The injunction to “be tolerant” have become scarce in the mainstream discourse. In the current year version of The Current Year, the very concept of tolerance seems a bit passé. However, it was hugely fashionable in the 90s and beginning of the 2000s. Since then, it was likely dropped because it had become inefficient, but it also had a long history and is highly useful to understand the dynamics of leftism and skewing of the masculine energy.
A very short history of a big concept
The word originates from the Latin tolerare, a verb meaning “to endure.” This original use was rather Stoic in spirit: one endures what one does not like but has to live with. Stoics praised tolerantia as a synonym of patience and self-mastery.
Tolerance was then a virtue, but not an imperative. The Roman Empire was multicultural in the sense of encompassing various peoples, tribes, and cults, but all of them had to swear fealty to the Emperor—the living embodiment of the Roman people. One could be “tolerant” for a variety of personal reasons, not political ones. Seditious wills were rather crushed than tolerated in the modern sense. The Arch of Titus and several circus shows commemorated the Empire’s mastery over those willing to quell the Roman flame.
Tolerance, then, only has value as an aspect of self-mastery. Later, the word was picked up by Jesuit missionaries, who justified tolerating foreign cults or the mixture of Catholic rites with pagan rituals by claiming this was the only way to lead them to Christianity. Other Catholics rejected that: mixing Jesus Christ with the most exotic paganism seemed not only weird, but blasphemous.
“Tolerance” also surfaced when Europe was torn apart between Protestants, Catholics, and some who claimed they could be agnostic or atheists without being antisocial. The notion was then clarified and formalized by philosopher John Locke in his famous Letter on toleration (1690).
This letter has been often quoted and (mis)used in Current Year media and academia, but its context has always been forgotten. Namely, Locke wrote it in the midst of controversies between Catholics and various strands of Protestantism, and what Locke wanted was the re-establishment of peace between Christians, no more, no less.
From Locke’s Letter, four key points can be emphasized:
1. Tolerance is based upon a shared homogeneity. All people to be tolerated are Christians. Thus, not only were they white—this was too obvious to tell before the West had multiculturalism forced down its throat—but also sharing important values: be charitable, forgive thy neighbor to be forgiven, which becomes “tolerate to be tolerated.” All Locke’s text permeates a Lamb of God ideal. Lambs are to be tolerant to each other, because no lamb will eat another lamb, isn’t it?
2. All practitioners of tolerance stand on an equal footing. Each strand of Christianity shall acknowledge its duty to tolerate the others. No strand is deemed less respectable than other. Reciprocity is key.
3. Truly sociable people are always keener to criticize themselves than their neighbour. Everyone shall lead the war against his own vices or defects before thinking of politics or interest conflicts.
4. Toleration has limits. It aims at pacifying a divided society, not at letting brazen novelties threaten the very principle of homogeneity. Thus Locke opposes any public expression of atheism. Not believing in God is one thing, claiming it among Christians is another—namely, something antisocial and thus not to be tolerated.
After Locke would pass out, the word would be used anew and a lot, but all of Locke’s tenets would be quietly discarded or very much reframed.
Check, for example, Voltaire’s remarks on tolerance. Voltaire is often mentioned today right after Locke, as if both thinkers were expanding on the same topic, but in truth they just used the same word. Voltaire pretended to be “anglomaniac” by celebrating Locke and Newton aside, and on surface he shows Lockean overtones:
What is tolerance? The apex of humanity. All of us are full of mistakes and weaknesses; forgiving each other for our foolishnesses is but the first law of nature. (Philosophical Dictionary, 1764, art. “Tolerance”)
However, past the lip service, Voltaire would add that Christianity is the most intolerant religion ever. Note the shift: Locke wanted tolerance to save the peace among Christians, Voltaire wanted it to shatter Christianity. The dashing philosopher signed most of his letters by Écrasez l’infâme (“Crush the Infamous”), which, as scholars admit, designated the Cross.
Voltaire was the standard-bearer of views completely different than Locke’s. He did not believe in peace among equals, but in “progress”: something which could justify despising opponents and persecuting them. Now, only one side can say what’s good or not—and only one side can ascribe goals to society. Any other side is supposed to let itself be casted in the role of the “reactionary”, the unprogressive, before getting guillotined (or persecuted by SJWs two centuries later).
