|
|
|
|
|
|
“Wokeism presents itself as a new secular religion”—Author and Diplomat Francisco Henriques da Silva
Francisco Henriques da Silva is Portugal’s former ambassador to Hungary, India, Mexico, and a number of other countries. He is also an incisive conservative thinker and a prolific writer. We sat down with him to speak about his latest book, Cultural Wars and the Woke Threat and whether wokeism is in retreat or is here to stay.
The book Cultural Wars and the Woke Threat addresses a burning issue in contemporary debate. How would you define the concept of “woke” in the context of the book, and why do you consider this ideology a threat to Western societies?
We can define “woke” as a movement advocating for social justice from a radical leftist perspective, focusing on issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, environmentalism, and vegetarianism, among others. It involves an active and militant fight against all forms of discrimination, implying a break with the past to create a new culture and, consequently, the elimination of any dissenting voices.
Woke is, therefore, a fundamentalist movement aimed at raising awareness of alleged past and present racial and social injustices. Originating in the African-American community, it stems from the concept of being “awake” or vigilant, which then extends to society at large, where all groups allegedly subjected to discrimination identify with the dichotomous logic of oppressor/oppressed, dominator/dominated, exploiter/exploited. From the notion of being “awake” (woke), it transitions to the punitive concept of “cancel culture,” which is inherently linked: if we are awake to discrimination, we must cancel (ban) those who discriminate.
Ultimately, wokeism seeks to change the civilizational and cultural matrix of the West, erasing the principles, values, and references of the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, as well as the Enlightenment, science, and technology—in short, the world we have built.
In summary, all negative attributes that mark history—slavery, racism, colonialism, oppression of minorities and peoples, genocide, etc.—are deemed the exclusive responsibility of the West. Other peoples and cultures are exempt from any sins, or if they exist, they are deemed irrelevant, marginal, and inconsequential. Thus, there persists a diffuse and often incoherent capital of grievance rooted in resentment, aiming for an unrelenting struggle and, ultimately, the eradication of Western culture.
Is wokeism truly a derivative of Marxism? Or is it rather a product of the bourgeois worldview, individualism taken to its extreme, and a rebellion against anything that binds, including national and biological reality? In essence, isn’t wokeism an extreme form of liberalism?
Wokeism is essentially based on three distinct sources, all rooted in heterodox Marxism: Gramscianism, the Frankfurt School, and postmodernists. These schools aim, in one way or another, not only to critique but to deconstruct Western culture and, concomitantly, create a “new man.” However, we cannot limit ourselves to this universe of para-Marxist theoretical influences; hyperliberalism plays an equally significant role.
Indeed, hyperliberalism, favored by urban elites in the Anglo-Saxon sphere, rejects state intervention in economic, political, and social life, and emphasizes unrestricted individual freedom. This is another essential component of wokeism, often underemphasized but providing the necessary and sufficient foundation for it to become unavoidable in contemporary Western society. It is individualism elevated to the nth degree, without any restraints.
However, I stress that this extreme and elitist liberalism is strongly opposed by the majority of the population, which does not accept it.
Although several authors, such as Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Victor Davis Hanson, or William S. Lind, qualify wokeism as “cultural Marxism” or “postmodern neo-Marxism,” caution is needed with these terms, as they can lead to confusion. The theses defended by proponents of this movement somewhat contradict traditional Marxist movements. Moreover, they obscure the decisive importance of hyperliberalism, without which the phenomenon would be merely marginal.
How can we understand a movement that is, in fact, one of self-denial and civilizational suicide?
A monumental illusion has been created, a boundless fallacy that—as Emmanuel Todd observed—represents a nihilistic and intellectually dishonest act. This construction seeks to impose itself on the so-called “bubble,” that is, the urban middle classes of higher socioeconomic levels and the media that align with them. The strategy is clear: to root this lie in that restricted group and, from there, spread it to the rest of society. The great unknown is which side the average citizen will choose—and it’s not hard to guess their likely stance.
Christianity, which could have been a bastion of resistance against the advance of woke ideology, is now in rapid decline. In its place, relativism, hedonism, emotivism, and nihilism thrive.
