Dear Friends,
It seems to me, there are many ways exclusiveness masquerades as inclusiveness. For a culture to be successful, economically, socially and technologically, it must integrate all people. Clearly, it is not possible to exclude some people, and have an integrated society. An integrated society is one in which, individuals are free, government serves all the people, everyone is given a stake in society early on and everyone is included. Denying one, so another feels better, is not the path to including everyone, it is the path to excluding some. I personally do not believe those who are peddling exclusion as inclusion are so stupid they believe it themselves. I think they have another agenda, but since that is pure a priori conjecture, or perhaps better put… a hypothesis. Nevertheless, if we actually do want an inclusive society, we must be on guard for logical fallacies, fallacies that lead us the exact opposite way we seek to go.
Denying Christians the town square, does not protect minorities, it excludes them. Keeping our religious practices from each other separates “us” from “them.” Including “them” in our religious services creates “us.” When a Christian says, “Merry Christmas!” To a Hindu, it is an inclusive act. That Christian is including that Hindu in the holiday season. When a Jewish person tells me “Happy Hanukkah!” I feel a kinship to him or her. That they thought enough of me to include me in their solemn worship, makes them seem less foreign to me, more like me, and that I am not alone. We all feel more kinship to people who include us and less to those who exclude us. So, including everyone in the Christmas season by placing a Koresh in the town square is an inclusive act. Embracing all non Christians by including them in our festivities, makes others no longer “them” but a part of us.
Allowing certain people extra leeway when it comes to violence and abuse, because of their culture and to better embrace diversity, is the very definition of exclusivity. Not only is special treatment exclusive but it is a horrible form of bigotry. The foundational assumption, is that the group that is given special consideration, is subhuman. What can be more bigoted than that? The group, arbitrarily defined because in the end all groups of people are separated by some arbitrary quality, is considered not to be sufficiently human to act civilized. Were I grouped and considered to be subhuman, rather than embrace the definition, I would revolt at it. Moreover, to define a group of people as subhuman, is to exclude them from humanity. Probably fed, clothed, housed and entertained, because after all, they can’t support themselves, poor things… “they” don’t have the intelligence, wisdom, work ethic, self control or strength.
Having “no whites” spaces on university campuses, to create a “safe space” for minorities, is as exclusive as it gets. I don’t find it at all ironic that the same political faction, the progressives, that stood for racial separation in their formative years with such notable Black haters, as Margaret Sanger in their ranks, would stand for racial separation today. Despite all their rhetoric claiming they stand for minority rights, there can be no minority rights if there is exclusion of any minority. When talking about minority, context is everything. In Detroit people of European descent are the minority, in the US people of European descent are the majority, but on the planet Europeans are again a minority. So when exploiting the arbitrary definition of “white,” to arbitrarily classify a group as a majority, we must accept the narrow context the progressive demands as a stipulation. Therefore the notion that there should be safe spaces for minorities that excludes “whites,” for being the majority, is based on two false presumptions. That “whites” are indeed a majority, except under some narrow defined context that in the real world is worse than useless, and that exclusion can in anyway lead to inclusion.
Successful cultures integrate the people, give everyone a stake in society and insure individual liberty, while right government’s role is to benefit all the people, not the rulers first, their bootlicks second and useful idiots third. One sure fired way to destroy a civilization is to create separated groups of people, angry at each other, considering each other “them,” narrowing the definition of “us,” and seed the whole mess with violence the police are powerless to stop, due to political correctness. Yet… such a paradigm is very effective at harvesting wealth and power from a culture. Obviously, selling exclusiveness is not a winner, so progressives dress exclusivity up as inclusiveness. It is also a reason progressives go after young people, young people have no life experience and are willing to believe in a glittering lie, and will reliably reject an ugly truth. It is up to us then, the awake and aware, to keep our culture and society on track. We can do that by pointing out when people with ill intent are using spurious logic, to move us directly away from where we want to go and where they pretend they are taking us, to a dark place of exclusion, hate, bigotry and poverty.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
