TOLERANCE IS EVIL Or, capitulating to evil as a non-Aryan value of profanity, bowing down to profane consensus, the binary of tolerance Copyright 2007 webmaster kathodos.com
To tolerate is to put up with, endure, or suffer the existence of what are or appear to be other ways of thinking than our own; and it is neither very pleasant merely “to put up with” our neighbors and fellow peoples, nor pleasant to feel that’s one’s own deepest institutions and beliefs are being patiently endured like someone with a pain “just tolerable” enough not to seek medical attention for, to have removed. Moreover, if the Western world is actually more tolerant today than it was some centuries ago, or has been since the fall of Rome, it largely because men are no longer sure that there is any truth of which we can be certain (reductionism/ relativism) and are inclined to the “democratic” belief that one man’s opinions are just as good as another’s, especially in field of metaphysics, religion, art, and politics. Tolerance, then, is merely a negative virtue! Demanding no sacrifice or spiritual pride and involving no abrogation of our sense of superiority to the most-certainly profane and common non-aryan. Then we shall refrain from hating or persecuting others who differ or seem to differ from ourselves in wisdom and belief. Tolerance still allows us to pity those who differ from the nobility the true Traditionalist and Aryan has embraced. Tolerance (aka diversity) is the new Big Lie, and it is all around us. It is preached in the workplace, the media, the government, and in the public schools. For example, I recently read an article about “No Name-Calling Week,” a new middle-school program offered nationwide (on a voluntary basis). Not surprisingly, the program was developed by some outfit called the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, and focuses on the tolerance of gay middle-school children. The System has for the most part believed the Big Lie, and we are being conditioned to be “tolerant” on a daily basis. Tolerance, to those who have apparently achieved a higher level of consciousness, is the earmark of a sophisticated, highly-evolved society. Tolerance certainly seems like a positive value (sic). Aren’t we all supposed to love our neighbors, and for that matter, even our enemies? Shouldn’t we as Traditionalists be the most tolerant of all? The problem, however, is that tolerance has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom. Oh, it may look like wisdom on the surface, but in reality it is love’s evil twin, smirking at us behind the backs of those it has duped. Yes, tolerance is evil – make no mistake about it. Its smug pseudo-rationality is more insidious than any terrorist threat. Tolerance is a fraud, an imposter, a deception. It is snake oil of the worst kind. It is an angel of apathy, as it were. Tolerance is not even a close approximation for the real thing, the love and acceptance that comes through the truth. Tolerance lowers the bar, to lower people’s expectations to the point that they are satisfied with something as trite as tolerance. To be merely tolerated is an insult. The thing with tolerance is that its only real goal is to preempt what people really need. You see, tolerance really has no concern for people; its only concerned is for tolerance. Look around you at the people you work with, your neighbors, the people you deal with every day – do any of them want to be merely tolerated? Is that what you want? Do you wake up in the morning and think, “boy, how nice it would be if people tolerated me today?” If you do, that’s really sad… it shows how low your expectations have become. This is, by the way, the lowered expectations of our current culture. For most of history, traditionalists have had to deal with pluralistic cultures, pitting the truth against the lesser demons of the world. Many traditionalists today, however, have a very hard time dealing with what they perceive as a new pluralism, and for a very good reason: we do not necessarily have a pluralistic culture. What we have instead is a tolerant culture, and that’s a lot, lot worse. Case in point: Australia has a law called the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. Seems innocent enough, until you hear that two monks who have taught against Islam have been convicted of violating this law for criticizing Islam, and have been ordered by the court to publicly apologize for their teachings and promise not to do it again (or apparently face a jail sentence). Apparently some folks in England are now trying to pass similar legislation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU jumped on the bandwagon at some point. It’s a perfect set-up: destroy freedom of speech and freedom of religion, all under the guise of tolerance. Give me pluralism, or give me death Okay, perhaps not death; and, I’m not saying pluralism is heaven on earth, either. However, considering our current