US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Tolerance for some but not for others (english)
01 Oct 2003
Modified: 02 Oct 2003
Of all non-European settlers, the most adaptive and least state-dependent have been the Asians, at least up until the nanny Great Society offered them freebies at someone else's tax expense.
Tolerance for some but not for others
Dorothy Anne Seese, The Sierra Times, September 26, 2003

The 1990's saw the total mutilation of the English language and American behavior patterns for the sheer sake of ripping apart long-standing American cultural and family traditions to enforce conformity and make nonconformity either intolerable or illegal.

We all used to know what it meant to "tolerate" someone. We put up with them even though we didn't particularly like or approve of them or their behavior. Examples we all know: the guy who lets his lawn grow to the height of an alfalfa field before mowing it. The neighbor who minds everyone else's business. The office kissup who is first to suggest anything that might please the boss. The neighbors whose brats are always running through our newly-planted flower beds. That's what we meant by "tolerate" and there was no confusion between tolerance and acceptance. If we tolerated certain people it surely had nothing to do with accepting them as friends, or saying their way of life (disrupting the neighborhood or the office tranquility) was acceptable to us. We knew, we understood, we agreed on the language even if we might have different ideas of the person or brats involved.

We also know that the meaning of words changes over time, particularly with the addition of words associated with professional or technical fields. I grew up in a world that was devoid of cholesterol as a word and I was probably in my thirties when it became the medical profession's excuse for everything. I grew up in a world where we were free to decide what people would be our friends, generally based on those with whom we had common ideas and a common background or, to use a new phrase, similar worldview. Maybe we simply had the same religious beliefs or nominal church membership or opposition to churches.

This is now the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.) definition of tolerance as it applies to interpersonal relationships (not mathematical tolerances or medical applications):

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Specifically, "tolerance" was redefined to enforce a recalcitrant American public to set aside years of tradition, personal religious beliefs and the personal freedom to make choices in order to shove heretofore unacceptable persons and behaviors down the throats of American citizens. Government knows one cannot legislate belief systems, at least not until they can enforce total thought control. But they can set standards and legislate penalties for violating them.

This redefined tolerance is most actively seen in forcing people of different beliefs, and Christians in particular, to accept and embrace the politically correct, unnatural and repugnant acts of homosexuality and the minority (thus privileged) status of the entire homosexual communities under penalty of law.

Unlike Dr. Martin Luther King's dream where all persons of all colors would be accepted by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, "tolerance' means you accept non-European or non-white people regardless of their behavior. And this is to be enforced at a time when whites are a minority among the world's population (as they always have been), in a nation built largely by European immigrants through hard work and individual entrepreneurial effort.

Tolerance means we, the Americans who have built and developed this country by our work, shall, under penalty of law:

* Allow federalized education to inculcate the children with sex education, including the "fact" that homosexuality is an approved alternative lifestyle. Sex education is the responsibility of parents, but the government has taken charge, while removing from parents the authority to invest their children with the values of their heredity and culture, particularly if it is Christian or Bible-based.

* Accept the fact that parental discipline can be punishable by law (even a swat on the behind) to the extent that the government can remove the children from the offending parents and make them wards of the state, and many such children have been placed in foster care where their entire lives have been mutilated, traumatized and even terminated by intent or by neglect.

* We are to like all people of different races and colors even though in American history, the traditional European whites (which is ridiculous, no one is really white) were never legally bound to like one another. The law prevailed when it came to limitations on dislike, hence assault and battery or murder have always been illegal and punishable offenses. But to be forced to like one another? The mere thought was violative of basic American freedoms of choice, association and privacy.

Of all non-European settlers, the most adaptive and least state-dependent have been the Asians, at least up until the nanny Great Society offered them freebies at someone else's tax expense. Yet the Asians have been the least to become victims, having come to America for opportunity, seized upon it, and largely become independent of the state system. During my 25 years in my home in Glendale, Arizona (1973-1997) the house across the street from me evidenced this quality for four generations of immigrants. An American helicopter pilot married a Vietnamese woman, brought her to America, and purchased the house directly across the street from me. She sent for her sister and brother-in-law. When they were established and spoke sufficient English to read, write, obtain a driver's license and meet other requirements to survive on a daily basis, the pilot and his wife moved to northern Arizona.

The remaining Vietnamese (I believe their name was Nguyen) went on to open a restaurant with funds they had saved while staying with the America pilot and his wife. They then proceeded to send for the wife's mother and some pre-teen children who had been left in Vietnam. Additions were made to the house and as other adults arrived, the second generation moved on to a larger home after expanding their restaurant business. Thus it went for over twenty years and the fourth generation was living there when I sold my home and retired due to disability.

Did neighbors object to the Vietnamese? No. One could not have asked for better neighbors. They were clean, quiet, and respectful. One Thanksgiving after my back injury, after my mother had to be placed in a care center for medical monitoring, it was obvious I was quite alone at home. A Vietnamese lady came over with a styrofoam box full of fresly cooked hot food, some of it quite delicious and I have no idea to this day what it was other than their traditional meal. Kindness, courtesy, and caring cannot be forced on anyone, it must be voluntary or it is one hundred percent hypocrisy to meet a legal requirement that should never exist in a land of the free (if we were free).

