“Tolerance implies a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one’s own” ~Mahatma Ghandi
tol·er·ance /ˈtɒlərəns/ Show Spelled[tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
1375–1425; late ME < L tolerantia. See tolerant, -ance
1, 2. patience, sufferance, forbearance; liberality, impartiality, open-mindedness.
Okay folks, blame Locke N Load for this one. He wound me up with a question about GK Chesterton. Thus, I would like to discuss tolerance and liberalism, and how the marriage of the two is the antithesis of the free society. I hope I don’t screw it up.
The above quote by Ghandi got me to thinking about the definition of the word ‘tolerance’ so I looked it up. I knew, innately what the word meant, but hadn’t ever put any thought into it because of the liberal stigma attached thereto.
The very idea that one should ‘tolerate’ the views of another, as if it were some burden that others would dare to be different is funny to me. To tolerate another view, one would be regarding it as inferior or at least acknowledging it’s status, as a burden. Liberals tolerate the burden of your views being different, in much the same way that they tolerate someone’s blackness or migration to gain favor or approval.
Liberalism and tolerance are an altogether different animal than acceptance. I accept that some people are homosexual. That’s not a problem for me. It’s no burden whatsoever. I accept that some people have a strong religious fervor that I don’t share. I’m okay with that. I accept that some folks are black, or brown, or Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. My lack of being those things or any disagreement with the ideas motivating them, doesn’t affect the way I treat them as a human being. If you like Fords, I accept that. I don’t agree, but you can still be my friend.
Liberalism would have me sit atop the fence, not knowing which way to jump. I don’t like that. I tend to reason things out, (at least enough to justify to myself the rightness of my acceptance of a given idea). This is less-than-kosher for some people, but it works for me until something shows me the error of my judgment.
Liberalism and tolerance would have me to sit idly by while all manner of depravity and self-destructive action were perpetrated and perpetuated around me. I don’t like that. I am a man of action. I may move sooner than I should some times, but I won’t be contemplating what to do while my front door is being kicked in, because that just doesn’t make sense.
A nation is much like a larger version of the family. It is made up of individual members, who differ with one another. They may argue. They certainly won’t always agree with one another, but they are still bound together. They shouldn’t allow others to get involved in internal squabbles, or meddle in affairs of a purely family nature. When I was younger, I could fight with my brothers. We would throw blows and hurt each other physically. If we got too rowdy, a parent would get involved and sort things out.
I don’t think that I can adequately explain what would happen if one of our friends would have ever jumped in while we were engaged in a fisticuff. Our country should be run the same way. As a nation, we don’t need the approval of any other nation on earth. If our states are involved in a fight, any other nation who pokes their nose in, should get their ass kicked.
Liberalism would allow the parents of another child to dictate the rules in your household. It would allow ’Family Services’ to over-rule the say of the parents, and regulate the behavior of the children. It would take away your ability, as a parent, to decide what is best for your household.
Liberalism on it’s surface champions tolerance of any and all views on everything. It is much like a slick salesman. It will support whatever you want it to support, so long as you buy it’s product. Should you ever decide that you don’t like the product, you will be discarded like yesterday’s newspaper. Your name deleted from the rolodex.
If you’re black and you don’t buy the ‘oppressed minority, incapable of functioning and reasoning on your own’ product, you’ll be discarded as a self-hating “uncle tom negro“ (NAACP). If you’re gay and you favor the 2nd Amendment, or fiscal responsibility and smaller government, you’re just not going to be accepted. If you’re an independent minded woman who leads by common sense and remains virtuous, while refusing to accept abortion , welfare, profligate spending, or any manner of idea which offends reason, you’re going to be dropped like a bad habit.
Liberalism says that a woman can manage on her own. That she can work and raise a family. That she can exercise self-determination, but when she does – she is attacked and maligned as a traitor to the cause. When a poor man rises above the indignities imposed upon him by poverty, and stands on his own two feet to refuse victimhood, he is discarded. This same idea has been bred into ‘black culture’ in America for decades. If a man chooses a path in life that gets him out of the ghetto, he is accused of ‘not keeping it real’ or of being a ‘sellout’.