culture of tolerance, I think I’d welcome a truly pluralistic society where traditionalists, with all of its intolerance, would be accepted and even possibly slightly understood – or at least recognized the truth. However, the ideals of tolerance are in themselves intolerant and are intent on keeping a truly pluralistic society from forming. The tolerance that the tolerance-mongers are pushing is very selective – it is only a tolerance of relativistic value systems, or “a tolerance of tolerance.” The tolerance-mongers are extremely and proudly intolerant of any value system which is intolerant. This alleged principle of tolerance is in reality an intolerance of absolutes, which boils down in our case to a complete opposition to traditionalism. In other words, it’s evil, and in this regard, this “gospel of tolerance” is nothing more than a demonic smokescreen for what I suspect are secularists real agenda: to oppose (by diverting people away from) the truth. Tolerance is an “angel of apathy” – it sounds good and acceptable. After all, who could ever be against tolerance? There is another very different faction whose goal is also to prevent a pluralistic society from forming: the ultra-conservative right. I won’t mention names, you know who they are. I suspect that they are motivated at least in part by a fear that traditionalism can’t really hold it’s own against humanism, or science, or whatever else, so they resort to various political tactics to gain power. It’s just a modern-day Crusade. Not to brag, but my faith is larger than that; or, perhaps I should say, the truth I believe in is larger than that. I think truth will prevail if the lies are allowed to be brought to light. What’s a traditionalist to do? First, we must understand that we have a very intolerant position. We simply cannot, as traditionalists, tolerate Tolerance. Traditionalism is inherently and absolutely, in the most absolute way possible, intolerant. If anyone preaches anything but the true, one says, “… tell them to go to hell.” The Tolerant, on the other hand, have to be tolerant because they, too, cannot tell, or perhaps suspect but don’t want to know, what the absolutes are. Because they do not know, they don’t want to take the chance that someone else might know; therefore, let’s be tolerant of everything (except of course, intolerance). Tolerance, as well as its antithesis, intolerance, cannot be thought of as either intrinsically good or bad. In other words there are times in which tolerance is evil and intolerance is a duty. To the subject now to show the risks of tolerance as well as the precautions necessary for its practice. Let us remember, before anything else, that all tolerance, as necessary and legitimate as it may be, has inherent risks. In short, tolerance consists in permitting one evil to exist so as to avoid a greater evil. Now, it follows that the unpunished existence of evil always creates danger, for evil tends necessarily to produce evil effects. Moreover, it is undeniably seductive. Thus, there is the risk that tolerance of itself bears even greater evils than those one desires to forestall by its practice. We must keep this aspect in mind, for our entire study rotates around it. Asking of oneself: Do I have unconfessed sympathies towards this evil? Am I afraid of the struggle intolerance will bring? Am I too lazy to make the effort that an attitude of intolerance would impose upon me? Do I seek personal advantages of any kind in an accommodating attitude? Only after such an examination of conscience can a person confront the hard alternative of tolerance or intolerance. Without such examination, one cannot be certain of taking, in relation to himself, the necessary precautions to avoid profane nature through excessive tolerance. But as long as tolerance gratifies our bad inclinations, let us open our eyes, for the risk is grave. Thus, if we are apathetic, we will probably not be profane/un-aryan through excessive tolerance toward a friend who rouses us to action: There is nothing more sticky, nothing harder to catch, nothing more choleric than a lazy man contradicted in his lethargy. If we are irascible, we do not run much risk of exaggerated tolerance toward those who harm us. If we are sensual, it is improbable that we will show ourselves excessively rigorous in the matter of sleeves and low necklines. And if we have a servile spirit as regards public opinion, only with difficulty will we overstep ourselves in hurling invectives against the errors of our century. Likewise, it is advisable to have greater fear regarding our own weakness on this point, particularly when the rights of third parties and not ours are in question, thus preventing ourselves from sinning through excessive tolerance. To tolerate an evil is to consent to its existence. Just as good produces good, evil yields evil. When we are obliged to tolerate something evil, we must limit the evil effects of this