Locke was conservative and modest. Voltaire was seductive, fun, witty, but also quite narcissistic, just like most other writers of his time and later intellectuals. Such characters would laugh at the idea of meditating upon their own vices and rather craft weapons to attack any political other as “unprogressive”, thus despicable. Attacking Christianity as “intolerant” was part of this movement: if Christianity is “intolerant”, it should not be tolerated. Accusing someone of intolerance had become a way to be intolerant at him.
The maneuver through (and behind) the words
Be tolerant!
The Locke-Voltaire-colonnes infernales trilogy was not an accident of history. The same process has been going on at different times.
Under the Roman Empire, the first Christians complained about being persecuted and a lack of tolerance towards them. When they got in power, they forced everyone to convert, thus showing a degree of intolerance no Emperor had ever shown.
At the eighteenth century, the same who created a historiography of “muh Catholic Church was intolerant and burned poor innocent witches for centuries” inspired those who would cut dozens of thousands of heads and kill Catholic babies as “enemies of humanity.”
At the twentieth century, eugenic supporter Madison Grant would often dispute—through covered paper arguments—with antiracist fraudster Franz Boas. The former never formed a right-wing SJW militia for persecuting the latter. Boas, however, took whatever academic territory he could, rushed to associate Hitler with Anglo-Saxon research, and played a key role in having the “racists” stigmatized and chased out of university. The eugenicist was tolerant, but he lost before poor innocent Boas, who was nothing more than a predator in disguise.
Later on, when Saul Alinsky clearly equated tolerance with cowardice, his comrade Herbert Marcuse wrote that “liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”
In such minds, only the Left can say what is good or evil, what should be aimed at or not, what is “oppressive” or not. The totalitarian Left would then pretend to be rebellious and fighting for muh poor victims to be tolerated while being itself the most intolerant force on stage. The same Left that took over academic journals while pleading for tolerance does not tolerate refutations of their gender pay gap myth.
Tolerance has ceased to be a conservative, peace-among-equals, imperative since at least Voltaire. In truth, the word hides a sword: progressives contend for the coveted position of power, from where they can say what’s tolerable or not, what should be tolerated or not. To us this is nothing short than totalitarianism, especially when such progressives are foreigners or traitors who want us killed.
“Be tolerant” means “be submissive.” Feminists or rabid SJWs are never asked to be tolerant, no matter the degree of their hysteria and rage, whereas the peaceful conservatives are asked to “tolerate” those who kill them. Why were SJWs never labelled intolerant? Because official “tolerance” was always subordinate to do the leftists’ and globalists’ bidding—never to peace, true justice, or a healthy social life.
It can also be noted that those complaining about being victims are always accusing someone else to be intolerant: thus, by complaining, they are intolerant at someone else, but claim their intolerance is OK whereas the other’s is not. A hidden double standard since the beginning.
Fortunately, the illusion seems to have lost its power. Politicians saying to accept immigration and terrorism while chiding conscious Westerners created more scandal than agreement. Many people noticed that immigrant rapists and female criminals are given passes whereas political opponents are under death threats, and in such a chaos, the injunction to be tolerant had turned pointless.
Tolerating the Left in the name of the Constitution is like tolerating an invasion of roaches in your apartment. Conservatives always accepted Lockean equality between both sides, saying things like “we need a good right and a good left to walk together”, whereas the Left always rejected political equality and persecuted the political Other since day one.
We may tolerate our neighbor’s weird antics, but the Left must end like Carthage. Only on its ruins can Westerners socialize again with each other—and become great again.
Read Next: When Everyone Has To Accept Gay Marriage, It’s Not Tolerance But Tyranny
Tolerance is probably the world’s worst vice – far more destructive than heroin or cocaine.
A tiny bit of tolerance can be a good thing, for we don’t want to have an extremely violent or severely punitive society. But tolerance only works in fully homogeneous societies where all citizens are of the same stock and the same ideals. Even in those scenarios it is to be exercised with utmost caution.
What happens most often is that tolerance is used as a drug, and a little bit makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside so they want more of it. They need to go to ever more extraordinary lengths to trigger the same highs they felt before.
What we see now in the West is a people totally saturated in tolerance and dying from their overuse of it. We are told we must tolerate all manner of filth and degeneracy every day in the name of liberal tolerance.
Well I am here to tell you that the solution to our problems lies in eliminating ALL tolerance for degeneracy, subversion, and corruption. If we don’t, and soon, we’ll never get a second chance.