It’s worth noting that wokeism presents itself as a new secular religion, with a messianic and Calvinist-inspired matrix, emphasizing the concept of predestination: some are the elect, others the reprobate. In Calvinism, this distinction is sovereignly determined by God and influences salvation. In the woke universe, the white, heterosexual man is irredeemably condemned—without possibility of redemption. In Christianity, original sin can be redeemed through baptism. In wokeism, the “original guilt” of the white man is indelible. He cannot change his skin color; genetics forbids it. As a heterosexual, he is, by definition, homophobic. Even if he tries to become a woman, he can never fully succeed, as biology prevents it. He is thus marked from the outset as a privileged beneficiary of a heteropatriarchal system that historically favored him. Consequently, he is condemned—with no possibility of atonement.
The triumph of moral relativism, embodied in woke ideology, is, without a doubt, the greatest threat, from which all others derive. It represents the death sentence of Western civilization.
We are witnessing the culmination of a long crisis of values that has been ongoing for decades and is now entering its terminal phase. It is unclear when this cycle will conclude, but it is certain that the end is approaching.
University—a noble creation of Christian Europe—seems to have been entirely captured by the woke sect. How can we restore it to its duty and align it with the common good—indeed, how can we decolonize it from woke penetration without infringing on its freedom?
University was, without a doubt, the cradle of the woke movement—and there is little room to dispute this reality. It all began in the departments of Social Sciences and Humanities, where this ideology quickly became dominant, driven by the imposition of political correctness and the spread of cancel culture. From there, it gradually extended to the so-called hard sciences, and today, virtually no academic discipline remains immune to woke influence.
In summary: history is rewritten, biology is ignored, and mathematics is devalued, accused of being structurally racist (!). This deliberate collapse of academia is, ultimately, the alarm bell for the decline of Western civilization.
Other global powers, such as China, India, and Russia, have refused to engage in this “ideological harakiri,” positioning themselves to define the new rules of the world order.
However, the contamination has not been confined to the academic sphere. The metastases have spread to nearly the entire social body: the media, the political class—especially among the left and so-called liberals—the entertainment industry, social networks, and even preschool and primary education. Last but not least, the overt support of big capital for woke causes, which may seem contradictory at first glance but makes perfect sense when we consider the maxim: money talks. All these sectors interact and reinforce each other, creating a cohesive and resilient ideological network.
As long as political power remains passive, permissive—or worse, complicit—little can be done. The core of the problem must be recognized: it is a political issue and must be addressed on that level. Among the measures that can be taken, I highlight the promoting true intellectual pluralism, replacing diversity based on physical characteristics (sex, ethnicity, skin color, etc.) with diversity of ideas not aligned with specific ideologies (i.e., “non-woke”); the reformulating academic curricula to eliminate biased narratives and dogmatism; guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms in universities, especially freedom of expression, with sanctions for violations; the explicit condemnation of intellectual repression and cancel culture; and the suspension public funding for universities, dependent institutes, and media outlets that violate these freedoms or promote dogmatism.
In my view, financial measures may prove to be the most effective. If the rules of the game are respected, the problems tend to disappear. In case of non-compliance, sanctions and corrective mechanisms should be applied. It is worth remembering that the woke movement is inherently totalitarian and will not hesitate to advance whenever it encounters weakness or hesitation.
Today, the conservative right seems to be on the rise across the West; there is an impression of a counter-revolution. Is this reading too optimistic? Has the woke hydra been defeated, or is it preparing a comeback?
In my view, the woke movement has not yet been defeated. Despite factors such as Donald Trump’s election and his anti-woke executive orders, the recent UK Supreme Court decision defining sex as a biological criterion (reaffirming a commonsense distinction of immense relevance amid the prevailing confusion), and various restrictive measures in European countries that seem to indicate a retreat of the phenomenon, I question whether this apparent regression is real.
The movement is deeply entrenched in Western society and is difficult to eradicate. The pendulum has swung in one direction, but it could reverse at any moment.
Personally, I do not adopt optimism as a guiding principle. The cultural battle, for now, is far from won.
Given that the United States now has a government openly hostile to the dissolving woke agenda, is it realistic to envision a recentering of globalist-woke power in Europe? That, in any case, seems to be the plan.