tolerance to the greatest degree possible and diligently prepare the conditions for eradicating the evil, rendering further toleration unnecessary. This principle is elementary in medicine. If, for clinical reasons, a patient suffering from a malignant tumor cannot be operated upon immediately, the physician's treatment consists in retarding the tumor's ill effects in every way possible. Not satisfied with this, he will diligently prepare the patient for the eventual surgery. Even the most tolerant man would not tolerate his doctor acting in any other way. I do not understand why this clear, logical, and wise process should not also be lauded when, instead of the danger of a malignant tumor, we face the threat of a moral cancer such as heresy. Indeed, wherever error is introduced, we must remedy the situation with the suave and deliberate clinical means of apologetics and charity. Should these means fail, or when the evil spreads so rapidly that it cannot be treated over time, or is so resistant that no argument or act of charity will root it out, we must resort to surgery. If this surgery cannot be performed at once, we must resolutely combat the further infiltration of the disease, while preparing for an auspicious day to operate. Virtuous tolerance requires much work, demands strict precautions, and takes considerable time. Let us suppose that the fallen member is a person of rare charm who immediately begins to influence his confreres. Since it is far easier to influence men towards evil than good, the superior sees that despite his best efforts to the contrary, numerous members will soon be entirely deformed. He now faces the following choice: to permit the evil influence to remain within the bosom of the association, risking the loss of once healthy members; or to expel the carrier of contagion, who will likely be lost in any case, thus saving the good and restoring the fraternity to its former order, good spirit, and peace. Finally, let us suppose another situation. The evil individual infiltrates the association and quickly begins to ensnare his victims. In a short time, his success is such that if he were expelled, even the best members would fail to understand. His expulsion would precipitate a crisis that would dissolve the fraternity, and its members, deprived of any protection, would risk being lost themselves. What should the director do? Evidently, effect a strategic compromise, but only with understanding, intelligence, and wisdom. The superior will have to employ every direct and indirect means to improve the disposition of the black sheep and, at the same time, to restrict his influence over the rest of the flock. At the same time, he will have to prepare the faithful members so that they may understand the urgent need for the infiltrator's expulsion. As soon as they are prepared, it is necessary to carry out the indispensable amputation. Even then, virtuous tolerance will have been virtuously practiced, for the society will have been saved, whereas rash action would have destroyed it. In contrast to these examples of virtuous tolerance, we should mention some examples of defective tolerance. Lacking firm principles and convictions, the superior of the association is superficial, vain, impressionable, and timid. When the evil individual enters the fraternity, the unprincipled director perceives, to a degree, the seductiveness of the attitudes and principles that the infiltrator deftly introduces. As he is superficial, however, he is incapable of understanding all that is implicit in the evil member's words and actions. In his vanity, he deems himself the idol of his peers and subordinates and thus cannot conceive the possibility of anyone undermining his influence. Impressionable, he is perfectly content as long as the association's members show him kindness and render him homage. He shuns principles, doctrine, and polemics as impediments to the sweet tranquility of his untroubled life. Timid, he is afraid of every reaction. Were he to take measures, he would be called intolerant within and without his social circle. Now that would be quite uncomfortable, for the intolerant are never tolerated anywhere. We live in the age of tolerance. Every opinion is permitted - except intolerance. Anyone who would maintain that certain opinions are unacceptable would make himself the object of persecution, antipathy, and sarcasm. How could anyone expose himself to such ridicule? Under the weight of so many pressures, the soft superior finds it easier to be tolerant, closing his eyes to the problem and permitting the evil to spread freely or, at least, imperceptibly. When the association is completely undermined and a cataclysmic crisis explodes, he submits with fatalism: "Such is life." He may even embrace the evil to save his own position from being overthrown. This is how one makes a revolution from above, before those below do so. Such tolerance could not be more wicked.