http://www.etherzone.com/2003/sees092603.shtml
TOLERANCE
FOR SOME BUT NOT FOR OTHERS
By: Dorothy Anne Seese
The 1990's saw the total mutilation of the English language and American
behavior patterns for the sheer sake of ripping apart long-standing American
cultural and family traditions to enforce conformity and make nonconformity
either intolerable or illegal.
We all used to know what it meant to "tolerate" someone. We put up with
them even though we didn't particularly like or approve of them or their
behavior. Examples we all know: the guy who lets his lawn grow to the
height of an alfalfa field before mowing it. The neighbor who minds
everyone else's business. The office kissup who is first to suggest
anything that might please the boss. The neighbors whose brats are always
running through our newly-planted flower beds. That's what we meant by
"tolerate" and there was no confusion between tolerance and acceptance. If
we tolerated certain people it surely had nothing to do with accepting them
as friends, or saying their way of life (disrupting the neighborhood or the
office tranquility) was acceptable to us. We knew, we understood, we agreed
on the language even if we might have different ideas of the person or brats
involved.
We also know that the meaning of words changes over time, particularly with
the addition of words associated with professional or technical fields. I
grew up in a world that was devoid of cholesterol as a word and I was
probably in my thirties when it became the medical profession's excuse for
everything. I grew up in a world where we were free to decide what people
would be our friends, generally based on those with whom we had common ideas
and a common background or, to use a new phrase, similar worldview. Maybe
we simply had the same religious beliefs or nominal church membership or
opposition to churches.
This is now the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th
Ed.) definition of tolerance as it applies to interpersonal relationships
(not mathematical tolerances or medical applications):
tol·er·ance
n.
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the
beliefs or practices of others.
Specifically, "tolerance" was redefined to enforce a recalcitrant American
public to set aside years of tradition, personal religious beliefs and the
personal freedom to make choices in order to shove heretofore unacceptable
persons and behaviors down the throats of American citizens. Government
knows one cannot legislate belief systems, at least not until they can
enforce total thought control. But they can set standards and legislate
penalties for violating them.
This redefined tolerance is most actively seen in forcing people of
different beliefs, and Christians in particular, to accept and embrace the
politically correct, unnatural and repugnant acts of homosexuality and the
minority (thus privileged) status of the entire homosexual communities under
penalty of law.
Unlike Dr. Martin Luther King's dream where all persons of all colors would
be accepted by the content of their character rather than the color of their
skin, "tolerance' means you accept non-European or non-white people
regardless of their behavior. And this is to be enforced at a time when
whites are a minority among the world's population (as they always have
been), in a nation built largely by European immigrants through hard work
and individual entrepreneurial effort.
Tolerance means we, the Americans who have built and developed this country
by our work, shall, under penalty of law:
* Allow federalized education to inculcate the children with sex
education, including the "fact" that homosexuality is an approved
alternative lifestyle. Sex education is the responsibility of parents, but
the government has taken charge, while removing from parents the authority
to invest their children with the values of their heredity and culture,
particularly if it is Christian or Bible-based.
* Accept the fact that parental discipline can be punishable by law
(even a swat on the behind) to the extent that the government can remove the
children from the offending parents and make them wards of the state, and
many such children have been placed in foster care where their entire lives
have been mutilated, traumatized and even terminated by intent or by
neglect.
* We are to like all people of different races and colors even though
in American history, the traditional European whites (which is ridiculous,
no one is really white) were never legally bound to like one another. The
law prevailed when it came to limitations on dislike, hence assault and
battery or murder have always been illegal and punishable offenses. But to
be forced to like one another? The mere thought was violative of basic
American freedoms of choice, association and privacy.
Of all non-European settlers, the most adaptive and least state-dependent
have been the Asians, at least up until the nanny Great Society offered them
freebies at someone else's tax expense. Yet the Asians have been the least
to become victims, having come to America for opportunity, seized upon it,
and largely become independent of the state system. During my 25 years in
my home in Glendale, Arizona (1973-1997) the house across the street from me
evidenced this quality for four generations of immigrants. An American
helicopter pilot married a Vietnamese woman, brought her to America, and
purchased the house directly across the street from me. She sent for her
sister and brother-in-law. When they were established and spoke sufficient
English to read, write, obtain a driver's license and meet other
requirements to survive on a daily basis, the pilot and his wife moved to
northern Arizona.
The remaining Vietnamese (I believe their name was Nguyen) went on to open a
restaurant with funds they had saved while staying with the America pilot
and his wife. They then proceeded to send for the wife's mother and some
pre-teen children who had been left in Vietnam. Additions were made to the
house and as other adults arrived, the second generation moved on to a
larger home after expanding their restaurant business. Thus it went for
over twenty years and the fourth generation was living there when I sold my
home and retired due to disability.
Did neighbors object to the Vietnamese? No. One could not have asked for
better neighbors. They were clean, quiet, and respectful. One Thanksgiving
after my back injury, after my mother had to be placed in a care center for
medical monitoring, it was obvious I was quite alone at home. A Vietnamese
lady came over with a styrofoam box full of freely cooked hot food, some of
it quite delicious and I have no idea to this day what it was other than
their traditional meal. Kindness, courtesy, and caring cannot be forced on
anyone, it must be voluntary or it is one hundred percent hypocrisy to meet
a legal requirement that should never exist in a land of the free (if we
were free).
