Why do so many assume that a society with more tolerance for previously less tolerated members of society is automatically an improvement and a cause for celebration and joy? Wouldn’t it depend on whose being tolerated and the impact that this welcoming spirit allows them to exert on society or even on other individuals?
Should we tolerate murderers? Should we tolerate thieves? Should we tolerate arsonists? Should a nation tolerate the immigration of people who want to destroy them? Who want to steal from them? Seize power over them by trickery and confiscate their wealth and land for their own purposes? People whose very cultural commitments put them on a collision course with everyone else and make peaceable acculturation almost impossible? Is that an exciting and progressive idea or something to be aggressively avoided? Or should immigration be an imbibing of the best that other nations have to offer us? The meeting of national and societal needs.
In this vein, should we tolerate those without sexual boundaries? Should we tolerate rapists? Should we tolerate child molesters? How about those who deliberately seek to confuse young children as to whether they are male or female? Should we tolerate them? Should we tolerate men who go about seducing and impregnating women without taking responsibility for those children? Should we tolerate those with sexually transmitted diseases going about spreading that disease to others? If that disease were aides, this would bring us back to “should we tolerate murderers?” Should we tolerate the open proliferation of pornography in the streets where all our children will be exposed to it from infancy and affected in their own sexual development? Should we preserve a period of innocence by preventing others from bringing a pre-pubescent fire storm of wanton eroticism on our kids? How about those who use children’s programing to promote homosexuality and gender confusion?
Do you think that statistical markers of dysfunction and health should be part of a society’s measure of their willingness for tolerance? If, say, a given community were marked out by both certain sexual proclivities and insanely high substance abuse, depression, mental illness, domestic violence, murder rates, suicide rates and the like, should a society tolerate that group? Give them political leverage? Special favors?
On this basis, should some groups be intentionally hindered in their ability to multiply themselves morally in society? What kinds of things would a society we wise to limit?
Should a society promote those things that create stable marriages and families? Should they punish or shun those whose activity destroys marriages and breaks families?
Should we have any moral standards at all as a society?
If not, what do you think the consequences for that will be? What makes you imagine so? What evidence do you have?
If so, what should they be? Why? What evidence do YOU have?
In the years leading up to America’s hard left worldview turn, J. F. Kennedy declared, “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others. If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.”[1]
His statement has a lot of buzz words for Critical Theory as it presently presents itself, (Tolerance, Oppression, Persecution, Differences, Diversity, Safe World) and though I am sure he did not mean by most of these words exactly what those bandying them about today mean by them, we might still challenge the road they point to.
First, even in his own quote, we see the hostility woven into words that are supposed to signal an end to hostilities. We must condemn some to make the world safe for others. Now all we have to do is decide whom we should be condemning and for whom we should be making the world safe? You must choose. For you see, when A calls for tolerance and wants nothing but the death of B, and B wants nothing but peace with A, every act of tolerance, every compromise leads one step closer to the death of B. The idea that tolerance leads to peace for all is a lie… it is for the most part merely a deceitful call to side A.
So who is who?
Herbert Marcuse, as we’ve noted several times already, as well as men like Saul Alinsky have been quite plain about who is who. Those seeking to unravel society are to be tolerated and those trying to preserve society, accidentally or on purpose are to be overthrown. The goal is always disruption of the norm to advance the cause of a Marxist society… a humanist Utopia free from all the oppressions of the past… like morals and ethics.
Second, Kennedy’s claim that “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs,” might be quite true if what one means by tolerance is respecting the limitations of other people’s natural rights, but is a lie if one pushes beyond natural rights to goods and service rights and the eroding of natural rights to force one group to associate with, hire, pay for, celebrate, and join in with another group. When you can be fired and sued for refusing to call a man a woman or arrested for praying silently outside and abortion clinic the pretense of freedom in Kennedy’s path is shown for the lie it always was. “All we want” quickly morphs into “Join us or else.”
When John Locke presented natural rights as as-sure-a-foundation for peace in the midst of diversity as man could find, he was quite right. The world’s history had, thus far, demonstrated that it was almost impossible to keep the peace in culturally, socially, religiously, and politically diverse environments. A firm conviction in the sacred barrier of natural rights, however, founded in a belief in Imago Dei presented just such a hope. We don’t have to like each other, but when we are determined to tolerate another’s existence and presence, to not kill, or injure, or rob them, and to keep the peace within the boundaries of natural rights, then understanding will grow; a determination to work out our differences will emerge… slowly. History since the application of these ideas in Western Civilization has also proven this out.
It is when we are willing to defy these boundaries that peace is impossible. Indeed, Critical Theory has no interest in peaceable co-existence, no matter what their bumper sticker tells you.
One must not ignore, here, the fact that the “C” are sworn to kill, rape, or force conversion upon the “X” and the “T” and the “OEI & S” as well—“Death to Infidels.” The “O” and “E” and the “I” hate the “X” & “T” and have historically thrown in with those who seek to murder them en masse. There is no great philosophy of tolerance in the whole history of “S.” So the maker envisions a world where Muslims, Hippies, Wiccans, “Scientism” a stand in for atheists I’m assuming, Jewish believers, pagans, Taoists, and Christians coexist… But how? Most of the letters don’t even believe in natural rights.
In the West then, this merely suggests that Christians and Jews commit religious and cultural suicide by compromising bit by bit with those who are determined to eradicate them. We might give them natural rights as we give all human beings, but they do not and never will reciprocate. They use those rights to guilt their way into positions of power from which they grind the natural rights of their enemy du jour into the dust.
In Critical Theory, Christians and Jews must go first. The rest are used as weapons against them in an increasingly authoritarian call for “inclusion.” Then the others will have to go, one by one, until only Marxist Atheists are left standing. That’s the plan anyway… the Marching orders are encoded in the idea. There is always the chance that using the Muslims in this culture war backfires and they prove harder to eradicate than the Social Marxists imagined… then things would get really interesting for them.
So ask yourself a question. If you have to choose between the moral or the amoral, who would you pick?
No… You have to choose… because while Christians and Jews believe in winning converts through the power of influence, the others are committed to the influence of power; they won’t allow you to stand neutral. Join them or else.
So pick. Do you want a world with male and female, the stable nuclear family, freedom from threats domestic, foreign, and governmental, natural rights, the pursuit of wisdom for greater prosperity, health, wholeness, a limited government with proper checks and balances on their power, OR do you want a society without moral restraint, wanderlust ways, gender confusion by design, dysfunctional families, authoritarian government, and the natural flow toward complete societal dilapidation and poverty that all these bring?
Do you want the path of life or the path of death? There is no middle ground. You are going to have to choose one side or the other in this culture war.
[1] J. F. Kennedy, June 10th, 1963, Speech at American University, Washington D.C.
