from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

Posted: 29 Aug 2009 08:22 PM PDT

Tolerance is the talk of the West today. You can hardly go a
minute without hearing a government congratulate itself on its "tradition
of tolerance" or without hearing an agency lecturing others on the
importance of tolerance. In the late 20th century and early 21st
centuries, tolerance has eclipsed every other moral and social virtue. A
child of the first world is far more likely to be taught tolerance, than
the value of manners, decency, charity or chastity. And to grow up with
very little moral values, except the firm belief that intolerance is a
terrible thing.

Yet what is tolerance all about and what's wrong
with tolerance? For one thing, tolerance is not equality. It is
condescension. George Washington understood that over 200 years when he
wrote in his "Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport" that, "All
possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is
now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence
of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their
inherent national gifts."

What Washington was saying back in
1790 was a truth that modern liberals have worked hard to blot out, namely
that tolerance is a statement of inequality. You tolerate people who you
do not believe can participate equally in their own affairs or yours, for
your own motives. The people you tolerate are second class
citizens.

Tolerance toward foreigners can be the product of a
degree of mutual respect or mutual interest, in which both sides have an
interest in maintaining tolerance. That tolerance however is a long way
from equality. It is an exchange of tolerance premised on the idea that
neither party wants to join with the other.

But tolerance can be
the product of mutual respect or cowardice. When there is no mutual
respect from the other party, tolerance reveals itself as mere cowardice
and appeasement. Why "tolerate" someone who refuses to tolerate you,
unless you're afraid of them?

Europe's Muslims started out being
"tolerated" out of condescension. Today they are tolerated out of fear.
Europe's politicians have done the math, and for the most part they have
accepted the growing Islamic takeover as a fact of life. Aside from taken
attempts at smoothing out the worst of the extremism, their only response
is to demand greater accommodations in the hopes of meeting the invasion
force halfway.

That template is the ugly reality behind the facade
of tolerance. It begins as condescension and ends in fear. At no time
however is it equal. To tolerate something, whether out of condescension
or fear, is to declare it inferior to yourself.

That same idea of
tolerance is behind many of the social problems of the First World, in
which liberal and socialist parties view minorities as convenient
inferiors, a reliable voting bloc and a useful club to beat the
conservatives with. The more they cry about the oppression of minorities
and treat them as helpless children to be pandered to, the more they
reinforce a narrative of protectors for people who cannot progress on
their own. Having closed off the top, except for the occasional bit of
tokenism, the pressure explodes downward instead. Social problems in a
community give way to a broken system and to the triumph of extremist
movements. The condescension then quickly turns to fear.

A true
democratic system has no room for tolerance, only for civil equality, yet
it is the liberal ideologies which reinforce inequality and segregation
under the banner of multiculturalism, repeatedly punishing minorities who
behave contrary to their political expectations. Tolerance or
condescension after all are based on fear. What need is there to
"tolerate" people, unless you think there is something intolerable about
them. Something dangerous and unpredictable. Something that you agree to
tolerate in the name of a greater good.

Such has been the history
of liberal tolerance, a story of condescension that began with class...
back when progressive ideologues still thought poverty was somehow a
genetic inheritance, down to race. A story of corralling oppressed
populations on political plantations, exploiting them for violent
outbursts, from the French Revolution on down to the race riots in modern
day America, keeping them deprived, miserable and frustrated, useful but
dangerous tools, all in order to promote a liberal agenda.

In
Europe however, its population of guestworkers have shifted from being a
handy voting bloc for left wing parties, to becoming the new Europe, a
phrase that liberal politicians have enjoyed bandying about, but never
took very seriously. They meant a "New Europe" rebuilt in their own image,
but the rising green tide of Islam means something very different by it.
They mean a European Caliphate run under Islamic law.

Somewhere
between Europe and Eurabia
lies the compass of tolerance swinging from condescension to fear. The
mask of tolerance has slipped a bit, but the left, those among them still
capable of reasoning rather than parroting cant and dogma, feel they have
no choice but to ride the tiger until it arrives at some congenial
destination. They bred the tiger, fed it, nurtured it and if it appears to
ride them now, rather than them riding it, they do their best to pay no
attention to the shift.

Turning back once more to George Washington's letter, to
his statement that there would be no tolerance, only civic equality; we
can see once again the wisdom of making civic equality the one and only
public test. Even in Washington's time, Tammany Hall and Aaron Burr had
begun their work, creating oppressed voting blocks that would help them
seize power in New York State, as well as in two national elections. That
day had not yet come in 1790 when Washington authored that letter, but it
was bound to come. Burr's political heirs would go on to insist on
political representation for people they themselves held as chattel and a
century hence would swoop on them to declare themselves the new party of
civil rights. And the lies would go on being told. Lies told by people who
despite what they claimed, only sought to rule over others.

Behind
the facade of tolerance are minds oriented on the master-slave
relationship, on finding people to rule over, and then to shrink in terror
from them when like all master-slave relationships, the slaves eventually
rise up. Washington's letter was a declaration that American citizenship
should not be based on any form of inferiority. And yet the liberals cry
on, tolerance, tolerance, tolerance; enacting their parodies of liberating
those whom they themselves have enslaved.