Inclusive. One of the favorite intimations used by self described leftists of all shades around the world to portray their political philosophy. How accurate is that description though? How accurately can any political group use that term to delineate their views from the exclusionists they wish to differentiate themselves from? One would think that it's self evident that in order for a person to form a political ideology they have to be exclusionist to a certain extent, after all I don't think many leftists would consider including fascists in their ranks. This being the case it would seem that the use of the word inclusive is merely a dishonest attempt by these groups to expand their ranks.

When these simple truths are revealed to "inclusionists" quite often they lapse into a different concept, that being the idea that they are more inclusive than their political opponents. This idea is just as self defeating as the first though. If being more inclusive were better than being less inclusive then wouldn't totally inclusive (the now abandoned first description) be better than just more inclusive? After all, it is the concept of inclusion that is the hook, and it should follow that the more inclusion that is practiced the better the hook. Unless of course the hook was faulty to begin with.

After gut shooting the concept of inclusion one would think that these poor dolts would give up the ghost. Unfortunately, this is hardly ever the case. The next tactic they try in a desperate attempt to hold onto their inclusive mantra is a blatant attempt to hijack the concept of tolerance. They prove that the English language can be turned into meaningless grunts by claiming that because they are tolerant of skinheads they are more inclusive than the skinheads. What they blindly ignore is that inclusion does not equal tolerance. Inclusion would be advocating a skinhead in an election and sponsoring him on their political party ticket, whereas tolerance would be merely refraining from stomping on a neo-Nazi's right to be an ignorant bigot in public. I've yet to meet a leftist that would sponsor someone who said "white power" before and after every speech they made on the campaign trail. If nothing else the skinheads are at least more honest with themselves and the rest of the world in this area.

Finally, after being dragged kicking and screaming, most will come to the light and say that they really meant tolerant as opposed to inclusion after all, and that their philosophy is more correct because it is more tolerant than any other. Is this true though? Certainly they are more tolerant of some things than your average God conservative, or skinhead is. Most of them are willing to allow you to smoke a joint (how kind of them), and watch dirty movies if that tickles your warbles. They graciously admit that the government ought to grant the right for a black man to go unmolested by the ignorant relatives of the banjo player in Deliverance (again, how kind). Most of them don't want you to own a gun however, and whenever possible force you to hire people based on their skin color. They want to force you to pay for their idea of education, retirement, and medical care too. That seems pretty damned intolerant if you ask me.

In fact their political ideology is based as much on intolerance as any skinhead's is. Their whole concept of a civil society is one that, by definition, is unified under a strong federalist or unitary governmental entity. The kind of machinery they favor in government is all about reducing conflict of interest and very nearly all manner of choice when it comes to a host of economic issues. They pay lip service to individual rights where it suits them (free speech, and issues of private "morality") and then call you "unreasonable" when their trouncing of said individual rights (gun control, affirmative action, and regulation of the relationship between employer and employee) becomes impossible for even them to ignore.

Part of their problem stems from the fact that their narrow and myopic vision of how the world should work translates directly for them into how the world does work. For instance if they think it's unreasonable for people to be free to own firearms then they automatically think that everyone else agrees with them, or will after their political party votes that right away. Even more than this, they think that those few (or even many) who don't are irrelevant in the equation! It never even occurs to them that their planned controls on the economy and the private lives of people might have (or even demand) unexpected side effects. They firmly believe that if something is debated by a handful of individuals, voted on, and set down into paper that this magically transforms the objective world into the narrow channel they're trying to place it into. It is precisely this disconnect from reality that feeds their out dated and delusional mind set, a mind set that actually operates on the level of a child that is still trying to differentiate his wishes and desires from the world that surrounds him. Without this quasi-Orwellian kind of mental gymnastics it would be impossible for them to hold the views that they do.

So they come from inclusive=good, to more inclusive=good, to tolerant=good, to tolerant=how I define it and to hell with everyone else (now how's that for tolerant). This last is usually a bedrock wall that I've found no way to penetrate as yet. It seems that this view of the world is as they define it within their own sophomoric mind is a fundamental aspect of their philosophy that for some reason they can't let go. They hold on to it like a rabid bull terrier with a bad case of tetanus. It is as if everything in their world view is negotiable, except for the fact that some things aren't negotiable. If anyone finds a way to penetrate this psychotic brick wall please let me know, my E-mail link is at the top of the page.

Exclusively yours...Jet.

Discuss your thoughts on inclusion Threads.

Back to NewsTrolls.com


© NewsTrolls, Inc. 1998, all rights reserved.