A tolerant culture has long been acclaimed as a righteous society. While most social indoctrination is designed
to foster this fanciful theme, few are willing to ask or examine if this is a desirable goal. A valid conclusion rests upon
a correct definition of the nature of tolerance and how it applies to natural arrangements and relationships among different
groups. Here are four options to consider:
1) the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions
2) willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others
3) a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior
4) a permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits
Which do you accept as the logical and judicious meaning for tolerance?
The chronological record suggests that history favors a world that conform to the first choice. Societies,
races and cultures are different and seldom harmonious. Nevertheless, it has been a goal of social engineers to perfect human
nature and renounce the reality of that nature. Enter the romantic, advocates that seek a playing field so level that everyone’s
interests are advanced by way of respecting all beliefs and any practice. But do they have equal merit? The idealist
claims unbound freedom is the answer - anything can go in a truly tolerant turmoil. Finally, the realist - the most defamed
- offers the insight that self interest supersedes motives for contrived social equivalence.
The interpretation you accept is crucial to properly understand the conflict and intentions of social crusaders.
In a world that operates upon a foundation of distortion, it is easy for the ingenuous to believe the con
that is the official doctrine: PEOPLE are EQUAL . . . If you are an imbecile, you will hold that the plight of the inferior
is your responsibility. The solution to rectify cultural deficiency, is to sacrifice your own dignity and merge your
heritage by shedding those qualities that create lasting achievements. Dumbing down is not enough, accepting primitive ritual
as coequal is required. If you resist this atonement adjustment, your ability to overcome that nasty hate factor will necessitate
additional harsh persuasion. Your re-education program will feature a reorientation degree with a major in Tolerance.
The institution for this advanced level of reprogramming might well be the TOLERANCE.ORG That’s an auspicious name for a Southern Poverty Law Center project designed to enlighten the masses
about the detestables. You know them, for they are you . . . No less a figure than the dissimulator, Morris Dees, will instruct
you what hate is and why you are unworthy unless you grant universal tolerance. Offered as a fringe benefit is a tracking
list for hate groups, yet to graduate from the course - denial in inequality. Their standard holds that - “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire
class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics”. In the Dees classroom there is no place for definition
No 3 - a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
So is Dees a hero or a charlatan? You won’t examine his real record on the tolerance.org site.
"The problem is, voluminous records and testimony reveal that everything Dees purports to despise... HE IS! And now, he is being judged by his own judgments. His Southern
Poverty Law Center is not Southern, is a long way from the Poverty bracket and has nothing to do (really) with Law.
In reality his organization is better identified as the Center of Hate.
Instead of fighting racism he creates it by publishing inflammatory books which stir the pot of hatred among
non-whites. And rather than targeting only those who are truly hate-filled and who commit actual crimes, his wide brush strokes
across anyone who is a Christian, opposes the New World Order, advocates the right to bear arms and especially, those who
may know and teach the true biblical identity of God’s covenant people known as Identity believers.
In short, he and his comrades create an atmosphere of fear and anger (the very thing he accuses racist leaders
of doing) but in his case, it is to disguise their true mission to eliminate Christianity. All the while, collecting
huge sums of money from mainly affluent east and west coast Jews but also, working class Americans and even school children
to enlarge his Center of Hate cash reserves."
It’s hard to see the Dees mindset as conforming to definition No 2 - willingness to recognize and
respect the beliefs or practices of others; for there is no choice in his system of ‘TC’ Totalitarian Collectivism.
Tolerance demands Fascism to ensue open-mindedness.
So what’s left to define tolerance! No 4 - a permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within
limits - distinguish that differences exist and that accepting those variances recognizes that your allowance is essential.
The boundaries for accepting others is based upon your desire to include them into your own community. Consequently, to achieve
willful tolerance, discriminating choice is necessary. For some, definition No 1 - the power or capacity of an organism
to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions - will apply. Some may reject that option, but that disagreement does
not abolish the right of those who avoid assimilation, while begrudgingly enduring coexisting.
The Dees’ of this world want you to be consumed with a false guilt and an asinine self destructive surrender.
Their version of tolerance is despotism disguised in a sugar coating that has a color of a clear black and white choice. It
is entirely proper and moral to exclude those who are harmful, injurious or troublesome. Certainly no person who retains any
degree of common sense needs the Tolerance Organization to assist in making that determination.
A truly virtuous society distinguishes between forced integration and honest acceptance. Limits upon free
association are no substitute for individual Liberty and assuredly, tolerance is no benefit when compelled. So which definition
do you accept? If you follow Dees, you need not worry or ponder your decision, he will settle the matter. Surely, you would
not want to risk being lumped into one of those hate group tribes! Or maybe you would?
SARTRE - July 13, 2003