Quick Takes – Intolerant “Tolerance”, Hypocritical “Tolerance”, and Repressive “Tolerance”

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: The Intolerance of “Tolerance”

     First, a little mood movie:

     Carrying on…

     Muad’Dib said it best:

“The notable thing about Culture War 4.0 is its consistent rejection of tolerance in favor of government enforced morality. Remember your Muad’Dib: ‘When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.’ The peaceful tolerance for those who are different now extends too far, for it encompasses people who do not abide by or fully appreciate gay marriages. The people must be brought to heel, and the new morality enforced by government over their religious objections.”

     The idea of “tolerance” was just a scam by the Left.  They accused society of being “intolerance” and supporting “inequality”.  Because the essence of American civilization is based on freedom and equality under the law, the intolerant Left was able to push out American values.  Once they were in control, they pushed intolerance of others under the guise of tolerance, and condemned a tolerance society as intolerant.

     Up is down.

     War is peace.

     Freedom is slavery.

     Dammin, 1984 was not supposed to be a “How-To” guide!

     The demands for “tolerance” are always a one-way proposition.

“Atheists and homosexual-rights activists in Ireland are threatening protest marches. A local government in the overwhelmingly Catholic country has fined a homosexual baker in the village of Inch (County Clare) for refusing to produce a wedding cake featuring, on its icing, the inscription, ‘A man shall . . . hold fast to his wife — Gen. 2:24.’

“The baker, Robert O’Riordan, says that he considers the inscription to be an implicit rebuke of his own domestic living arrangement and an imposition on his right as an atheist to refuse assent to ‘any material endorsement of religious ceremonies.’ Mr. O’Riordan regularly bakes other wedding cakes; the difference here, he says, is that the inscription requires him to acknowledge the specifically religious nature of the nuptials, thus infringing on his freedom of conscience.

“O’Riordan suggested that the couple hire the bakery at the nearby Supervalu market — but the engaged couple, Padraig Hogan and Sarah Considine, say the supermarket’s quality is not up to O’Riordan’s. The Clare County Council, in issuing the fine against O’Riordan, said that he is violating the Equal Status Acts, which prohibit discrimination with regard to goods and services. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has taken up O’Riordan’s cause, arguing that nobody should be forced to participate even indirectly in a religious undertaking that shames his sexual identity.

“Irish news outlets have been surprised, however, to see that Dylan Sullivan, a Clare County barrister well known for criticizing the Irish Catholic Church for its alleged liberalization and ‘increasing moral relativism,’ has agreed to represent O’Riordan pro bono. ‘I think Mr. O’Riordan’s sensitivities are rather feeble,” Sullivan said. “But he has the right to act like a gimp if he wants to. Even a man of his sort has rights, and the government cannot compel a man to act against his beliefs. It would be like the English telling me to kneel for an Anglican communion: I wouldn’t stand for it!'”

     Of course, this is just a hypothetical.  An “equal right” type of commission would never apply the law equally.

     This hypocrisy makes sense when one realizes that “tolerance” was always just a tool to push the worst type of intolerance and oppression:

“Marcuse’s most lasting contribution to progressive politics was his 1965 essay ‘Repressive Tolerance,’ in which he sneered at ‘abstract tolerance and spurious objectivity’ and coined the phrase ‘totalitarian democracy’ to describe Western society. Marcuse claimed that ‘the concentration of economic and political power . . . in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination’ means that ‘effective dissent is blocked.’ He claimed that it was possible to determine ‘the most rational ways of using [economic] resources and distributing the social product,’ that ‘it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements’ to accomplish this goal. However, he insisted, it would be necessary to suppress opposition to these ‘rational’ socialist policies:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

“This was plainly a call to suppress dissent. Marcuse insisted that ‘progress’ — i.e., a socialist policy to redistribute ‘resources’ – required silencing opponents of such policies. Marcuse was arguing for tyranny in the name of liberation.”

     So, when the Left call for liberation, equality, and justice, know then, that they mean anything but.


This entry was posted in Progressives and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.