Intolerance Of The Intolerable Is Virtue

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.

This may seem obvious to some, yet until is it articulated in clear and unequivocal fashion, the notion lays latent in open sight before the eyes of vast legions of humanity.


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?

So-Called "Statism" Is NOT A Mental Illness.

 Just moments ago, a fair and intelligent friend posted on a social media page an article whose headlines boldly proclaimed, "Statism is a self-accommodating mental illness".  I have yet to view the article, but felt immediately compelled to respond to the headline, which itself alone merited a reply. To that headline did I produce the following.

"It is not a mental illness. It is a WILL TO CORRUPTION.

I understand the drive to discount the notion of "statism", as it is eminently worthy of disparagement. But to falsely attribute the willfully chosen position that we tend to label as "statism" as a mental illness is as statist as one can possibly get.

Were it not the Soviets and Communist Chinese, in their ultimately statist modes and positions who, so very full of grasping avarice for absolute and total control over the minds and lives of every cockroach and housefly on the planet, who labeled any view on any matter imaginable that varied in the least way from that of their demented orthodoxies as "mental illness"? Was it not those self-same characters who decided that, having labeled an individual as mentally ill, anyone who was suffering from such illness was justifiably a candidate for any treatment whatsoever that the mighty, all-knowing, and infallible "state" might deem appropriate?  Did we, those who were, or might have become, the victims of those wildly and dangerously, murderously corrupt individuals, not learn the lessons they so graphically presented the world?  Apparently not.

There is a double-edged sword here - the edge that discounts those who disagree with the official line of the state because they are "mentally ill", by far the more dangerously razor-like periphery.  The other edge is that of the just and appropriate treatments which are forgone due to the use of the misdiagnosis such as found in the former, which perforce leads to unjust and most often horrific treatments that fall far beyond any punishment we might view as proper justice, even when such punishment is the removal of life from a criminal. There are, as I hope we all know, fates worse than death, many of them far more so.  With too-casual an examination, one might be tempted to ask what is the practical difference if the result be effectively same? There is a huge difference, even if it is a mite subtle for the average intellect, though I find little subtlety there because the consequences of making this error are far reaching and potentially very severe.  The result is nothing less than the corruption of the minds of men into believing a falsehood whose effects may grow as a cancer inside those minds, leading men to eventually accept as just and valid the most unspeakable evils imaginable.  Our very souls and that of all human posterity hang in that delicate, precarious balance.  This is the stuff of which man's worst nightmares are made: civilization gone wildly wrong, and that is precisely where we are heading today.  It needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, and forthwith before every remaining shred of basic sense has fled the last mind of the last man to possess it.

In the case of mental illness as the judgment, anyone so adjudged can be simply whisked away for any amount of time, treated in any manner whatsoever, including "medical" experimentation, the potentials of which nobody should need pointing out, given the educational examples we have at hand,  courtesy of the likes of Dr. Mengele. Furthermore, the practice leaves the door wide open for indefinite "treatment", along with confinement, because someone unaccountable for his actions, a "doctor" in whom full latitude is given within the expansively broad boundaries of his "professional opinion", is given free run to keep and treat such people in any manner they may see fit for as long as they deem the "patient" as remaining in a state of illness, leaving the door further open to the wildest and most unimaginably sadistic and cruel abuses. Do recall the practice and brute violence of the frontal lobotomy, always carried out with the gentle smiles of the well-intending "doctor".  God save us all from the good intentions of men.

No sir. As much as I see "statism" as a threat to everything that is good between men, I in no way or degree will accept the "mental illness" approach as ever being acceptable in any way or measure, just because some vaguely defines symptom has manifested in an individual. Such individuals may deserve shunning, a good beating, lecturing until they pray for death, prison, or even being executed in the most severe cases.  But by God they will be brought to their treatments honestly and justly, not just for THEIR sakes, but for OURS, that we do not become that which we proclaim to hate, a circumstance to which we are far more easily arrived than the vast plurality of humanity ever believes, and history proves me absolutely and in every way correct.

We must attribute such beliefs correctly or we become as hopelessly lost as those whom we would presume to hold accountable, not for the beliefs per sé, but for the criminal actions they take pursuant to those beliefs, and in satisfaction thereof.

To punish someone who is truly non compos mentis is itself an evil act. The man with brain lesions who murders his neighbor in a fit of uncontrollable rage cannot be justly held responsible for the act itself, though he may be justly separated from the company of his fellows for the sake of the future safety of his brethren. But that is an objectively identifiable cause of action, and not the fog-shrouded notion of "mental illness", itself a myth for reasons I will not go into here.  Slippery is the slope and razor-thin the edge we tread, when we accept the utter bullshit notion of "mental illness" as rot cause, that being precisely my point here - how presumably well intended remedies so rapidly and stealthily turn into the most quietly subtle, and thereby wildest evil that people see as just and proper.  The Devil ain't red with a bifurcated tail, horns, pitchfork, and spewing flaming brimstone from his nostrils.  He most often seems the loving and trustworthy elder uncle in whose lap one so willingly reclines and feels so safe.

So in the endeavor not to devolve into evil, we shun such punishment in favor of restriction of those who for whatever identifiable PHYSICAL conditions are rendered unsafe for the company of their fellow human beings. This may look like punishment, but it is not the same thing, and it is carried forth with nothing but the greatest reticence, sorrow, and compassion, whereas just punishment should be carried forth with a proper degree of disgust and anger for that which the criminal has committed, all idiotic presumptions of the neutrality of an automation notwithstanding and preferably to be tossed into the dustbin.

But when we properly consider the murder in our example as having been undertaken pursuant to very specifically "statist" objectives (perhaps the neighbor was against a welfare state, and so "had" to be eliminated in the opinion of the murderer), we properly endeavor to PUNISH one who has committed such a heinous crime with the aggravating factor of statist intentions. In such cases we may engage in such punishment with a valid and justifiable sense of anger that underpins the similarly justifiable desire to punish, rather than the current hokey stupidity of "rehabilitation", which is nobody's responsibility but that of the criminal, and which comes about purely as the result of an individual's desire to reform his ways and sin no further, rather than the obsequious solicitations and cajoling of... <DRUM ROLL>... the "STATE".

So let us dispense with the nonsense and call statism what it is: a will to corruption by the individual pursuant to the corrupt goals of obtaining that to which he is not entitled, using the brute force of the fiction we call "the state" or "government", to wrest by brute force and threats of imprisonment and even death, from the hands of some men the fruits of their labors, or even those associated with one's First Property, what we commonly call their very lives, whether that be their time, energies, or life itself.

This places proper onus upon the individual, allows for proper punishment or other treatments pursuant to crimes and misdemeanors committed for the virtue of fulfilling such corrupt beliefs and the wishes that derive therefrom, and leaves we, the people, free of the false notions that, when accepted as true, lead us to the most disastrous outcomes. The history of the twentieth century should serve as all the proof of my veracity of my assertions, and to understand just how precariously tenuous is the most basic nature of human relations, the principles of which drive all human interaction. Get the principles wrong, and everything that follows thereafter will be wrong.

Thought is everything, and where mind goes, Brother Ass follows most immediately and with perfectly slavish obedience. Think wrong, act wrong. Wrong words lead to wrong thought, leading to wrong action. The significance and severity of this cannot in any way be over-stated.

Words are important; they are the single most important things in any man's life, whether or not he realizes it."

Be well, God bless you all - even those who disagree with my views - and as always, please accept my best wishes.