What is your solution? We already live in a multiethnic, multiracial and multireligious society (at least in the USA).
Should there be a purge of nonwhites from society? Should all Jews, Muslims, atheists, Sikhs, Hindus etc. be deported? Should we strip these individuals of their citizenship? If we do these things, do they get a trial? What is to happen to their property/assets?
What about the gays, transgenders etc.? Should their sexuality be criminalized? If so, what is the appropriate justice they should receive?
Yes.
Glad you figured out the solution on your own, too. 🙂
Mild language like “tolerance” is used as an ice breaker. It eventually leads to tyranny.
Good ol’ South Park parodied the ridiculousness of enforced ‘tolerance’ quite a few years back.
I though of this exact scene when he said tolerance in the early 2000s. This episode is probably my favorite. It also has lemmiwinks the hamster.
South park hasn’t been funny since they killed reality.
Now they’re only a smirk at best once in awhile. Sad.
Small holes always become big holes.
Tiny rips become large tears.
A few defective bricks can bring an entire wall down.
A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
Tolerance is evil. Everything matters. There is nothing so small as to be insignificant. Tolerance is weakness and cowardice. Tolerance means letting your enemies win. Tolerance means shirking your natural duty as a man. Tolerance is insidious, cancerous, vile and repulsive.
All of the terrible things that have been caused by mankind in the world were due to “good” (cowardly and weak) men believing in “tolerance”.
God is not tolerant. God and nature are decidedly intolerant. Only Clownworld embraces tolerance as a virtue.
Tolerance means to stand down and “shut your mouth boy”. I once had a big fat bossy fembitch tell me to shut my mouth and sit down. I hadn’t preached for awhile and her mouthwork for some reason triggered me to open a can of preaching for the whole room. Then there were some smiles and unspoken loostening up. I had called the big fat bitch out. Then there was laughture here and there with the good folks tickled by the truth.
The big fat bitch couldn’t slink away like a weasel, – she was too obese. She got dim and quies and ruffeled in her big fat purse for some silly pill bottles. HA!! Always call out the bossy queen bitch and her fake tolerance. Also practice your preaching so when you open a can of it, it sprays her down good!
The Left does NOT WANT “tolerance”.
It wants rabid, manic approval. Anything less is “…ist”.
I agree, today’s meaning of tolerance = submissiveness.
Hard to figure out how to counter the current situation, just hope that a good per cent of the male population wakes up & replaces the Liberal parasites once & for all, before it’s too late.
In regards to forgiveness, fuck that! Only masochists forgive the Enemy. I don’t want to hear filthy liberal mouths claiming that Christians should never harbor Ill feelings towards others cause Jesus. Self preservation trumps over idiotic interpretations of Christ’s words.
Forgiveness is only for those who sincerely repent and actively seek it, while fully acknowledging their wrongdoings. All others shall be promptly forgiven after they’ve been…
Strange how the people that demand ‘tolerance’ are the same people enacting ‘zero-tolerance’ laws.
Everything went from ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ to ‘inclusion/integration,’ to ‘hate crime/speech.’
I think a more fitting word would be ‘triumph.’
Liberals like to use the non sequitur argument; You _____ therefore you ______. For example; “You like guns therefore you like killing babies.” How they arrive there is similar to; “Some people like pickles, farmers make pickles, farmers own guns, guns murder people, some people are kids, babies are like kids conclusion; people who like pickles can’t think of a better way to spend their day than sitting on the porch while using little babies as target practice.” Think this is a stretch? I don’t. They really are just that stupid, folks. One of the school walk-out kids made a sign, “Your right to own a gun does not supersede my right to graduate high school.” What! Lol
Individual liberty, private property rights, and freedom of association. Not sure how anyone can view those things as “intolerant”.
Now a government that has been trying to eliminate those things since at least 1964, and media conglomerates who aid and abet that cause with every ounce of their power?
That’s intolerant!!!
“”What is tolerance? The apex of humanity. All of us are full of mistakes and weaknesses; forgiving each other for our foolishnesses is but the first law of nature. (Philosophical Dictionary, 1764, art. “Tolerance”)””
Should only be done if the mistaken party recognizes its mistakes…repents on comes back to the fold. Being tolerant of people who make mistakes, don’t recognize their mistakes, persist in them and even promote their corruption makes you an accomplice.
