Opening this up to the 99.9% who may not have been interested in a theological tract at 09:30 this Sunday, which I do not insist you read, nor do I request it, I do ask all to consider the question though of tolerance.
Tolerance seems, to your humble blogger, to be the N1 question today and it is largely centred on the Muslim question but also on the LBGTgeebeetransheebees or whatever they call themselves, on the fiction of gay ‘marriage’, on abortion, on Marxism masquerading as tolerant left-liberalism, on the fascist Antifa and UAF and so it goes on.
My central premise, the one which guides everything else I do and say towards others, is classical liberalism. Translated into normal English, I mean that you are free to do as you wish, as long as it does not incommode me intolerably and let me give an example.
Next door, this lot who have already been in trouble for their rowdiness and are on their final warning [given five times by the landlord] started Friday with the power tools – they’re rebuilding the flat apparently. The landlord knows nothing of it and seems bemused so I need to get to the bottom of it.
Now, classical liberalism means I must put up with a certain amount of that and I’m waiting for them, right now, to start up the tools this Sunday morning. Yesterday they started them up late – 4 p.m. and finished at 9 p.m. Now isn’t that interesting, as I’d phoned the landlord to ask at what time I could legitimately start objecting. He said 9 p.m. and on each night, they’ve abruptly stopped at 9 p.m. total coincidence, eh.
The other question is whether this is a project with an end or whether it is ongoing – that it becomes their ongoing workshop next door. If they do that, then that contravenes this being a residential building. Complication for me is that some distance away there is a huge yard where my own project goes on in daylight hours.
Now tolerance, for me, means I must accept that during working hours six days a week, they can do that for the duration of the project and no longer. It’s been deemed they can do this next to my wall until 9 p.m. each and every night.
The critical test is, is it not, whether it unduly affects others – I’m not the only flat in the building.
Moving onto politics in general, plus religion, how far do we put up with what others are doing? I don’t wish to see gays at it but accept that in the privacy of their own homes, they can do as they wish. I object strongly to the MSM running pictures of the act and once seen, it can’t be unseen. so yes, I’m quite nauseated and it’s not up to anyone else to determine what I should or should not be nauseated by. I do NOT wish to see it and want the opt-out button please so that the instant it looks likely to be shown, I can click and not watch it.
As for the Muslims, I live in an area where I do not have to look, every morning, at those robes, beards and crazed jihadi eyes. I do not run a significant risk of attack, as they do in France, Sweden, London and Bradford. I can happily speak with a Sikh or Sri Lankan [our shopkeepers] because they’re not likely to represent intolerance. A Brazilian is fine. Most eastern Europeans I have no issue with and speak with them in supermarkets, in limited Polish.
But when I see a gang of potential jihadis walk into that supermarket or any shopping centre, I get the hell out of there quickly. This is what we have been conditioned to do through the Muslim Pavlovian techniques. And I don’t like that – that it is not safe.
Which brings me to sanctuary cities and the snowflake ‘safe spaces’ on campus. ‘Safe spaces’ means freedom from physical attack and browbeating and every citizen should have that, even the Muslims, it does not depend on anything but the law of the land – one law for all. However, physically breaking up a meeting where someone is speaking in a hall which you do not have to attend, just because you disagree with his views is a completely different thing.
Were I to strongly object to a speaker, I might stand nearby with a sign and do nothing else. That is the way we’ve been taught is acceptable. The moment I pepper spray someone, it becomes a whole new ball game.
Different interpretations of tolerant
There will be those who read the above and think what a fascist, racist pig. I suggest that person looks at him or herself first for even thinking that. There is no race or sexual orientation, to this point in the post now, above this line below, which I have called to be banned or driven out.
However, there are serial offenders of certain demographic groups who are totally intolerant themselves and what’s more, intend to take over our own society and make it theirs and that is something up with which I shall not put.
The people next door here are not attacking me with their circular saws [yet] and so we’re speaking of orders clapped on them to desist and if not, eviction. How does one go about evicting Muslims who are shown to be intolerant worldwide?
Looking at it from within their ‘communities’, what if there is a person, maybe a woman, completely untainted by the blind hatred, just as there were women in Northern Ireland who were untainted by McGuinness, Adams and their thuggery [remember they never renounced violence, ever].
I do feel sorry for them and yes, there should be some mechanism to extract them from that scene. Of course, if they plan to remain the eternal victim, then tough luck – they chose to remain. If they made a clear request of our authorities to be taken out of it, asylum, complete asylum – not just on weekends and every second day – then we should.
I’ve been thinking of setting up a shelter for Muslim women and children subject to Muslim thuggery but if I were to do that, then I have set up a centre for possible jihadiism once those boys grow up. And no one is going to raise a hand once the jihadis come in to slaughter me and burn the centre down.
So, though I feel sorry for the victims tainted by the people they associate with, those groups must go.
All it now requires is the political will. And all it requires is for my landlord to pull the plug on these bastards next door here.
And one more thing – it requires the rule of law – laws applying equally to all and not politicized further than protecting people from harm to life, limb and personal property.