On this matter, regarding Europe, I am forced to adopt a more nuanced and perhaps less pessimistic position, though uncertainty always prevails. Woke threats are felt in the Old Continent, but the situation is not comparable to that in North America or the United Kingdom. Although there are conditions that could facilitate the introduction and strengthening of wokeism in Europe—such as the support of urban elites, leftist political parties, and supranational institutions—there is strong cultural, political, and social resistance in many European countries, especially from the working classes and right-wing parties. This makes it unlikely that Europe will become the new global center of this ideology, though, with variations, it follows the trend. Wokeism may persist in progressive niches but will face significant barriers, particularly in nations with strong national identities or skepticism toward American or Anglo-Saxon cultural influences. However, the crisis of values remains a constant factor, and the future will depend on how European societies balance universalism, nationalism, and external pressures.
As a diplomat with a long career, you must be aware of the geopolitical impact of wokeism as a demonization of the West. It is hard to imagine a greater setback for Europe’s soft power than the prevailing narrative of Europe as an inherently enslaving, exploitative, and predatory civilization—the inversion of the idea of the “white man’s burden,” with the European reinvented as the world’s burden.
I won’t dodge the question, but a comprehensible answer requires some context.
In the woke perspective, Westerners must self-flagellate for the grave mistakes of the past: slavery, the Inquisition, the extermination of indigenous peoples, colonialism, imperialism, etc. Therefore, an apology is deemed necessary.
This starts from the fallacy that slavery is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history and exclusive to Europeans. Thus, there would have been no slavery in China, the Arab-Muslim world, or among African peoples, and if it existed, it was an isolated and insignificant phenomenon. It should be noted that the transatlantic slave trade was much smaller than the Turco-Arab trade. Moreover, slavery is not a matter of race, as anyone with some knowledge of the past knows. The ancient world practiced it without regard for racial or ethnic lines.
Should we apologize to supposed descendants of slaves for wrongs we did not commit against people who did not suffer them? And compensate them on what grounds?
As for imperialism and the extermination of peoples, what can we say about the massacres of Genghis Khan (30 to 40 million deaths) or Tamerlane (17 million) and countless other non-European peoples?
It’s worth noting that historical colonialism was characterized by the exploitation of natural and human resources in Africa for the benefit of European metropoles, often under oppressive forms. It also entailed a process of acculturation that imposed European languages, customs, and values, generating tensions with local cultures—though in many cases, this influence was partially assimilated.
At the same time, the colonial period left a significant material legacy: it created infrastructure (ports, roads, electrical grids), introduced new agricultural techniques, incipient industrialization, and promoted schooling and legal institutions. It is also credited with three dimensions: the abolition of slavery (which the colonial powers themselves had fostered); centralized control of intertribal conflicts; and the construction of national identities in previously predominantly tribal societies.
The balance is not entirely negative, but for those who adhere to political correctness, it cannot be accepted as such.
In short, we must prevent history from being rewritten to suit the moment and current concerns, without a true historical spirit or regard for the mentality of the time. But in the woke view, facts don’t matter. What matters is the politically correct narrative. The important thing is to be morally superior—and the left is always morally superior.
Amplified by identitarian and postcolonial currents, this discourse is exploited by geopolitical rivals like China and Russia, who present themselves as “authentic” alternatives to a supposedly decadent and oppressive West. Legitimate criticism of colonialism has evolved into an anachronistic and senseless culpabilization, eroding Europe’s cultural and moral legitimacy. This self-flagellating vision, institutionalized in wokeism, weakens Western moral authority globally and compromises internal cohesion, generating cultural divisions and historical guilt.
It is also interesting to consider the possibility—or impossibility—of harmony between civilizations when the idea of historical, collective, and inherited guilt is normalized.
The possibility of harmony between civilizations is a complex issue when considering the concept of historical, collective, and inherited guilt. This concept suggests that groups or nations are responsible for past actions, even if current individuals did not directly participate in them. While recognizing historical injustices is important for understanding the present, an excessive emphasis on such guilt can hinder harmony between civilizations, perpetuating resentment, mistrust, and divisions.
The normalization of collective and inherited guilt can make harmony between civilizations difficult by keeping past divisions alive. However, the possibility of harmony exists if there is a balance between acknowledging historical injustices and prioritizing a future of cooperation and mutual respect. This path requires concrete reconciliation actions, a balanced approach to education, and a commitment from leaders and societies to overcome resentment, especially in a globalized context where collaboration is essential.