In and prior to the 1960's non-smokers tolerated or even accepted smokers as
a matter of choice. My grandmother had preached on the health hazards of
smoking in the 1940's, but three of her five children became smokers anyway.
She tolerated the smoke and loved her children, and no one in the 1950s or
60s would have suggested she prohibit her adult children from smoking in and
around the house. They were in their 30's and 40's by that time and had
made a free choice to use a legal product. In fact, grandpa smoked cigars!
In New York City, the new Mayor, Michael Bloomberg (himself an ex-smoker)
has decided that he will control the choice of smoking by generally
prohibiting it in as many places as the people will allow, even in private
automobiles if his new idea passes. Why? Because while we have to be
tolerant of some, we most surely do not have to be tolerant of all, and it
is a matter of which items or people the political powers select that become
objects of tolerance or intolerance. He seems to express no such hostility
to cocaine.
Tolerance by legislation is not tolerance. It is tyranny. Michael Bloomberg
is a billionaire and therefore, as Mayor, he is always right, he is king and
he can select the tolerance/intolerance items. He bought and paid for that
position and he intends to use it for his petty tyranny until he can achieve
some higher status.
Never mind that the so-called dangers of second-hand smoke were thoroughly
debunked in the British medical journal Lancet, or that subsequent studies
are now proving that obesity and stress are more dangerous to one's health.
Well, we are going to have to remove obesity from the tolerance list, and it
wouldn't surprise me to see all manner of idiocy emanating from Michael
Bloomberg's office regarding that topic. He maintains a proper weight and
exercise routine and may decide to impose that on folks also.
I do not have to tolerate Michael Bloomberg because I live in Arizona, but
his type are not lacking here either now that we have so many displaced
Californians who have taken up residence in Arizona.
Thus while our borders are left wide open, our state is plagued by illegal
immigrants (mostly from Mexico but with a wide open border who knows from
where else?) our cities are cracking down on smokers and our lawyers are
looking for a good obesity suit to prosecute. We, the citizens, the
Americans, the law abiding people who have lived in Arizona for years, have
less voice now than in Arizona's history, and God forbid we should publicly
make a "hate statement" about illegal aliens from Mexico. They're
lawbreakers! We can't speak out against lawbreakers? Well no -- if they
are Mexican it isn't tolerant to complain about their invasion of our
nation. It is tolerant to force restaurant and bar owners to totally ban
smokers, and now any food establishment that wants to protect itself against
the anti-peanut craze will post a sign to the effect that the place is
totally peanut-free (or might have peanuts on the premises) or risk a
lawsuit by someone who is allergic to peanuts.
At this point I am desperately looking for a way to sue someone based on
intolerance. First, I am a member of a minority, the white race (not a
race at all, but not all Caucasians are fair skinned). Second, I am a
female, an older female at that, so I have to demand tolerance for my gender
and age. Third, I am disabled (actually for practical purposes just
handicapped, but disabled according to the Americans with Disabilities Act).
Because I am of European origin, nothing else matters. In 1997 I was pushed
out of my job due to my disability, which was illegal, but my complaint
against the state of Arizona (my employer) was rejected because it was not
based on race, just a flagrant violation of the ADA. But in the global
population, I am a member of a minority, even though European-ancestry
Americans have been the majority in this nation just as blacks are the
majority in Nigeria. No matter. Being white is basis for intolerance and
violation of the laws on tolerance by employers and government.
Since I am an older female any "sexual harassment"charge would be considered
material for a comedy skit (or a compliment). If I were a black woman it
might be taken seriously, but not when one is a white woman over 60.
Third, I fell at work and sustained two spinal fractures and worked three
years and four months with the misdiagnosed injury. No matter, I am white,
so tough luck. If I had been black or Arabic, that would have made
everything different. I'm Christian, not Muslim, so my religious beliefs
are fair game also.
Tolerance. For some but not for all. It's the new American way that
Americans have protested without success to representatives who don't
represent anything but the agenda of the New World Order and don't tell me
differently ... because I've been there, been through the mill and have no
entitlements. I'm not entitled even to tolerance by my own government.
Which is why I am still considering moving to Mexico where, incredibly
enough, other American expatriates say they feel much freer unless they get
caught in the chaos of an anti-American demonstration.
Oh yes, they have anti-American demonstrations in Mexico. It just isn't
good tolerance to report them in American media.
Only the rich, the politically powerful, and the rulers above the law can
afford to be intolerant, and most of that is aimed directly at the
traditional Americans and their values. Does that tell you something?
Remember, 2004 is an election year, and we don't need any more Michael
Bloombergs in office or the Bush elitists might begin to look tolerant
compared to that airheaded, arrogant billionaire's attitude. Or as the old
song goes, "everybody wants to rule the world." Well, not the world, just
the United States, to its devastation.
For such I have no tolerance. Not a drop.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
.
|
