Deconstructing "inclusivity"

Inclusivity is something of a buzzword on the Left these days.  It has always seemed complete nonsense to me.  You don't include golf players in football games or vice versa.  Far from being a good thing, inclusivity would seem to create one big muddle.  Different people need to be treated differently, not herded into one big corral.  It only makes sense if you believe the absurd Leftist doctrine that all men are equal.  They may all be equal in the sight of God -- to quote a famous political compromise -- but God's optometrical difficulties are not widely shared.

I regard myself  as having had a blessed life and at age 73 still laugh my way through the day.  I don't sound very jolly in my writing a lot of the time but who could be jolly in discussing the slimy con-men of the Left?

Yet, as I have previously set out at some length,  I have lived most of my life in a state of great exclusion.  And I am delighted that I was able to separate myself from uncongenial company.  Because "inclusivity" was not forced down my throat, I was free to go my own way and do my own thing.  When most of my fellow pupils at school were running around chasing balls, I was reading books. From infancy on, chasing balls is clearly one of humanity's greatest pleasures but I much preferred books.  And I could do that.  I could separate myself from other people.  I lived happily outside the big Corral.  And to this day I have quite a small social circle.

So the great good to me seems to be discrimination.  Each of us is very discriminatory in choosing things as diverse as our wine and our life partners so being discriminatory in choosing our company should be optimal for our life satisfaction.  We do best by excluding the unsuitable, not by including it.

I suppose at this stage I must seem like a bit of a moron.  I have been treating the desirability of inclusion as a general proposition.  I think one does need to look at it in such an  objective way but, in reality, it is a very particular policy goal hiding behind a generally good-sounding name -- in the usual Leftist style.  Candy-coating their destructive proposals is what Leftists do.

What inclusion is all about was brought home to me by this article.  The language was inclusion but the starting point of the article was was outrage at the occasional deaths of unco-operative black criminals at the hands of the police.  Voila!  Being inclusive means being nicer to blacks!  That is the whole meaning and purpose of the  doctrine concerned.  I am all in favour of everybody being nice to everyone else but being permissive towards criminals of any skin color seems grossly maladaptive to me.  They should be excluded, not included.

1 comment:

  1. I agree entirely. Inclusivity is just another leftist bussword like equality, egalitarian, equity, non-judgemental... etc. All of which really mean pressured conformity. They use the word diversity too, and that is just a smoke screen. They apply their term diversity only to skin colour and ethnic groups, not to the diverse spectrum of human thought. The narrow scope of leftist thought is the only thought that leftists allow to be expressed. All thought must be leftist. Heretics to be outcast and labelled hateful, racist, sexist,...etc. And so it is with their latest deceptive trick-word, "inclusivity". Leftists are the worst and most cunning of excluders. Ask a conservative who has worked in a leftist field, how included he felt. They conduct their excluding and ostracising with fake caring that superficially masks their contempt but cleverly lets it be sensed even unsurely by their target. And the smarter they are, the more cunning and subtly they work. Like the leftist-feminist counsellor hooking and seemingly "caring" for the white male client who presented with the anger/violence problem, providing him his needed sense of connection, but no workable solutions, while session after session, subtly almost impercepibly guilting him further, until yet another hopeless man heavy with shame and regret at hurting his family hangs himself in his shed. But that's alright. The more suicides, the more unresovlved violence, the more funding, the more lucrative the lurk. Leftists like to socially apply guilt and shame to others, the worst of human conditions. Even worse than loneliness. For socially applied guilt includes loneliness, but loneliness need not include socially applied guilt. And leftists offer no relief for the guilt they apply. Applied guilt and shame is their favourite weapon. Their targets are mostly white males they see as conservative, Christian, traditional.

    I know about excusion too. But I accept it, and can see the benefit in it. One cannot see far or see much from within the crowd, only those immediatly adjecent and near to oneself. One is jostle along with the crowd. Where the crowd goes, one must go too, and blindly or with obscured vision. But leave the crowd, climb a hill, and one can see all the crowd below, and can see all the surrounding landscape. As far as one's eyes can see, reality is visible. And the members of the crowd are seen for who they are. Jostling each other this way and that; factions pressing one way, others another way; all with obscured vision, no sense of reality or of the bigger picture, except a few on the periphery of the crowd can peer a little way across the landscape, but only in one direction. There's not much room at the top of a hill though, from where the full view is seen.


All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them