- Tags: Judeo-Christian values
Our community starts with you
“Wokeism presents itself as a new secular religion”—Author and Diplomat Francisco Henriques da Silva
You may also like
Francisco Henriques da Silva is Portugal’s former ambassador to Hungary, India, Mexico, and a number of other countries. He is also an incisive conservative thinker and a prolific writer. We sat down with him to speak about his latest book, Cultural Wars and the Woke Threat and whether wokeism is in retreat or is here to stay.
The book Cultural Wars and the Woke Threat addresses a burning issue in contemporary debate. How would you define the concept of “woke” in the context of the book, and why do you consider this ideology a threat to Western societies?
We can define “woke” as a movement advocating for social justice from a radical leftist perspective, focusing on issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, environmentalism, and vegetarianism, among others. It involves an active and militant fight against all forms of discrimination, implying a break with the past to create a new culture and, consequently, the elimination of any dissenting voices.
Woke is, therefore, a fundamentalist movement aimed at raising awareness of alleged past and present racial and social injustices. Originating in the African-American community, it stems from the concept of being “awake” or vigilant, which then extends to society at large, where all groups allegedly subjected to discrimination identify with the dichotomous logic of oppressor/oppressed, dominator/dominated, exploiter/exploited. From the notion of being “awake” (woke), it transitions to the punitive concept of “cancel culture,” which is inherently linked: if we are awake to discrimination, we must cancel (ban) those who discriminate.
Ultimately, wokeism seeks to change the civilizational and cultural matrix of the West, erasing the principles, values, and references of the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, as well as the Enlightenment, science, and technology—in short, the world we have built.
In summary, all negative attributes that mark history—slavery, racism, colonialism, oppression of minorities and peoples, genocide, etc.—are deemed the exclusive responsibility of the West. Other peoples and cultures are exempt from any sins, or if they exist, they are deemed irrelevant, marginal, and inconsequential. Thus, there persists a diffuse and often incoherent capital of grievance rooted in resentment, aiming for an unrelenting struggle and, ultimately, the eradication of Western culture.
Is wokeism truly a derivative of Marxism? Or is it rather a product of the bourgeois worldview, individualism taken to its extreme, and a rebellion against anything that binds, including national and biological reality? In essence, isn’t wokeism an extreme form of liberalism?
Wokeism is essentially based on three distinct sources, all rooted in heterodox Marxism: Gramscianism, the Frankfurt School, and postmodernists. These schools aim, in one way or another, not only to critique but to deconstruct Western culture and, concomitantly, create a “new man.” However, we cannot limit ourselves to this universe of para-Marxist theoretical influences; hyperliberalism plays an equally significant role.
Indeed, hyperliberalism, favored by urban elites in the Anglo-Saxon sphere, rejects state intervention in economic, political, and social life, and emphasizes unrestricted individual freedom. This is another essential component of wokeism, often underemphasized but providing the necessary and sufficient foundation for it to become unavoidable in contemporary Western society. It is individualism elevated to the nth degree, without any restraints.
However, I stress that this extreme and elitist liberalism is strongly opposed by the majority of the population, which does not accept it.
Although several authors, such as Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Victor Davis Hanson, or William S. Lind, qualify wokeism as “cultural Marxism” or “postmodern neo-Marxism,” caution is needed with these terms, as they can lead to confusion. The theses defended by proponents of this movement somewhat contradict traditional Marxist movements. Moreover, they obscure the decisive importance of hyperliberalism, without which the phenomenon would be merely marginal.
How can we understand a movement that is, in fact, one of self-denial and civilizational suicide?
A monumental illusion has been created, a boundless fallacy that—as Emmanuel Todd observed—represents a nihilistic and intellectually dishonest act. This construction seeks to impose itself on the so-called “bubble,” that is, the urban middle classes of higher socioeconomic levels and the media that align with them. The strategy is clear: to root this lie in that restricted group and, from there, spread it to the rest of society. The great unknown is which side the average citizen will choose—and it’s not hard to guess their likely stance.
Christianity, which could have been a bastion of resistance against the advance of woke ideology, is now in rapid decline. In its place, relativism, hedonism, emotivism, and nihilism thrive.