That guy is a priest???
Boy, the Episcopals sure are in bad shape.
But then again, the rest of Christian denominations are pretty much the same these days. Except for hard core evangelicals, Amish/Mennonites/Hutterites, and Mormons.
He loaded the audience with “strong, independent” mostly minority females with stories of good experiences. If that priest had any integrity he would have done that show from prison and interviewed violent offenders. And asked them how many were raised by single mothers or grandmas.
Wow, seems to be getting worse by the day. God forbid anyone discourage single motherhood. It’s either single moms are heroes or you’re Nazi scum, no in between. Unreal. You could make a harmless statement like, “Gosh, I just think a kid is better off with two parents in the house” and the libs will want your head on a pike.
Oh… liberals are OK with two parents in the house. As long as those parents are a same-sex couple. To libs, that is the pinnacle of a modern, happy family.
People like him are the reason why churches are empty. Instead of providing folks with moral guidance, which is one of the key functions of a religion, he’s bending towards the secularist liberal trend. A good shepherd knows when to provide comfort and solace and when to be firm and strict. A person who only knows how to be soft can never be an effective leader and will lead his congregation straight to hell. The truth of the matter is dat most of the women in that audience are fornicatressess. Their whorish ways is what made them single mothers. Instead of condemning this nasty behavior he’s completely ignoring it. As a Catholic he should know fornication is a mortal sin.
You can’t stereotype all ‘violent offenders’ in prison as being from single mothers. True there are a lot of defectives and reprobates rotting in cells, but the majority of inmates simply didn’t have the funds to work around the system. Having charges dismissed and thrown out is as simple as running a tab on a reciept. Professional criminals buy their way out of charges.
That leaves the real victims, many who are red pill despots of the corrupt charade to suffer persecution by the court system. Maintaining a proper patriarchal family unit can put the patriarch in harms way if a fickle spouse enlists system hit men. Say for example if a man declares that he is against the corrupt bitch system – he likely will be persecuted by goons in suits who have the green light to bend the rules when someone rejects the authority of the anti patriarchal bitch system and the sloth of bitchlaw and crony bitches in skirts who made terrible error in carreer choice. They should all be home tit feeding and putting drumsticks up for their patriarch king daddy.
A sizeable amount of men in prisons are good men, loving fathers who had bitch whore wives that only needed controlled and spanked. But the system wages war declaring “hands off your woman”. EVERY woman needs a butt paddling sometime in her life. Some low grade dumb cunts need a two buh four upside theis schnog three times a day. And others . . the better upper crust might need nothing more than a St Patrick’s Day pinch in the rear. “Oww” “yip yip” and she’s straight as a board.
SOME women never have remorse over shit. They’re not empathetic the least bit and have traits like a lower animal. Finer quality women can register how others feel and can qualify their own impact and place within the family or group. In part it’s IQ. Retard women are like dumb animals – or the vile user cunts, just brand them as retards. Breed with the finest the best you can in the face of all the state interferance.
Some real shit kicking the snot out of the interference to the proper cultivation and correction of western women is in due order. A western patriarch man keeping a tight ship in his household with his breeder woman and offspring is on thin ice as far as remaining free. But I’m an absolutist and everyone around me knows it. I could never be forced to pay blood money child support to some corrupt anti family cabal. That too they couldn’t pry from my cold dead hands. So I remain merrily the captain of my roost. It’s mutual, the understanding.
It just breaks my heart to see so many good men and dads who take shit from the stinking bitch system. So many men just stand there and take a knife in the back from some illegitimate family court judge and they never even physically spanked the bitch or anything. I can’t stand it when good men bow obediently and get their throat slit like a kosher cow at the Hebrew National hot dog factory. They’re pretty good dogs actually. I’ll switch that to Oscar Mayer. There.
Men gotta get their balls up and quit being killed so disgracefully by the bitches and their mangina turncoats in the bitchsystem.
To me “violent offenders” are perpetrators of street crime. Muggers, home invaders, and stranger rapists, like the crips, bloods, ms-13, etc.. These miscreants are threat to society at large. I was speaking about them when I suggested this “priest” do a show from prison.
“Domestic violence”, IMO, is not a threat to society. There are times when it may be excessive, or even unwarranted, but everyone knows it takes two to tango. And like you correctly state, there are many times (perhaps a majority, or even VAST majority) when the female is flat out lying to screw over her husband or live in boyfriend.
