The two main subdivisions of nonphysical subanthropic exclusivism (X.19) are thought-related (person-centered) exclusivism (X.39) and basic nonphysical subanthropic exclusivism (X.38). Since all nonphysical subanthropic exisms are nonsophistic, basic can be understood here in the sense of non-thought-related. Therefore we must first explain what is meant by thought-related exclusivism. Thought-related person-centered exclusivism is exism re a nonphysical ('mental' or 'cultural') characteristic of a subclass of human beings which is directly related to the content of their thoughts or system of thought, or exism re such a subclass itself. Standard examples of thought-related exclusivism are the exclusion or preferential treatment of people on the basis of the denominational or political ideology adhered to. In the next and last division of this chapter we will treat of the manifestations of this thought-related exclusivism.

Basic nonphysical subanthropic exclusivism can, in turn, be subdivided into personative and nonpersonative, basic nonphysical subanthropic exclusivism (X.76 & 77). A personative basic exclusivism is a form of basic nonphysical exclusivism in which a human being is characterized personally in the context of a human subculture, or in which a group of human beings is invested with an own, collective personality. Because of the kind of exclusivism concerned the quality on the basis of which the human being or group of human beings is characterized must be a nonphysical one. This also includes characteristics which might be believed to be 'physical', like the territory (say, a region or country) where a person lives; but when the definement of such a territory and of the exclusivism depend on the existence of a 'cultural', 'political' or other nonphysical institution, the characteristic itself and the exclusivism of which it is an object are ultimately nonphysical as well.

The whole classification system of exclusivisms developed thus far contains only two so-called 'closed listings of four exisms' --closed, because any additional exism cannot be logically conceived of. The first one was the tetratomic subdivision of nonsophistic exclusivism (X.2) and the second one is the following, similar subdivision of personative basic exclusivism (X.76): nonphysical individual (X.304), subnational (X.305), national (X.306) and international (union-based) exclusivism (X.307). National and international exclusivism are forms of territorial( ex)ism with respect to a nation or a particular union of nations respectively. Subnational exclusivism is either territorial or nonterritorial. If it is territorial a local, a regional and a state-based (subnational) variant can be distinguished. (Instead of "state" one may also read, for example, "province" or "republic", so long as it is part of a greater, sovran whole.) Nationalism (if territorial), tribalism (if territorial), (regional or local) sectionalism, (regional or local) provincialism, and localism are globally well-known examples of territorial personative exclusivism. In practise these manifestations are more often than not constituents of a hybridism or other plural exclusivism in combination with exisms such as generative (particularly ethnical) physical subanthropic or linguistical and/or ideological, nonphysical subanthropic exclusivism.

Two intermediary manifestations of territorialism worth mentioning are normative territorialism and supreme localism. As a cognition the first operation refers to the belief that it would depend on the kind of society or 'culture' (defined in territorial terms) whether egalitarian principles or norms and values of the same generality would apply or not. Also this normative territorialism is usually linked up with normative racialism or ethnical exclusivism. The source of this territorial conception of morality is, firstly, the boundless faith in what happen to be the cultural norms of a particular country or other territory at a particular time, and secondly, the dire confusion of normative principles themselves and the empirical conditions under which they are to be applied. An example of supreme localism, the other intermediary operation referred to, is that of a god who has taken exclusive possession of a certain city, or who is believed to be the 'Great King' of that city in particular. This form of localism cannot be divorced from ethnocentrism and aggrandizemental nationalism. A supreme example of the latter kind of territorialism is the belief in and the description of one particular country as "the Holy Land".

Two nonterritorial forms of subnational exclusivism are class-related and nonphysical familial exclusivism. Class-related exclusivism (X.2441) is exism re a socioeconomic class or caste (as a cultural phenomenon). Class-related exism greatly resembles many other forms of exism we have already discussed, such as generative familial exclusivism and race-, age- and gender-related exclusivism. Moreover, class-based exclusivism or 'classism' has already received so much philosophical, political and scientific attention that we need not dwell on the nonrelevance of class-distinctions and their abuse for too long here. Perhaps a note on class-centered exclusivism should suffice at this place.

Those who contend that the primary function of ideology is to support class interests, and that everything people think, feel and do is part of one great struggle of the classes for power, suffer from aggrandizemental class-centered exclusivism in the most objective of ways. It has been pointed out in the Book of Instruments (I.6.1.2) how the words ideology and class are used in a number of different senses in this reasoning. If the claim is to approximate to objective reality in some degree, socioeconomic class is certainly not the only meaning of it; yet, that is what is our concern here, not 'classes' like age-groups, sexes or denominations. However, in the politics of countries in which different socioeconomic classes still exist, the aggrandizemental class-centered exclusivism of one party seems to be wedded to the abnegational class-centered exclusivism of the other. (The road to class-neutral and -transcending inclusivity is very narrow indeed.) The number of lower- and middle-class people and generations in the past who have adhered to, and loyally defended, a religious or political ideology whose sole ultimate function it was to serve the interests of the upper-class, is so great that it is incomprehensible that this number will ever be equaled in the future. It is in these people's naivety, and in their ignorance of class- or caste-distinctions implicitly taken for granted, that the abnegational nature of their attitude lay, or still lies.