It’s worth noting that wokeism presents itself as a new secular religion, with a messianic and Calvinist-inspired matrix, emphasizing the concept of predestination: some are the elect, others the reprobate. In Calvinism, this distinction is sovereignly determined by God and influences salvation. In the woke universe, the white, heterosexual man is irredeemably condemned—without possibility of redemption. In Christianity, original sin can be redeemed through baptism. In wokeism, the “original guilt” of the white man is indelible. He cannot change his skin color; genetics forbids it. As a heterosexual, he is, by definition, homophobic. Even if he tries to become a woman, he can never fully succeed, as biology prevents it. He is thus marked from the outset as a privileged beneficiary of a heteropatriarchal system that historically favored him. Consequently, he is condemned—with no possibility of atonement.
The triumph of moral relativism, embodied in woke ideology, is, without a doubt, the greatest threat, from which all others derive. It represents the death sentence of Western civilization.
We are witnessing the culmination of a long crisis of values that has been ongoing for decades and is now entering its terminal phase. It is unclear when this cycle will conclude, but it is certain that the end is approaching.
University—a noble creation of Christian Europe—seems to have been entirely captured by the woke sect. How can we restore it to its duty and align it with the common good—indeed, how can we decolonize it from woke penetration without infringing on its freedom?
University was, without a doubt, the cradle of the woke movement—and there is little room to dispute this reality. It all began in the departments of Social Sciences and Humanities, where this ideology quickly became dominant, driven by the imposition of political correctness and the spread of cancel culture. From there, it gradually extended to the so-called hard sciences, and today, virtually no academic discipline remains immune to woke influence.
In summary: history is rewritten, biology is ignored, and mathematics is devalued, accused of being structurally racist (!). This deliberate collapse of academia is, ultimately, the alarm bell for the decline of Western civilization.
Other global powers, such as China, India, and Russia, have refused to engage in this “ideological harakiri,” positioning themselves to define the new rules of the world order.
However, the contamination has not been confined to the academic sphere. The metastases have spread to nearly the entire social body: the media, the political class—especially among the left and so-called liberals—the entertainment industry, social networks, and even preschool and primary education. Last but not least, the overt support of big capital for woke causes, which may seem contradictory at first glance but makes perfect sense when we consider the maxim: money talks. All these sectors interact and reinforce each other, creating a cohesive and resilient ideological network.
As long as political power remains passive, permissive—or worse, complicit—little can be done. The core of the problem must be recognized: it is a political issue and must be addressed on that level. Among the measures that can be taken, I highlight the promoting true intellectual pluralism, replacing diversity based on physical characteristics (sex, ethnicity, skin color, etc.) with diversity of ideas not aligned with specific ideologies (i.e., “non-woke”); the reformulating academic curricula to eliminate biased narratives and dogmatism; guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms in universities, especially freedom of expression, with sanctions for violations; the explicit condemnation of intellectual repression and cancel culture; and the suspension public funding for universities, dependent institutes, and media outlets that violate these freedoms or promote dogmatism.
In my view, financial measures may prove to be the most effective. If the rules of the game are respected, the problems tend to disappear. In case of non-compliance, sanctions and corrective mechanisms should be applied. It is worth remembering that the woke movement is inherently totalitarian and will not hesitate to advance whenever it encounters weakness or hesitation.
Today, the conservative right seems to be on the rise across the West; there is an impression of a counter-revolution. Is this reading too optimistic? Has the woke hydra been defeated, or is it preparing a comeback?
In my view, the woke movement has not yet been defeated. Despite factors such as Donald Trump’s election and his anti-woke executive orders, the recent UK Supreme Court decision defining sex as a biological criterion (reaffirming a commonsense distinction of immense relevance amid the prevailing confusion), and various restrictive measures in European countries that seem to indicate a retreat of the phenomenon, I question whether this apparent regression is real.
The movement is deeply entrenched in Western society and is difficult to eradicate. The pendulum has swung in one direction, but it could reverse at any moment.
Personally, I do not adopt optimism as a guiding principle. The cultural battle, for now, is far from won.
Given that the United States now has a government openly hostile to the dissolving woke agenda, is it realistic to envision a recentering of globalist-woke power in Europe? That, in any case, seems to be the plan.