In and prior to the 1960's non-smokers tolerated or even accepted smokers as a matter of choice. My grandmother had preached on the health hazards of smoking in the 1940's, but three of her five children became smokers anyway. She tolerated the smoke and loved her children, and no one in the 1950s or 60s would have suggested she prohibit her adult children from smoking in and around the house. They were in their 30's and 40's by that time and had made a free choice to use a legal product. In fact, grandpa smoked cigars!

In New York City, the new Mayor, Michael Bloomberg (himself an ex-smoker) has decided that he will control the choice of smoking by generally prohibiting it in as many places as the people will allow, even in private automobiles if his new idea passes. Why? Because while we have to be tolerant of some, we most surely do not have to be tolerant of all, and it is a matter of which items or people the political powers select that become objects of tolerance or intolerance. He seems to express no such hostility to cocaine.

Tolerance by legislation is not tolerance. It is tyranny. Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire and therefore, as Mayor, he is always right, he is king and he can select the tolerance/intolerance items. He bought and paid for that position and he intends to use it for his petty tyranny until he can achieve some higher status.

Never mind that the so-called dangers of second-hand smoke were thoroughly debunked in the British medical journal Lancet, or that subsequent studies are now proving that obesity and stress are more dangerous to one's health. Well, we are going to have to remove obesity from the tolerance list, and it wouldn't surprise me to see all manner of idiocy emanating from Michael Bloomberg's office regarding that topic. He maintains a proper weight and exercise routine and may decide to impose that on folks also.

I do not have to tolerate Michael Bloomberg because I live in Arizona, but his type are not lacking here either now that we have so many displaced Californians who have taken up residence in Arizona.

Thus while our borders are left wide open, our state is plagued by illegal immigrants (mostly from Mexico but with a wide open border who knows from where else?) our cities are cracking down on smokers and our lawyers are looking for a good obesity suit to prosecute. We, the citizens, the Americans, the law abiding people who have lived in Arizona for years, have less voice now than in Arizona's history, and God forbid we should publicly make a "hate statement" about illegal aliens from Mexico. They're lawbreakers! We can't speak out against lawbreakers? Well no -- if they are Mexican it isn't tolerant to complain about their invasion of our nation. It is tolerant to force restaurant and bar owners to totally ban smokers, and now any food establishment that wants to protect itself against the anti-peanut craze will post a sign to the effect that the place is totally peanut-free (or might have peanuts on the premises) or risk a lawsuit by someone who is allergic to peanuts.

At this point I am desperately looking for a way to sue someone based on intolerance. First, I am a member of a minority, the white race (not a race at all, but not all Caucasians are fair skinned). Second, I am a female, an older female at that, so I have to demand tolerance for my gender and age. Third, I am disabled (actually for practical purposes just handicapped, but disabled according to the Americans with Disabilities Act).

Because I am of European origin, nothing else matters. In 1997 I was pushed out of my job due to my disability, which was illegal, but my complaint against the state of Arizona (my employer) was rejected because it was not based on race, just a flagrant violation of the ADA. But in the global population, I am a member of a minority, even though European-ancestry Americans have been the majority in this nation just as blacks are the majority in Nigeria. No matter. Being white is basis for intolerance and violation of the laws on tolerance by employers and government.

Since I am an older female any "sexual harassment"charge would be considered material for a comedy skit (or a compliment). If I were a black woman it might be taken seriously, but not when one is a white woman over 60.

Third, I fell at work and sustained two spinal fractures and worked three years and four months with the misdiagnosed injury. No matter, I am white, so tough luck. If I had been black or Arabic, that would have made everything different. I'm Christian, not Muslim, so my religious beliefs are fair game also.

Tolerance. For some but not for all. It's the new American way that Americans have protested without success to representatives who don't represent anything but the agenda of the New World Order and don't tell me differently ... because I've been there, been through the mill and have no entitlements. I'm not entitled even to tolerance by my own government.

Which is why I am still considering moving to Mexico where, incredibly enough, other American expatriates say they feel much freer unless they get caught in the chaos of an anti-American demonstration.

Oh yes, they have anti-American demonstrations in Mexico. It just isn't good tolerance to report them in American media.

Only the rich, the politically powerful, and the rulers above the law can afford to be intolerant, and most of that is aimed directly at the traditional Americans and their values. Does that tell you something?

Remember, 2004 is an election year, and we don't need any more Michael Bloombergs in office or the Bush elitists might begin to look tolerant compared to that airheaded, arrogant billionaire's attitude. Or as the old song goes, "everybody wants to rule the world." Well, not the world, just the United States, to its devastation.

For such I have no tolerance. Not a drop.

Dorothy Anne Seese, a long time favorite at the SierraTimes, is retired after 25 years as a legal secretary/assistant with over 15 years in business systems and procedures analysis. Her hobby is freelance writing. A native of Southern California, Dorothy lives in Sun City, Arizona. Please visit her website "Flagship" (
See also:


Racist tripe. (english)
02 Oct 2003
Sad to read this on IndyMedia.