Allow me to begin with the following assertion:
One of the most important things the Freeman must do pursuant to his Liberty, and that of all his brethren, is to adopt a mindset of stern and defiant, intransigent intolerance for all ideas and actions that thwart or otherwise disparage, and thereby violate, the freedoms of men.
Since at least the 1950s there has been an assault upon the people of the world, mounted in the war of ideas that has been raging for millennia, but which has, through the agency of twentieth-century technological developments, taken on a whole new dimension, hue, and intensity.
One of the spearheads of this assault, and there exist many others, has been the relentless and ever intensifying assertion of the notion of "tolerance". The use of the word has been hijacked by elements inimical to individual liberty. Pursuant to an agenda intent on foisting authoritarian collectivism on the entirety of humanity, the word now commonly carries tacit implications that tend to drive the mind toward a collectivist view. What has been done pursuant to that objective, has been to strip away any impulse to consider the notion of "intolerability". To leave such a notion as intolerability undisturbed and available to the thinking mind, is to reduce the violence and venom against the notion of "intolerance" as a universal, absolute, and utterly abhorrent option in the minds of people. Intolerance in any form, for any reason, save perhaps a small handful of a few very carefully chosen exceptions that facilitate the migration of mind and world-view toward the collective, is to be railed against with the greatest possible emotional bile and violence, crossing the barrier into the physical when "needed"†.
According to the orthodoxy of ever-so-ironically named "progressivism", the philosophy that underpins the tyrannies to which Theye subscribe themselves, is that all intolerance is the purest evil... that is, unless we speak of notions such as sexual preference, for example. In that case, intolerance of intolerance is not only acceptable, but mandatory as matters of pure faith, never to be questioned in any way, by anybody, for any reason whatsoever. Death is quite literally too good for anyone who questions the orthodoxy and those who hail as "progressive" will eat their own in such cases. The example of Harry Potter author, J. K. Rowling serves as a fine instance of this sort of cannibalism. The moment the hard-left author raised so much as the mildest question regarding so-called "transgenderism", her own tribe and worshippers turned on her, wishing her dead, threatening her family, and embarking on a wild campaign to destroy the entire Harry Potter franchise.
I would also point out that the progressives' diprotically (hypocritically) inconsistent position on intolerance seems to go unnoticed by the vast plurality of humans, who seem merely to take it all on faith for no other reason than it has all been shouted at them with such frequency and intensity for so many decades, that it all becomes normalized in their minds. In this way do these deeply poisonous alterations of basic notions become truth in the minds of those incapable of, or uninterested in, discovering actual truth in favor of the lies that either don't matter to them, or perhaps serve the purposes of their individual corruptions pursuant to their goal of the proverbial "free lunch".
Considering the question of what, precisely, is tolerable v. intolerable, is one of the thought pathways that Theye endeavor to cut off or otherwise thwart at nearly any cost. It is, of course, an element of critical thinking, which must be discouraged with the greatest possible non-unequivocation and prejudice.
But in order for one to develop a well-balanced ability and habit of thought, one must be able to consider ideas from many angles, lest he fall into the error of opinions born of some form of tunnel-vision, the condition commonly called "narrow-mindedness" against which the progressives so vehemently shriek and rail. Oh, the irony of it all; the gross internal inconsistency of it. The clarions of open-mindedness who trumpet its mandatory nature, its central importance to all that is good in the world, turn out to be the most hopelessly closed-minded of us all. Did I mention irony?
Therefore, in order to understand certain categories of proposition, and here I speak of those political notions that touch upon, and possibly interfere with, the rightful praxeological and philosophical prerogatives of Freemen, one must consider those things which are indeed tolerable, versus those which are not. Contrary to the tacit implications of the progressive orthodoxy, the vistas open for consideration in such questions often tend to be expansive. Even in the most restricted cases, the landscape may be found to be considerably broader and extensive than Theye who would presume lordship over you, would have you believe. The narrower your world, the more easily controlled you become. And yet, this narrowness is peddled to the Meaner as broad. The tenets of modern-day, technologically-enabled tyranny, as set forth in Orwell's "1984" have been precisely and identifiably implemented by the authoritarian collectivists, and they are working so very well in corralling the minds of enough of the people to allow themselves to succeed in such wild measure as I suspect they never thought possible.
Pursuant to my infinitesimal and insignificant, yet forthrightly offered, effort to be a thorn in Theire sides to the greatest degree and extent to which I may successfully apply myself, I assert that a knowledge of what is tolerable, vis-à-vis what is not, is essential to a proper knowledge of the political world. This is especially important in a time such as this, where knowledge and understanding are being intentionally destroyed on a daily basis, the ultimate goal of which is to destroy the individual capacity for astute analytic thought.
When one has come to the correct sifting of tolerable and intolerable, he is then able to properly apply his attitude of intransigent intolerance of those things that lead to the degradation of life, in favor of that which edifies it.
Let me be clear on a very crucial point: very little of the terrors and horrors of the human world which we see today, exist of necessity. Nearly none of them are "organic". Rather, they are the results of synthetic conditions that have been set into place, whether by design, or the happenstance and outcomes of rank ignorance of unintended consequence. In other words, there are no inherent reasons why the world must wallow in the vile filth of misery, poverty, diseases both physical and of thought, and ultimately death. Sure, there will always be some of those sorts of things, but the degree to which they now dominate our daily existences is the product of our own hands. I further assert that that which we set into place, can be removed. We have every resource at out disposal. What we lack, is the sense, drive, and integrity to eat the bitter that would get us to that better land. The current state of the world cannot be wholly blamed on the "politicians", any more than the sidewinder can be blamed for biting the fool who attempts to cuddle up with him by the campfire at night. Onus rests mostly with we, the seeley and abused people whose conditions have arisen precisely because we have allowed it all to be made so. We are the true culprits in all this misery and ruin, and yet the door remains wide open to us to make all necessary amends to Liberty. The world is, in fact, our oyster. We have but to take it.
Therefore, I bid every man who wishes or otherwise presumes the status of Freeman, endeavor to learn and distinguish the tolerable from its antagonist. Bring yourself to the pride that enables you then to stand tall as a free being, submissive to no other man, and work as you are able to make clear that which may be accepted and that which must be resolutely rejected.
Finally, I bid that one and all please accept my best wishes.
† Needed by whom, and for what reason?
† Needed by whom, and for what reason?
No comments:
Post a Comment