Leaving class-related exclusivism behind, we continue with nonphysical familial exclusivism (X.1221). This is exism re a family or a member of a family personated and distinguished on the basis of a nonphysical quality which it has or is believed to have as a whole or within a whole. (In this context family is used in the sense of a consanguineous-matrimonial group of humans, whether they belong to one household or not.) The manifestations of nonphysical familial exism do for a large part reflect those of nonphysical individual exclusivism (X.304), and will therefore be discussed together here. Nonphysical individual exism is exism re a human individual distinguished on the basis of a personal nonphysical quality. Both individuals and whole families can be distinguished from other individuals or whole families among other things by reference to their title(s), power, wealth or fame. And in both cases a title may be hereditary or nonhereditary. Hereditary title-based familial exclusivism (X.39073) is exism re a caste or family with a hereditary title like imperial or royal. In the case of individual exism (X.9729) it concerns titles like prince or princess. Both forms of titular exclusivism involve the institution of aristocracy, aristocratic exclusivism in general and caste-based exclusivism insofar as it is titular and familial. Hereditary title-based familial exclusivism is also, together with the sexism inherent in the asymmetrical distribution of individual titles over both sexes, indicative of monarchist polities. Wealth-based familial, and especially individual, exclusivism (X.19538 & 2434) involves the institution of plutocracy or plutocratic exclusivism in general. If being known and liked by an unusual number of people is considered something honorable in itself, and loved for itself, then fame-based familial, and especially individual, exclusivism (X.19539 & 2435) involves the institution of timocracy or timocratic exclusivism in general. In practise, title-, power-, wealth- and fame-based exclusivism are often closely related to each other and to other singular and plural exclusivisms.

The types of familial exclusivism listed above are actually types of interfamilial exclusivism. But since the object of familial exism is a group of individuals, it also has infrafamilial manifestations. Thus, authority-based infrafamilial exclusivism (X.4887) is exism re the authority of (a) family member(s) personated and distinguished on the basis of 'er/their position within the family. Patriarchy is a hybrid of the aggrandizemental component of this exism and androcentrism; matriarchy is a hybrid of the same component of infrafactorial exism and gynocentrism.

Individuals are not only treated or regarded differently by reference to hereditary titles, but also by reference to a positional title or academic degree. Here a 'positional title' is meant to be a nonhereditary title someone has acquired because of 'er rank, office or other position, whether academic or nonacademic. An (academic) degree is a title conferred upon someone because 'e has successfully completed a major program of study or something equivalent to it. There are considerable differences with respect to desert and the context in which they could be relevant (if ever) between hereditary titles, positional titles and degrees. Even when people are called by a title because they have personally proved that they possess a certain skill or praiseworthy quality, the question always remains why people with a lesser skill or quality should not get a 'lesser title' instead of no-one at all. This question is particularly justified in monarchist or aristocratic societies in which titles (and state incomes) are conferred on (and given to) infants and people on purely biological-materialist grounds.

But even an extraordinary, official act of distributive justice in which everyone who had some special skill acquired by working more or less hard, and in which everyone who had some special praiseworthy quality proved under conditions more or less hard, were titled in a way proportionate to the degree of 'er skill or motivational goodness, would not abrogate the custom of title-based irrelevantism by itself. For the practise which is most showy and ignoble in this respect is the employment of a title in a context which is not relevant, simply because the skill or quality in question is not pertinent to the kind of situation concerned. But it is certainly not only the people styling themselves, say, "doctor" or "general" in circumstances in which their being a doctor or general is not relevant who indulge in or surrender themselves to titular irrelevantism. The invisible, dextrous hand of exclusivism puts exactly the same names on the lips of the untitled. All titular exclusivists see a master, a lord, a princess, or what have you, where there is nothing else, where there is nothing less, than a human being, perhaps skilless or vicious, perhaps skilful or morally good, perhaps both, perhaps neither.

Positional and degree-based, titular individual exclusivism are closely related to intellectual (individual) exclusivism (X.2439), a form of exism to be distinguished in addition to title-, power- wealth- and fame-based exism. Intellectual exism can, for example, be intelligence-linked when the object is (an individual with greater than average) intelligence, or knowledge-linked when it is (an individual with more than average) knowledge in general or in a particular field. Intelligence- and knowledge-based, individual exism manifest themselves especially in combination with an attitude towards intelligence and knowledge as tho they were ultimate values in themselves. The intellectualism of which they are a subspecies is itself a subspecies of mental individual exclusivism together with the manifestations of mental ability-related exclusivism (X.4877). This is the analog of physical ability-related exism (X.292) as mentioned in section 2.3.3 (Partial-total). It needs no further elucidation here, since the manifestations of both exclusivisms run entirely parallel.