The Meaning of the Intersectional Flag of Inclusion

(The peregrinations of my recent hiatus gave me many occasions to ponder the meaning of the Intersectional Flag of Inclusion, which I everywhere  observed, flapping or draped, over or on, edifices of power and outposts of the ruling regime.  In the iconography of our culture, this Intersectional Flag of Inclusion clearly fills the place that was once filled by the crucifix in Catholic countries.  It is a ubiquitous reminder of who rules over us, of the class that today enjoys—dare I say it?—supremacy.)

* * * * *

“Our common adversaries [the Anglicans] contend, that the exclusion of non-conformists [Roman Catholic and Separatist] by the Test and Corporation Acts, from honorable and lucrative offices, is not a punishment and therefore is not intolerance.” 

Charles Butler, “Address to the Protestants of the United Empire” (1813)*

Between the reign of Charles the Second and the early nineteenth century, Roman Catholics and Separatists were in fact tolerated in Great Britain.  So the Anglican “adversaries” of Charles Butler (a Roman Catholic) were right and Butler was wrong.  But Roman Catholics and Separatists were at the same time subject to political “disabilities.”  Toleration meant that they were free to profess and practice their religions openly; “disability” meant that these non-conformists were excluded from holding public office.

British Catholics and Separatists (non-conformists) were welcome to build their churches and chapels, and to attend their respective services, but they could not serve as officers in any department of the British establishment.

These tolerated Roman Catholics and Separatists were, therefore, the prototypes of what later came to be known as “second-class citizens.”  Their civil and religious rights were protected by the British state, but the British state at the same time protected itself against them.   It refused to include any of these dubious dissenters in Britain’s ruling officer class.

American Negroes where in a somewhat similar position after 1865.  They had, at least in theory, the same civil rights as every other American citizen.  A Negro could own property, petition the courts, enter into contracts, and generally direct his own affairs.  But he was at the same time, with varying degrees of chicanery and rigor, excluded from America’s ruling officer class.

 Jews were likewise long subject to such political disabilities, whether by law or by common consent.   They could reside in Christian countries, often more or less free of official molestation, but they were legally excluded from public office and were not permitted to rule over Christians.

A tolerant Anglican accepted Roman Catholics and Separatists as British subjects, but he did not accept them as officers of the British state.  A tolerant Southerner accepted Negroes as residents of the South, but he rejected Negro rule with every fiber of his being.  A tolerant Christian was content to see Jews practice Judaism openly, but he made legal provision that he would never be governed by Jews.

Tolerance of minorities was, therefore, compatible with—was indeed predicated on—a very robust defense of the supremacy of the religious and ethnic majority.

Between the reign of Charles the Second and the early nineteenth century, one found in Great Britain a system of nonconformist (Roman Catholic and Separatist) toleration and Anglican supremacy.  Between 1865 and 1965, one found in the United States a system of  Negro toleration and White supremacy.  It is harder to place exact bookends on the period when Jews were tolerated and Christians were supreme, but this period obviously ended many years ago.

A doctrine of supremacy excludes certain classes from equal access to power.   It ensures that persons of this category and not that category shall rule in this place.  Opposed to such doctrines is the doctrine that Karl Popper called “the Open Society,” which  means a society in which the struggle for office and power  is open to all.

I trust it is obvious that power in an “Open Society” is not open to all.  What is open is the struggle for power.  And where the struggle for power is open, power goes to those who have the cunning, the guile, the craft, and the ruthless strength, to prevail in a political free for all.

(We must never forget that “openness” and “freedom” are always gifts to the strong. (Indeed, citizens who advocate an “Open Society” are (when not dupes) rather like spouses who advocate an “open marriage.”  They are confident that openness will work to their own advantage.))

The Intersectional Flag of Inclusion is the flag of an “Open Society” in which the struggle for office and power is a political free for all.  It therefor denotes unfettered rule of the strong, or Scoundrel Supremacy.   

The deep roots of the word “scoundrel” are disputed but seem to have denoted a category of persons who were obscure, outcast, or shunned.   Today’s champions of inclusion lament that, in the past, such categories of persons were “second-class citizens” who were forced to live “on the margins,” or “in the shadows,” or even “in the closet.”  Such “scoundrels” may have been “tolerated,” under more or less strict conditions, but they certainly did not enjoy equal access to the struggle for power.

They were instead categorically excluded, by law or convention, from the ruling officer class.

They were legally disabled from applying to preach in the established churches, to teach in the common schools, to lecture in the premier universities, to command troops or ships, to exercise authority in the civil administration, to frame laws in the national legislature.

In the tolerant societies of the past, such offices were exclusively reserved for persons drawn from the “hegemonic” ethnic and religious group that  enjoyed supremacy.  In the “inclusive” and “open” societies that today fly the Intersectional Flag of Inclusion, the struggle for power and ruling offices is open to all. And as we have seen, this means that power and ruling offices are in fact exclusively reserved for persons drawn from categories that possess the cunning, the guile, the craft, and the ruthless strength, to prevail in a political free for all.

And we must not forget that many of the scoundrels who prevail in this political free for all—who elbow their way into office and power as part of our new, “inclusive,” ruling class—are not only scoundrels, but also scoundrels determined to take revenge on whatever subject people the doctrine of the “Open Society” permits them to rule.

---

Charles Butler, Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics, since the Reformation, four vols., 3^rd ed. (London: J. Murray, 1822), vol. 4, p. 206.