> Is that really something conflicts with a lot of cultures and religions? Yes, it does. That's a product of post-war liberalism that isn't even really believe

> Is that really something conflicts with a lot of cultures and religions? Yes, it does. That's a product of post-war liberalism that isn't even really believed that much in the West anymore - and was always aspirational in nature. It didn't even last 5 years, TBH, before the US, Europe and the USSR began funding various racial wars in Africa and Southeast Asia. Today there are lot of people in the West who believe in things like inherited guilt, collective guilt and punishment, and a hierarchy of who has more dignity versus someone else. Then go to the Islamic world, orthodox jewish world, China, Africa, and even other parts of Asia, and you will not find a lot of people agreeing that everyone in the whole world, esp. enemy tribes, or nearby members of rival societies, are born free and equal in dignity and rights, or that they are part of any kind of global brotherhood. In terms of the last paragraph, suffice to say that I disagree with the conclusions and assumptions, as I don't think it's a realistic or viable description of human relationships, and has historically caused more harm than good because it ends up being used as yet another reason to attack and divide people. The 20th Century was famous for, in addition to the usual racial and economic wars, introducing things like class and ideology as other dimensions to wage war on. So it's like the XKCD cartoon where you see 11 standards and decide to introduce a universal new standard, and you just end up with 12 standards.