The intolerance of the tolerant

A study into an example of newspeak, as part of cognitive warfare

As I am working on an article/analysis of the place and importance of truth in this Cognitive Warfare we are all part of, I had some other thoughts on the idea of ‘tolerance’, and wanted to share them in an attempt to expose some of the newspeak that has crept into our usage of those terms.

This is an important and fundamental one, ‘tolerance’. Currently, it is used more as a negative, accusing others. If you are being labeled ‘intolerant’, the inevitable conclusion is that you are a bigot, a hater, as evidence by your lack of ‘tolerance’.

That is a first interesting thing to note: the word ‘tolerance’ is not used as a positive driver, as much as the word ‘intolerant’ is used as a negative marker. There is, apparently, no program meant to elevate us and to educate us to excel in virtue. When is the last time you heard people, programs, TV, wherever, talk about why tolerance is a good virtue to have, and why we should strive to better ourselves?

In ‘olden’ days, that was something we all can remember. “So be good, for goodness’ sake!”, we all sang and heard again just a few months ago during Christmas season. And this was not relegated to Sunday Schools, either, even if it the religious underpinning of the concept of virtue cannot be denied. Still, when it comes to virtues, even philosophers of the caliber of Aristotle understood the nature and necessity of ‘virtue’.

There was a common understanding about virtues and vices, even by non-religious people, that was shared and mostly upheld by all. It might be best expressed by the Constitution, where, even though it did not herald in a theocracy, it still founded their new country ‘under God’, checked by ‘inalienable rights’, that were untouchable because they were granted by God, and thus not subject to human revision or revocation.

The problem for the current liberal elites, is A) that ‘tolerance’ is not a virtue, and B) that they themselves don’t believe in virtues, anyway, only in raw power, and tools to achieve that end. As a quick example to fully prove that: they demand others tolerate THEIR positions, but they themselves never have to tolerate OTHER positions. Oh, no, those other positions need to be fought, even exterminated! Which shows that for them, tolerance is a one way street, a malleable tool, and not a virtue that is good for it’s own sake.

And tolerance is not a virtue. If I tolerate you, I place you beneath me. Like a pesky fly or bug or pet, scrawling about my feet. It is a mockery of ‘respect’, most directly, or of ‘temperance’ and ‘charity’, to use the Catholic terms of the virtues they discern, or perhaps of Jin and Rei, under the Bushido system of virtues.

But a mockery, either way. If I tolerate you, I don’t see you as my equal. Demanding that I ‘tolerate’ differences, and people who are not like me, you are actually sowing the seeds of actual discord, and you build, ever so subtly, that very specter of hatred and division you claim to fight! You are, in effect, demanding I see those different than me as non-equals, but as things I should ‘tolerate’, and keep beneath me.

Something else happened here, something we see very often: a bait and switch, where a good word is used for something it does not pertain to, and creates confusion.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen had some very sharp insight into this.

In several of his broadcasts and articles, he obviously proposed a decidedly Catholic view, but he founded it on a very sharp and deep understanding of society and some of their ills, as he spoke against such ills.

In ‘A plea for intolerance’ (got to love that title), he wrote:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot;

but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded. […] The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral.”

In ‘The curse of broadmindedness’, (both those sermons are worth a careful read!) Archbishop Fulton Sheen goes deeper, and provides a clear distinction:

“for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine.

We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s.”

Or read this quote by R. Garriguo-Lagrange, OP, a theologian, expounding on that insight.

And now you see, very clearly, the absurdity of the newspeak from the left. I attack principles I see wrong, and I am called intolerant, rightly. But that is taken that I hate the person espousing those principles, and that is wrong. This vitally important nuance being lost, I am now called a ‘hater’, a bigot, and will lose social standing, employment, perhaps possessions, and at some point, my very freedom.

Acceptance might have been a better word, but still is fraught with problems. It is not that clear-cut a term, either (which is why we get bashed around the head with it, anyways, exploiting that ambiguity, and pushing a worldview that is simply untenable).

Similar to ‘tolerance’ and ‘intolerance’, it does not speak of any judgement in value, and therein lies the rub. Not everything is equal. In terms of religion, I can present you the human sacrifices of the Maya, who slaughtered subdued enemies by the thousands. Theirs was a very morbid culture, in their iconography almost devoid of anything uplifting.

Can you really place that kind of total disregard for human life and dignity on the same level as the more non-violent streams within Buddhism and Hinduism, for example?

Here it is also important to remark to judge such not by their abuse, but by their ideals. People will always try to abuse good things for their own ends, but that does not make the thing abused evil. Among the Maya, however, such sacrifices and disregard for life had become the ideal, and permeated their whole society.

The current (and past) leftist elites have always used such newspeak to sow confusion, and to use as tools to further their own ends. In case of ‘tolerance/intolerance’, as a way to accuse and take out those who oppose them, and to cover up their own insane propositions. This is Cognitive Warfare.