On this matter, regarding Europe, I am forced to adopt a more nuanced and perhaps less pessimistic position, though uncertainty always prevails. Woke threats are felt in the Old Continent, but the situation is not comparable to that in North America or the United Kingdom. Although there are conditions that could facilitate the introduction and strengthening of wokeism in Europe—such as the support of urban elites, leftist political parties, and supranational institutions—there is strong cultural, political, and social resistance in many European countries, especially from the working classes and right-wing parties. This makes it unlikely that Europe will become the new global center of this ideology, though, with variations, it follows the trend. Wokeism may persist in progressive niches but will face significant barriers, particularly in nations with strong national identities or skepticism toward American or Anglo-Saxon cultural influences. However, the crisis of values remains a constant factor, and the future will depend on how European societies balance universalism, nationalism, and external pressures.
As a diplomat with a long career, you must be aware of the geopolitical impact of wokeism as a demonization of the West. It is hard to imagine a greater setback for Europe’s soft power than the prevailing narrative of Europe as an inherently enslaving, exploitative, and predatory civilization—the inversion of the idea of the “white man’s burden,” with the European reinvented as the world’s burden.
I won’t dodge the question, but a comprehensible answer requires some context.
In the woke perspective, Westerners must self-flagellate for the grave mistakes of the past: slavery, the Inquisition, the extermination of indigenous peoples, colonialism, imperialism, etc. Therefore, an apology is deemed necessary.
This starts from the fallacy that slavery is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history and exclusive to Europeans. Thus, there would have been no slavery in China, the Arab-Muslim world, or among African peoples, and if it existed, it was an isolated and insignificant phenomenon. It should be noted that the transatlantic slave trade was much smaller than the Turco-Arab trade. Moreover, slavery is not a matter of race, as anyone with some knowledge of the past knows. The ancient world practiced it without regard for racial or ethnic lines.
Should we apologize to supposed descendants of slaves for wrongs we did not commit against people who did not suffer them? And compensate them on what grounds?
As for imperialism and the extermination of peoples, what can we say about the massacres of Genghis Khan (30 to 40 million deaths) or Tamerlane (17 million) and countless other non-European peoples?
It’s worth noting that historical colonialism was characterized by the exploitation of natural and human resources in Africa for the benefit of European metropoles, often under oppressive forms. It also entailed a process of acculturation that imposed European languages, customs, and values, generating tensions with local cultures—though in many cases, this influence was partially assimilated.
At the same time, the colonial period left a significant material legacy: it created infrastructure (ports, roads, electrical grids), introduced new agricultural techniques, incipient industrialization, and promoted schooling and legal institutions. It is also credited with three dimensions: the abolition of slavery (which the colonial powers themselves had fostered); centralized control of intertribal conflicts; and the construction of national identities in previously predominantly tribal societies.
The balance is not entirely negative, but for those who adhere to political correctness, it cannot be accepted as such.
In short, we must prevent history from being rewritten to suit the moment and current concerns, without a true historical spirit or regard for the mentality of the time. But in the woke view, facts don’t matter. What matters is the politically correct narrative. The important thing is to be morally superior—and the left is always morally superior.
Amplified by identitarian and postcolonial currents, this discourse is exploited by geopolitical rivals like China and Russia, who present themselves as “authentic” alternatives to a supposedly decadent and oppressive West. Legitimate criticism of colonialism has evolved into an anachronistic and senseless culpabilization, eroding Europe’s cultural and moral legitimacy. This self-flagellating vision, institutionalized in wokeism, weakens Western moral authority globally and compromises internal cohesion, generating cultural divisions and historical guilt.
It is also interesting to consider the possibility—or impossibility—of harmony between civilizations when the idea of historical, collective, and inherited guilt is normalized.
The possibility of harmony between civilizations is a complex issue when considering the concept of historical, collective, and inherited guilt. This concept suggests that groups or nations are responsible for past actions, even if current individuals did not directly participate in them. While recognizing historical injustices is important for understanding the present, an excessive emphasis on such guilt can hinder harmony between civilizations, perpetuating resentment, mistrust, and divisions.
The normalization of collective and inherited guilt can make harmony between civilizations difficult by keeping past divisions alive. However, the possibility of harmony exists if there is a balance between acknowledging historical injustices and prioritizing a future of cooperation and mutual respect. This path requires concrete reconciliation actions, a balanced approach to education, and a commitment from leaders and societies to overcome resentment, especially in a globalized context where collaboration is essential.
- Tags: Judeo-Christian values
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
No comments:
Post a Comment