Is that pos “priest” a Presbyterian or from some other cucked pussy “church”
I don’t find myself often writing or saying this, but I agree with Ann Coulter. Facts and statistics agree with Ann Coulter.
Episcopalian.
The school-guns debate is simple. End public schools. Entitle no one to an education. If it’s not free, it will only float on efficiency. Only careful and devoted parents will educate their youth then, and your “classic” Thurston-types with distant parents won’t end up in school. Plus, do you know how much of a piece of human garbage you can be, and not get expelled? I’ve seen a kid come back from suspension after telling his teachers he hos much fun it would be to come to school and shoot everyone. In a private school, they’d drop that kid like an old shoe. In public, he was accepted back. The other problem is tbe stupid women are the loud ones. The conservative women aren’t as power hungry; hence, we get these foolish staff that have these little meetings where consideration and pity are painted on the disobedient like a bandaid. The right to an education is what is killing our youth.
Regarding gun debate: Liberal Hollywood should put their money where there mouth is and remove guns from movies. I wonder what the walk-out girls would say if you took guns out of the hands of their favorite Girl Power™️ idols.
That’s right. Then them pow’r girls’d get punched in d’face.
First leftist Hollywood needs to remove all armed protection of them individually and their offices, sets and award shows
Weren’t public schools introduced at the start of the Industrial Revolution? I suppose now there are fewer jobs around and fewer still if they can replace us with AI/robots there wont be any need for public education. Im sure our caring, sharing betters will look after us? Did it occur to you there’s a reason for the failing education system? The same reason why everything is failing across the board. A kind of cause and effect. Dont you get the feeling we’re surplus to requirements?
“If it’s not free, it will only float on efficiency.”
@Seth, you nailed it!
I agree, most shitards don’t want to be in school and learn anything anyways. School should be a privilege not a right. If you aren’t going to take charge of your kids and MAKE them be worthwhile, then don’t clog up a system where people do want them educated and functional. Makes me rethink my stance on abortion when the ignorant phucks could instead not pollute our world with their stupid ignorant morons that shun education and usefulness and civilization. either you want to reach higher or you don’t. Parents either want their kids to actually be educated and respectable or they don’t. Wall off a few cities and dump the ignorant into them with the libtards. Ship them the most processed foods and don’t let them escape. Give them all the ENTERTAINMENT value electronics and piped in propaganda media and allow no innovation or exploration by the zoo animals. This would be a return to the insane asylum principles, cage the dangerous to protect civilized society. Be useful or be caged if not aborted. Its not draconian to say it, it is already how they live anyway, just wall them into their zones so they cannot escape and create chaos for us normal people outside of their cesspools.
Public school is a good idea…
IF it sticks to the “three Rs.” It was not supposed to be indoctrination centers.
The problem is that public education, like everything else, is being ruined. That’s a symptom, not the cause.
Yeah!!!
After any freedom worth having is lost, purchasing power is weak, citizens are second class to border jumpers, government is irresponsible and the left applauds that (as long as it’s their darlings ruining things), when law enforcement is basically manned by pussy-whipped whore mongers, society flushed down the toilet; you must be tolerant.
Otherwise there are two options; leave the country or revolution.
In other words, keep your hands in your pockets while they beat you up and rob you. Then you can go home and cry. Just be at work or school on time tomorrow.
Coleman Bonner looks like a real winner. Who wouldn’t want that guy on their team?
Any of you guys see the Starbucks reparations video where the white girl cucks out?
Does anyone here think he deserves reparations?
EE, he was trolling. He hates liberals. Heh, hard to believe, I know.
What a scammer. Amazing how white women are happy to give free things when its someone else’s property.
I hope that black guy didn’t order a white coffee.
Dude this guy literally was commenting on the article about him. We discussed Hotep and their movement, and he happened to be in our comment section. Overall, he has his head straight. He’s a good ally.
See article: http://www.returnofkings.com/116906/is-the-black-nationalist-hotep-movement-an-ally-in-the-war-against-globalist-elites
Mr. Coleman needs an attitude adjustment. I’m thinking if someone grabbed him by his long greasy hair, and knocked that shit-eating grin (and his glasses) off his face, it would be a beautiful thing.