And yes, insane. For the sake of promoting equality, and to protect women, that idea (by itself not necessarily bad) has devolved to include transsexuals, for example, where biological males now demolish –at times even literally- their biologically female opponents. Counter this, or even question this, and YOU are intolerant, while their open attack on femininity is wrapped as ‘tolerant’. Insanity.

One last element: in Flemish we have 2 different words that express 2 nuances for which English has only 1 word. ‘Equality’. In Flemish we have ‘gelijkheid’ (equality, proper), but also ‘gelijkwaardigheid’ (equal-worthiness). So we can express this thought: all people are ‘gelijkwaardig’, but not ‘gelijk’. All people are [of] equal-worth, but are not equal. Equal-worthy, not equal! We have to keep that difference in mind.

Understanding the newspeak of the left is crucial. It allows us to see the absurd nakedness of their emperors, and call it out. We all read the different great articles here on SubStack and elsewhere, talking about the information war that is raging. I have started to delve more deeper into this Cognitive Warfare, as well.

On several levels, that war is completely out of our hands. But this level of newspeak IS IN OUR SIGHTS AND RANGE! We can take this lost ground back. We can reintroduce proper understanding of those terms. We can fight back. One word, at a time.

In the most current phase of this fight along the lines of ‘tolerance’, the Left (I know, this word itself has lost too much meaning, as well) is pushed into a corner: their attempts to force sex ed down our throats, and ram images and concepts and ideas in the innocent and not yet fully formed minds and hearts of even kindergartners and in the first 3 grades of school, has been too forceful, too much at once. People started noticing. And they started to fight back: individually, against teachers, or more organized against school boards. Even taken over schoolboards in elections. Or most recently through legislation, as in Florida.

The immediate backlash from certain groups was very enlightening. Disney, for example, contrary to Walt’s desire to stay out of politics, made it a point to try to halt this law. But in a stroke of genius, the word ‘groomer’ was coined.

I already posted this screenshot, from a Disney employee who self-identified as gay. He or she had the absolute clarity off mind and common sense to show exactly how stark naked the gender ideology emperor is: “If you think it is, then maybe the issue lies with you wanting children to be involved with sexual things before they are physically and mentally ready for it.”

Why would someone defend such? For the same reason they want to get rid of the term ‘pedophile’ and replace it with things like ‘minor attracted people’, or MAPs. To groom their future victims, to change their view as their minds are still so open and malleable, to create the idea that their brand of evil is actually right, and to attack and vilify all those who dare oppose their agenda.

It undermines society, as it undermines truth and virtue. No society can survive such long-term attack on their foundations. Which makes this line of attack in the cognitive war we are in one that, in my view, is secondary: useful idiots that are used to undermine the target society and civilization, making that society/civilization more susceptible and weaker for the main attacks. Just like the stated goal of Cognitive Warfare of sowing discord, weakening the decision making process in target nations (see part 3 of my series ‘The War for our Minds’ for more information).

So, back to the answer: groomer. It captures, in one word, all that is wrong with those pushing for or defending inundating young children with sexual things and ideas they are in no way ready for. It has power, that word, and they HATE it.

Which shows just how effective that is.

How can Disney ever recover from this? With the yearly (!!!) reports of multiple Disney employees being arrested for child sex crimes? Something is seriously rotten in the state of Denmark, and people are waking up to it. In part, due to the communicability of such simple but highly effective words.

A tactic out of their own playbook, but this time one backed up with truth. (There that is, again, fuller article exploring the importance of that is forthcoming soon).

Look at this, for example:

No, Mr. Sarzo: no one is talking about the whole LGBTQ+ community or the people supporting you. The word Groomer is applied to those, within and outside that community, who push for sexualizing younger and younger children, exposing them to sexual material and ideas they are simply not ready for. Look at your fellow member of the LGBTQ+ community I referenced earlier in this article: gay, and Disney employee. He/she sees it much more clearly, and does not retreat to such emotional and wildly flailing defense as you just did, but calls a spade a spade: young children should NOT be exposed to something as powerful of sexuality when they are not ready for it, physically nor emotionally.

Mr. Sarzo made the mistake Archbishop Sheen warned against: mistaking the ideology for the people. Taking the intolerance personal, which is most decidedly is NOT.

For now, remember this:

Tolerance is not a virtue, love/charity is.

We are not equal, but we ARE equal-worthy.

Words are powerful, both with the power to destroy/attack, as to build up/defend.

Be aware and use the counters. Call out the groomers.

There is a lot we can do in this cognitive warfare, we are not just civilian victims anymore, but actual combatants. Under attack, without warning, but not defenseless and weak. Time to grow in awareness, and to push back, reclaiming lost territory.


All is well.