouldn’t really matter what that ideology was. Again, “diversity” itself isn’t an ideology, but if an ideology with diversity as one of its core tenets were to become the only ideology, would that really be a bad thing?

Is less political diversity inherently bad?

My answer is no and lol. If we come up with some political system where everyone lives in paradise, where different cultures are allowed to flourish and continue doing their little rituals while no-one is forced to conform to anything, where people are truly free and given everything they need to express their creative desires. We would have zero political diversity, although individuals might themselves have different ideas of how to continue improving their community. We would also have as much cultural diversity as we would need, without any oppression.