The left wants subservience. They are horrible people who disguise themselves as “progressives”. That Coleman guy reminds me of the comic book guy from the Simpsons.
This chubby cuck thinks that hurling enough insults at the “mouth breathing, diabetic, mountain dew chuggin, moon pie munchers” will distract everyone from the fact that he himself is most likely guilty of all of the above.
Betcha he has kiddieporn on his phone.
Tolerance or else!
Excellent article.
I’ve long pointed out the Tolerance is not the same thing as Acceptance or Approval.
In any society there’s a live and let live element in the Social Contract. When that contract erodes, you begin to see the acting out by the (Narcissistic) Aggrieved. (Think Antifa here.) The recent spate of statue removals and destruction would be an example of that, aided by media, oportunistic lawsuits and callow and cowardly city and state governments.*
In it’s ultimate form, this push to mollify every last Aggrieved population subset leads to gridlock and an impossible adding of costs in order to accomplish the simplest or most commonsense thing. An example would be dealing once and for all with all the crazy and drug addict homeless people shitting on the street in San Francisco. Doesn’t happen because every last advocate of every stripe has their oar in the water.
Or consider the project of putting another new telescope on Mauna Kea. The Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Folks – a bunch of jumped-up Waimanalo Mokes to anybody who grew up in Hawaii – keep challenging this simple project on some half-assed religious grounds, aided by the State Government and the various courts. (It’s pretty much been decided to build in in the Canary Islands instead, and to the detriment of the Big Island economy.)
Call it “Tolerance” or “Diversity,” but really what you’re seeing bullying, and usually with some sort of monetary payoff somewhere in the mix in return for going away. Kind of like the kid who strong arms the other kids for their lunch money in school. They mistake kindness or a measured response for weakness, for permission to not just do it again, but to extend the boundaries just a bit further, to see how far they can go.
And like dealing with Bullies, there’s only one way to deal with them, namely a good slapping down in the beginning, to push back hard and make them fear you. Then, and only then can you strike a reasonable tone, but not before.
Just a thought.
VicB3
*One can only imagine the cries of outrage if enough people decided that they were “Offended” by all the Martin Luther King statues out there and demanded their removal. Or demanded that Martin Luther King Blvd. in Los Angeles, say, be changed back to its original name of Santa Barbara. I doubt the people changing the signs would be treated as leniently as the Aggrieved who destroyed a Civil War statue in Durham.
VICB3
Excellent commentary.
Outstanding comments 👍
Think about how much tolerance you can observe in the animal kingdom. Almost none except a mom letting her young figure things out on their own.
Russia will purge all of the sjws and femicommies off the face of the earth. The moderator should acknowledge that when the Canadian and European media was tainting his name because of his Iranian and Armenian masculinity, Russia was his safe haven.
I encourage you to pick the side of Russia for the sjws and jows hate you. The Jqs have played a role in the Armenian genocide, and jows currently dislike Iranians because Persians resist the Greater Israehell project.
“Many people noticed that immigrant rapists and female criminals are given passes whereas political opponents are under death threats, and in such a chaos, the injunction to be tolerant had turned pointless.”
Penis Pass?
When they say tolerance, they just mean tolerance of evil.
The only reason that tolerance as the supreme virtue is taken seriously is that the (((left))) had taken control of all institutions and increasingly bans any real disagreement. Tolerance being a supreme virtue is no sillier than ISIS is not Islamic, a culture of rape exists on college campuses, and well any of the other nonsensical mantras that dominate the press and cannot be criticized without committing a thought crime and being labeled a hater. Almost no one really practices tolerance. Do you tolerate someone raping you, mugging you, stealing your money or kidnapping your kids? We tolerate things that we like or perceive as benefiting us (even if it is just to virtue signal or not get fired) and don’t tolerate things we perceive as being detrimental to us or we don’t like.
As has been noted already, tolerance ous just another way to demand submission
I don’t want to knock the article because it is well written and thoughtful but I think by over thinking and over analyzing the stupid narratives of the left we are giving them too much credit. All these leftist narratives are so stupid that noticing is now considered evil. They only deserve to be mocked and the people believing them ridiculed. Anyone who needs more than a simple overview of why no one really believes in tolerance as a supreme good is too deluded and or stupid to discuss the subject with for more than a few moments
The Progressive Left is a bigger threat to the West than North Korea and Iran combined. Genocide through PC.