Question: Why do people become more hostile, sometimes even violently so, when...

Question: Why do people become more hostile, sometimes even violently so, when forced to share space with those who live, think, or behave differently?

Thesis:

Attempts to artificially integrate people from different evolutionary, cultural, and behavioral backgrounds often lead not to greater harmony, but to deeper conflict. This conflict is not the result of irrational hate, but of suppressed feedback, incompatible norms, and a failure to enforce reciprocity.

This article uses what we call the Rosetta Model, inspired by the Rosetta Stone: a side-by-side translation of two grammars, the intuitive language of everyday people, and the precise operational grammar of Natural Law. This model allows us to translate familiar observations into formal, testable principles. It offers:

• A way to make complex ideas about law, behavior, and cooperation accessible to a general audience.

• A tool to expose the causal and evolutionary roots of social conflict.

• A bridge between moral intuition and institutional design.

By pairing each plain-language insight with its Natural Law equivalent, readers gain both intuitive clarity and scientific precision.

� PUBLIC LANGUAGE 📘

When people are forced to live together, go to school together, or interact socially with others they don’t naturally get along with, tensions usually rise. This happens especially when people differ in race, culture, religion, or social class, each of which shapes distinct habits, ways of speaking, and ideas of respect and conflict. It’s like putting red ants and black ants in a jar. They don’t fight just because they hate each other, they fight because they’re trapped in proximity. If they could escape, most would rather avoid each other than clash. We’re doing the same thing with people. We’re sealing the jar through government policies, school mandates, and social engineering, then acting surprised when conflict erupts.

⚖️ NATURAL LAW ⚖

Integration of evolutionarily divergent groups, who possess incompatible grammars of social behavior and evolutionary strategies, under coercive institutional proximity, without demonstrated voluntary reciprocity, constitutes a systemic imposition of costs.

Causal Chain:

1 → Divergence in evolutionary strategy (kin vs. non-kin preference) 2 → Divergence in social grammar (cooperation signals, authority, conflict resolution) 3 → Imposed proximity without voluntary association 4 → Norm conflict and signal mismatch 5 → Perceived threat to demonstrated interests 6 → Biological signaling of grievance (avoidance, resentment, hostility) 7 → Identity hardening and tribal escalation

These costs manifest as behavioral friction, conflict over norms, and misaligned status hierarchies. This produces antagonistic group identity reinforcement and escalates adversarial behavior.

� PUBLIC LANGUAGE 📘

People don’t start off hating each other. But they don’t start off neutral either. Most people begin with a natural preference for the familiar, those who look, speak, and act like them, and a healthy distrust of the unfamiliar. That distrust is part of our evolutionary wiring: it helps protect us and our group from risk. Conflict arises when people feel like someone else is threatening their space, their kids, or their way of life. And when they’re not allowed to talk about it, or fix it, the frustration builds until it comes out as hate. What we call racism often starts as basic protective instincts and frustration that get ignored or punished.

⚖️ NATURAL LAW ⚖

Suppression of truthful speech about irreconcilable differences constitutes a suppression of the feedback mechanism necessary for peaceful conflict resolution. If reciprocity cannot be expressed in words, it will be expressed in actions. This is not bigotry, it is biological signaling under constraint. Causal Chain:

1 → Evolutionary basis for in-group trust and out-group caution 2 → Proximity with unfamiliar groups without consent or buffer 3 → Emergence of tension, norm conflict, or misaligned expectations 4 → Institutional suppression of verbal grievance expression 5 → Loss of verbal feedback loop (signal suppression) 6 → Activation of non-verbal signaling: avoidance, resentment, aggression 7 → Escalation into identity defense and hardened group boundaries

� PUBLIC LANGUAGE 📘

The government tells us that forced integration is about fairness. But what if fairness means letting people choose who they want to be around, especially if they’re not hurting anyone? Telling people they’re evil for preferring their own people isn’t fair. It’s another kind of intolerance, just dressed up as moral superiority.

⚖️ NATURAL LAW ⚖

Fairness in natural law is the mutual insurance of sovereignty by voluntary exchange under reciprocity. Forced integration without voluntary association constitutes a moral hazard and a political parasitism. Preference for one’s own kin, culture, or norms is not discrimination, it is demonstrated interest in preserving reciprocal coherence.

Mini Glossary:

• Sovereignty: the ability to act with self-determination within one’s domain.

• Reciprocity: mutual exchange of value or behavior under equal terms.

• Moral hazard: when one party is insulated from risk, creating incentives to behave irresponsibly.

• Parasitism: benefiting at another’s expense without offering equal value in return.

• Demonstrated interest: actual behavior indicating preference or commitment.

� PUBLIC LANGUAGE 📘

Maybe the answer isn’t to force everyone to get along, but to give people space to be themselves. That way, when they do come together, it’s by choice, not force. That kind of meeting is based on respect, not resentment.

⚖️ NATURAL LAW ⚖

Reciprocal cooperation emerges only under voluntary demonstrated interest. Peace between groups is preserved not by forced homogenization, but by allowing for differentiated equilibrium, voluntary proximity and association with reciprocity enforced through market and commons institutions.

Mini Glossary:

• Differentiated equilibrium: a stable state of peaceful coexistence among distinct groups.

• Commons institutions: shared rules or systems that govern public behavior.

• Voluntary proximity: choosing closeness without coercion.

� PUBLIC LANGUAGE 📘

Forced integration hasn’t made us more united, it’s made us more divided. Instead of building trust, it’s taught people to fear and resent one another. Everyone ends up more suspicious, more defensive, and more frustrated. But when we choose integration, whether that’s in schools, neighborhoods, or workplaces, it feels different. It works better because we have the freedom to leave, the ability to retreat to our own people when we need to. That freedom makes coming together feel voluntary, not oppressive. And that changes everything.

Mini Glossary: • Modular association: interacting in optional, non-binding ways. • Generalized distrust: a broad expectation that others act in bad faith. • Systemic escalation: conflict that intensifies across the system over time. Causal Chain:

1 → Forced integration imposes proximity without consent 2 → Perceived competition over norms, resources, or status 3 → Emergence of defensive group behavior and distrust 4 → Loss of sovereignty and inability to exit the arrangement 5 → Institutional signaling of enforced hierarchy or moral coercion 6 → Psychological entrenchment and reciprocal resentment 7 → Tribal backlash and persistent division

But: 1 → Voluntary integration through demonstrated interests 2 → Ability to retreat to in-group preserves identity and security 3 → Engagement occurs under terms of mutual benefit 4 → Trust builds gradually through optional cooperation 5 → Social capital accumulates without threat to sovereignty

Conclusion:

1. People sense conflict when their norms are violated repeatedly in shared spaces.
2. Institutions that force proximity without reciprocity induce escalating resentment.
3. Suppression of grievance signals produces adversarial escalation.
4. The result isn’t harmony, but tribal backlash.

The solution isn’t more force. It’s more choice, more truth, and more reciprocity.

⚖️ NATURAL LAW ⚖

The demand for decidability in moral, legal, and political claims requires truth, reciprocity, and insurance of sovereignty. Forced integration violates all three. Voluntary separation, or association under reciprocal contract, restores equilibrium.

—

To @curtdoolittle @WerrellBradley @ThruTheHayes @natlawinstitute @AutistocratMS @LukeWeinhagen @NoahRevoy @bierlingm @bryanbrey @MichaelSurrago @SaitouHajime00:

I’m using this Rosetta Model approach to teach Natural Law to the public by aligning intuitive grammar with operational grammar. Feedback and critique are welcome. I’m testing for intelligibility, rigor, and public resonance in sensitive topics. Let me know what you see.