In the book “1984”, George Orwell illustrated extremely well how totalitarian states manipulate language to control the masses. In his book, Orwell develops terms like “newspeak”, “group think”, “freedom is slavery”, etc., to show how language can program people into believing things they would otherwise never believe.

Today, the meaning of the term “tolerance” has been twisted, distorted and propagandized, via these same Orwellian techniques, to target, silence and attack specific groups of people. This process is done in such a way as to promote the attackers as being “├╝ber tolerant”, while portraying those who are attacked as being incredibly “intolerant”. Let me explain.

The definition of the word “tolerance” simply means that person A accepts the idea that person B may not share the same point of view as person A. In other words, being tolerant does not mean everyone should or must agree with you. It means being tolerant!

The people most guilty of being “intolerant” are in fact, those who are the loudest at declaring others “intolerant”. Through social engineering (read 1962 transcript of Audlus Huxley’s speech to the Berkeley Psych department), the majority of people have become convinced that the Establishments point of view is the correct point of view and people who disagree with this myopic and narrow perspective must be “intolerant”.

The people whose perspectives differ are marginalized by giving them all kinds of label such as, “uneducated”, “backwards”, “ignorant”, “racist”, “sexists”, “extremist”, “conspiracy theorist”, etc. Marginalizing people for holding a differing point of view, unwillingness to accept views, beliefs or behavior that differs from one’s own is the definition of “intolerance”.

Are there instances when marginalizing people who hold certain extreme views a good thing? Absolutely. People with the point of view that it is OK to murder, rape or steal, not only should be marginalized but should also be put in jail. But we don’t need the PC police to tell us this. Most of us already know this.

The term “intolerance” is used frequently and effectively to shut down debate. How this works is simple. The mere act of calling someone a, “racist”, “conspiracy theorist”, “radical extremist”, “sexist”, etc, or claiming someone is “intolerant” has the effect of discrediting everything that person says or has ever said.

Think about the last time you were watching the news and the anchor was reporting on a group of people and describing them as being “radical extremists” or “racists” or pointing out how “intolerant” they are. How did that make you feel about those people? Were those people really radical extremists and/or racist? From whose perspective and from what definition was used to make that determination? Perhaps the Mega Corporation that owned that particular news station has a particular bias against those “radicals” or “racist”. One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist.

Here is an example of where, in the name of tolerance, tyranny and hatred are rationalized. Recently, some private businesses came under fire for refusing to bake a cake or provide catering or some type of service for a gay couple that were getting married. The business owners, for whatever reason, decided they did not want to provide a product or service for the gay couple. The business owners were verbally abused, physically threatened with violence and people also threatened to burn down their business. This is a classic demonstration of hate and intolerance.

Let’s take a look and see which of these folks are the most tolerant. We don’t really know much about the business owners who refused to provide the products or services other than perhaps some of them had a religious objection to gay marriage. These business owners were not trying to shove their beliefs or lifestyles onto anyone else. They did not scream profanities and they did not threaten anyone with violence. All they really wanted was to be left alone to conduct their business as they choose. On the other hand, the gay marriage supporters terrorized the business owners in the name of “tolerance” and showed extreme hatred. If the business owners would have treated the gay supporters the same way the gay supporters treated them, they would have been arrested.

Pointing out these facts will probably get me the “racist” label and almost for sure I will be labeled “intolerant” and like a horse with blinders, it seems, many people are incapable of perceiving the logic of this argument. Either they have been viewing the world through their political lenses for so long that they are incapable of seeing the truth, or they simply don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong.

This is a slippery slope we have embarked upon. Historically, blood thirsty tyrants have used this Orwellian model in order to demonize the enemy or the particular sector of society that they wish to silence or eliminate.

Speak up and be heard! Silence is consent!

Jamie Fagan