Those who have the capacity to wonder, in a sense of curiosity that allows them to use their mind in the way it was designed, will at some point wander across the intellectual quandary which is the ebb and flow of the universal battle between division and communion; intolerance and tolerance. The choices you make in building the character that you live your life by defines what you consider “tolerance” to be, and what you consider “intolerance” to be. The choices you make also define how you will apply these definitions in the social interactions you experience in your daily lives. In this essay, I intend to informally show how intolerance is contingently necessary for some, while being unconsciously imposed by others. I would also like to explain the glaring problem with people who tolerate intolerance, and what those people can do to stand on the right and true side in Universal War 1, the war between canonization and freedom. Finally, I will level my battle cry for those moving toward the new definitions of peace and freedom. So, I would like to say, strap on your seat belts and be ready to read the thoughts of a man who is ready to kill to protect the freedom of those who would not even kill a killer.
Tolerance- a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
Intolerance- lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
*Source for definitions is dictionary.com
There are a two different ways to express intolerance, if one may allow me to be so bold as to be logically mechanical. One way is through an unconscious feeling, for instance one might say, “I’m not really sure why the separation of church and state is wrong, I just know it is.” That is what I like to refer to as an unconscious feeling. So, if a person were inclined to impose this prejudice, and I mean “prejudice” in the real definition of the word:
Prejudice- An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
If that person were inclined to be intolerant toward a person based on a feeling, by definition that is prejudice and what I would call unconscious intolerance. What I am driving at is there is no direct decision based on a conscious evaluation of the facts involved. Those types of unconscious prejudices are the result of social conditioning. These types of socially perpetuated momentums, unchecked are a serious issue that only education has a chance of rectifying. The second type of intolerance is a conscious choice to stand against an idea, person, institution, etc. based on an objective position through careful calculation of the available facts. In this situation on may say, “I know separation of church and state is wrong because studies show that without a national religion, nationalism disintegrates. Without strong nationalism, the country becomes weak and divided like so many African nations.” Now, to be clear, I support separation of church and state, but this is the type of answer I would expect from a reasonable person on the other side of the issue. This allows a dialogue to begin about particulars in Africa, perhaps a discussion of nationalism and some of the negative consequences of it. Now, on this particular issue, I do think that the people who are for a unified church and state are for it because of social conditioning, but there just happens to be a wide variety of statistics and facts that can be used to support the idea, as there is to refute it, but at least the attempt is made to show the reasoning behind the conscious decision. I do think that on this issue though, the people that are for a unified church and state decide now, and prove later. We are always amazed by people who come from objective backgrounds, and after studying the issues conclude the traditional stand is the practical one, and I think that points to the fact that the majority think reason and education alone are more practical.
In some of my essays I refer to what I call Universal War 1. What I am referring to is the new front line that draws itself across your living room, across your workplace, across your classroom and through some marriages. There really is a whisper in the background that wisps past your ears, and to understand it, you have to diligently listen. States, nations, religions, clubs, groups, and even couples draw their own particular circles, with little attention to the whisper. Now, the Universal War is a war that I do not think can be fought in totality because mankind is not competent enough to separate the two sides to have the battle, plus lack of education and confusion muddle the dividing lines in a type of error induced haze. On one side you have people who believe in one truth, and to feel secure they have to believe the truth they hold is the correct one. “There is only one truth, and I am in possession of it.” Now if they are academics, they can use their substantive education to compare and contrast and provide the reasoning for this stand. If they do not have the substance to compare and contrast to provide the reasoning for this stand, they tend to negate the people around them in order to throw a light on their own beliefs. Essentially they remember who they are through a never ending judgment of the other. On the other side of the battle we have the person who views themselves as inside the truth, and part of it. They do not possess it, or even know it, but they live part of it. When you are in this position, you spend more time questioning than you do negating because if you come across something you do not understand, you are more likely to take an agnostic position as opposed to trying to fit the concept into a “certain” category. I know this might rough some people up, but it seems to me that if you let education and a clear unconscious lead you, then more than likely you will end up in this group. I am not saying everybody does, but those that do not, have not freed themselves fully from traditional tendencies.
Those that negate, are prone to intolerance, because the more intolerant they are, the more they are able to see who they are in identity. Now, this type of mentality is prone to conquer and subordinate, because either you’re on the side of those that are part of the one truth, or you are negated and divided out. So, I have actually been painting a particular picture because the position I am about to talk about, is the position I would like to bring to consciousness, and that is the position of those who tolerate. There comes a problem, when one who is intolerant, meets with one who is tolerant. The tolerant is automatically subordinated to the intolerant. The intolerant essence is in its natural state of power, and can only be met with intolerance. I am all for passive resistance, but truly, if somebody shoots you, then you are not alive to passively resist anymore. All you have is the hope that your slaughter will create social momentum, and that seems to me to be more political, and circumstantial than axiomatic. So, I would like to sound the call to the tolerant:
If you are tolerant, it is your duty to articulate your intolerance! We cannot allow peace to be subordinated to the intolerant and irrational anymore! Stand up and take your side on the universal war, and be ready to kill those who would be willing to kill you for not accepting the intolerance they are imposing on you!
I am very aware that this might sound shocking, and it is necessary to protect peace at a level that it deserves to be protected at. If those who destroy peace and freedom do it through subordination and control, then we have to be willing to protect it by the rules they have forced us to react to. The peaceful will always chose tolerance first, but it is their duty to be responsible to that peace in protecting it. Any death on the side of the peaceful, is the fault of the intolerant as the intolerant are stimulating the violence, and the tolerant are answering a call to duty.
It is time for the free, not to subordinate the divisive and intolerant, but to force them into disintegration by a simple spotlighting of impracticality.
In conclusion, it is time to live up to my intolerant stand against intolerance. I really have to bring the rally cry, of a soldier on the battlefield about to give his life for a cause. Make no mistake, I am willing to kill and die in the Universal War for the protection of the passive. I want to kill those who want to subordinate them! Don’t make the mistake that because I am not religious or part of a canonized social group I cannot stand strong! Right now my keyboard is my flamethrower, but I’m ready to show that peace and freedom are strong! Your authoritarianism is not freedom! Your patronizing hierarchy is impotent! We will not be subordinated to you! We wont! Mankind’s truth is inherent in his universality! Not your legislated particular! You have forced yourself into disintegration by your addiction to masturbation, with your perception of your own identity as the pornography! Watch your back, you’re on the radar!