Since a lot of the division IS SOURCED INFORMATIONALLY by the 'notion' that we are divided…
It means any reference to the 'notion' as an independent hypothesis for testing, as a 'pre-observation' theory after which empirical observations are to 'confirm' or 'falsify' the notion ("LOoK hErE aT tHiS cOnFliCt iNstAncE oBsErVaTiOn, tHeoRy iS tHerEfOrE cOnFiRmEd"), is itself an introduction of an inconsistency.
If a trusting person is subjected to information designed to brainwash them into believing in a lie, it would be logically contradictory to point to the 'observations' as 'confirming' what is presented as a pre-observation theory, for the IMPLEMENTATION of the theory as a practical guide to action influenced the observations on the other end of the dataflow.
With a TRUSTING world having been subjected to the psychosis of self-alienated Hegelian megalomaniacal narcissists projecting their own 'two sided' extremes, after which the sources of that dialectic deceitfully point to the 'current thing' division instances as if they 'confirmed' the theory the world 'is' divided, that is an inconsistent system capable of 'confirming' ALL statements no matter how insane.
Let's say we decide to accept the following two facts: (1) "I am a fish", and (2) "I am not a fish". Just keep those in mind.
Now let's pick any old statement, say: (3) "You can fly!". Now let's prove that the statement is true!
Alright, we've already accepted that (1) "I am a fish". Of course, any time I have a true statement P, I can make a new true statement by making the statement "P or Q is true." Because to check if an 'or' statement is true, I only need to check that one of them is true. (If I tell you "My name is Dan OR I can spit fire," you don't need to wait around with a fire extinguisher to tell if that statement is true. It's true because the first part of it is true).
So by this logic, the statement (4) "I am a fish or you can fly" must be true (since the first part is true.)
OK, but now let's say, in general, I have some 'or' statement "P or Q" and I know for a fact that the whole statement is true. If I also know that P is false then I can conclude that Q is true. Right? Because an 'or' statement is true if and only if at least one of the statements inside it is true, so if I rule out one of them the other one must be true. (So if I always tell the truth and I tell you that you have a billion dollars in your bank account OR I just ate a sandwich, you can check your bank account and quickly conclude that I just ate lunch… unless you're very wealthy.)
Alright, so far so good. We know the statement "I am a fish or you can fly" is definitely true. But wait, we also know that the statement "I am a fish" is false (remember, it's one of the things we assumed in the very beginning!). So that means, by what we just talked about, that the statement "You can fly" must be true.
So voilà! Using the magic of a contradictory system, we've proven you can fly!
AND THIS META LOGIC IS HOW 'THE BANALITY OF EVIL' CAN ARISE, HOW A FASCIST/COMMUNIST SYSTEM CAN 'PROVE' GENOCIDE AND SLAVE WORKER CAMPS ARE JUSTIFIED, HOW FASCIST PARTIES LIKE THE RADICAL LEFT CAN OUTPUT THAT THEY'RE ANTI-FASCISTS
We are not exposing what's sourced from us, we're being revealed to the source of why there is so much division in the first place.