When Barack Obama first began his campaign, there was much discussion as to whether or not he was “black enough” to win the support of the black community. You see, many people in the media and politics were worried that because he didn’t speak in ebonics and was raised by a white family in a privileged environment, that he wouldn’t be able to capture the attention of the black community.
When he gave his ‘race speech’ after Reverend Wrong , and said the things that ‘black folks talk about at the kitchen table that you’ll never hear in public discourse’, he was very deliberately proving himself to his audience. When he called his grandmother a ‘typical white person’ he was cementing his street credibility and reinforcing the idea that he was indeed ‘black enough’ to be Resident©. He was oppressed, too. He had suffered the indignities of racism, just like you. The facts don‘t matter. Barack Obama, though he has surely endured racism, was given more opportunity in affluent white society because of his race and liberalism, than he would have gotten if he lived where I did as a white boy.
Liberalism and tolerance forced Barack Obama to play up his blackness to compete at the top. Affirmative action requires the same of millions of black Americans, each and every day. It requires that they enslave themselves on the plantation of race politics in exchange for acceptance into liberal society.
Liberalism forces you to accept that which is detrimental to your self-preservation and betterment. Violence is barbaric, you can’t defend yourself. Immigrants just want work, you can’t send them home for breaking the law. This guy or that is has been deprived of the same things you have. You need to share. Never mind that he refuses to work. He was mistreated. The guy who molested your neighbor’s son? He’s just misunderstood. He isn’t a deviant, he’s a victim. You don’t agree with this guys lifestyle choice? You have to change or be relegated to the outer fringe of society. The religion of peace produces more terrorists than the rest of the world combined? So. We’ll just omit the religion of the attackers when we discuss it, so as to not offend. You can’t make it on your own, black man. You need a benevolent white person to give you a leg-up.
Adherence to liberal ideology and the ’tolerance’ it requires is self-immolation. “Tolerance” of any and every behavior contrived by man breeds indifference and apathy. When nothing is out of the norm or unacceptable there is no alarm to alert you when danger is near. If you’ve ever been the victim of a dope fiend who took advantage of your kindness, you have an idea of what I am trying to convey. You give and give. They take and take. It is never enough. Their desire for that next high will always trump logic and good sense. They will destroy anyone and anything that gets between them and the next “fix”.
The belief in rugged individualism and the right responsibility of each man to determine his own values and place in this world are innate in human beings. The will to do so, not-so-much. The struggle required to maintain such individualism and take responsibility for one’s self is hard. It’s much easier to lie back and blame someone else. Do working folks enjoy destroying their body to make money? I would guess not. They do it because it provides the means of achieving the self-reliance they are looking for.
The conservative accepts or rejects a man based on the content of his character. Is he honest? Will he work? Does he treat people with respect and an even hand? Will he stand for what is right and reject that which is wrong? Does he live with honor and integrity? Is he willing to make his own way and suffer the slings and arrows of his own failure?
These are the principles which create wealth, dignity, and respect. These principles produce true leaders. They have made America strong, and kept her free. It is no wonder that America’s defenders come from a predominantly conservative background. Liberalism doesn’t hold anyone responsible. Someone else will take care of you. Someone else will die to keep you free. You can’t afford a house? Someone else will subsidize it. You don’t make much? We’ll take some from the guy who does and give it to you.
Liberalism teaches that all are equal. There are no winners. No losers. No punishment for breaking the rules. Then it wonders why we have a nation full of liars, thieves, and lazy people. If everyone buys into it, eventually there will be no more producers. No innovators. No titans of finance or industry. No guy who invented the microprocessor and became the richest man in the world. We will all be poor. We will all be hungry, with inadequate housing, medical care, food and education.
But hey, we’ll all be equal.Share