The enthusiasm with which 80% of Chileans democratically won a Constitutional Convention was flooded with content, ideas, values and proposals for a climate of rights, liberty and solidarity.

At my age, in this process, I learned new conceptions of “inclusion” that I had not seen in a complete way. I listened a lot and processed my personal changes towards a richer reality. So, I took on more of my usual active inclusion of gender diversity, the new immigrants so different from my grandparents, I learned of new rights, environmentalism, and other deals. I assumed the need to join forces to include the whales, the autumn leaves and the purity of the air, to forget that nature is not a resource but life. I almost accepted an exaggerated, so-called inclusive vocabulary that changes grammar. I understood the combat to the contempt suggested by the nicknames. And I toned down my compliments.

I believed them that the New Constitution was being made in an inclusive spirit. I believed their vocabulary had a philosophy of being-with, of making the present with History. I never imagined that the refoundational passion, riding on the pride of the ignorant. I never imagined that the refoundational passion, riding on the arrogance of the ignorant, the politically immature, would lead the Constitutional Convention to take the explicit decision to exclude the Presidents of the Republic from the Closing Ceremony. The public outrage by the reaction of President Lagos led them to reverse the decision. It was not a small mistake. They applied the old idea of including everyone except politicians who debate their ideas. The serious thing is that the inspiration, reflected upon, debated and publicly announced and publicly announced showed that the concept of inclusion had totalitarian political overtones typical of the Stalinism, Nazism and facism they claim to fight. An arrogance that asserts itself in one of the worst forms of the old, corrupt politics that so many of us were once part of and that the new Savonarolas claim to repudiate.

The idea of “history begins with us” is as old and repeated as history itself. The old Law of Ice. Disguised as the new, exclusionary totalitarianism needs to impose itself by gradually eliminating the other. Whoever questions me does not exist. I rewrite my book “Lenin, life and activity”, Progress Publishers, 1985, USSR, with 487 pages of photographs of a century. In it, the official apparatus eliminated from the inside of each photo all the politicians who evoked any questioning of the Party until 1985. There is not a single appearance of Trotsky, the Minister of War, nor of the authorities who made the Revolution but disagreed with it.

Exclusion is done little by little, in a ceremony, in the exclusionary discourse, in the story, in the books, in the personal disqualifications every time we debate their ideas, repeating lies in the SSR. A little at a time can go a long way. This arrogant immaturity of some in Chile today does not compare with the Pinochetism that, in order to eliminate us, said we were almost human, humanoid, nor with the Mathausen camp in Austria, where the Nazis sent communists to the Nazis sent communists and political opponents to Mathausen camp in Austria. There is no comparison, but we must remember the excesses to which the “pure ones” have gone to little effect. The New Constitution should have been a crystal construction, pure clean, with errors of imperfection but absent of this and so many other sectarian signs that prove the weakness of the constituent will of inclusion in a country for all.

And we had believed them so much!