Progressive Chains and “Liberating Tolerance”

A 'Short & to the point' article by my good friend  Jim 'The SEAL' O'Neill

We have been, and are being, manipulated by globalist social engineers who have foisted on us a humorless demand that we live our lives their way...or else

Progressive Chains and “Liberating Tolerance”

Slow and methodical over the last century was the march of socialists / communists / fascists / progressives / collectivists / liberals (they have so many names it is even hard to keep up with that), until Obama’s election when the gears went into overdrive.

...Prior to now it has been incremental, the slippery slope, the inch by inch erosion of unalienable rights.  Like a slow developing disease, they have gradually weakened the main body of country, so as now the disease can just finish it off in big bites at a time; socialized health care, energy restrictions, political correctness, executive edicts without the consent of the governed, continual reductions of property rights, illegal immigration - amnesty, etc.  The centralized power of the Federal government is in full tilt, while individual rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness are becoming a distant dream.—Cheryl Pass “Classical Progressivism Vs American Exceptionalism

“Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams  (1722-1803)
Freedom…. [cont.]
Sometimes I feel just like I’m almost gone
Sometimes I feel like I’m almost gone
Sometimes I feel just like I’m almost gone
A long… way…from my home
Richie Havens (1941-2013) “Freedom” (“Motherless Child”)

It is an obvious truism that the larger the government, the smaller the amount of personal freedom.  When I recently wrote that I concur with Thoreau’s axiom “That government is best which governs least,” it was simply another way of saying that I value my freedom.  That government is best that robs you of the least amount of freedom.

It’s not rocket science folks—the bigger your government, the smaller your freedom.  As a government’s bureaucracy grows, so does the amount of concomitant rules and regulations that constrict freedom—as night follows the day.

POLL: Do you believe the United States government is beginning to resemble a totalitarian regime?

That is why America’s Founding Framers (who valued freedom) created the US Constitution.  It was designed specifically to rein-in and control government, and thereby protect the freedom of “we the people.”  The Framers saw the form of government that they invented as being a necessary evil—a compromise between the chaos of anarchy and the oppression of tyranny.  Today we find ourselves far, far removed from what they intended for us, and what they intended our government to be.  Our government “representatives” (and military brass) consistently ignore their oaths to “protect and defend” the US Constitution, and treat their “solemn” oaths as if they were irrelevant jokes. 

The social engineering types that favor big government have zero interest in freedom.  They are interested in forcing you to live your life their way, and only their way.  If you value your freedom, then you must, as a matter of course, stand in opposition to them.

Those of us who were shocked out of our “boiled frog syndrome” daze by the stunning overreach of the Obama Administration, were often dismayed by how far along “the road to serfdom” we awoke to find ourselves (“When did this happen?”).

If you have done your homework, you know that it didn’t happen overnight.  “We the people” find ourselves in our current predicament because we were asleep at the wheel (at least many of us were—all too many still are).  Also, of course, the longtime tireless efforts of the enemies of freedom must be taken into account.

This article is not so much concerned with the chains that have been oh so cleverly, slowly, and gently laid on “we the people” over the last century or so.  It is mainly about one particular link in those chains.

I am speaking of “liberating tolerance” (also called “partisan tolerance”).  “Liberating tolerance” is a term coined by Frankfurt School Marxist extraordinaire, Herbert Marcuse

He meant for it to be used as an antidote to tolerance.  That is, as an anti-tolerance stratagem hidden in plain sight under an innocuous (even uplifting) sounding name.  It was designed to replace classical (i.e. “repressive”) tolerance. 

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”  Herbert Marcuse [emphasis mine]
“Liberating tolerance” is actually the height (or depth) of hypocrisy and intolerance—and it is increasingly being used to silence dissent and steal our freedoms.

read more:

Views: 270

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I keep saying it, This is a Newly Forming Marxist Country.

if you read anything by cloward and piven, or saul alinsky....Obama is following their doctrine to the exact item by item...its like Obama is just following their lists of how to bring down a democracy....its almost scary to read these two.

We The People can change OUR COUNTRY back to what she was before Obama - - - -

Yes with ties to collective bargaining only for government agents and officials.  All others are not entitled.  The citizenry will be allowed to live in citizen zones only.  One Nation under Fraud with Lies and, spying for all.

Diversity is a dangerous metaphor for division, confusion and
mediocrity. College students fall prey to what G.K. Chesterton said about people, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, -- they believe in anything.” 
It is the failure of the American Character to retain its Christian belief that we are created by God in His image. As Francis Schaeffer has written, all of these forms of cultural dissolution have “come about due to a shift in worldview...a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance.”

I Agree 100% with Your Post, you just left out ONE VITAL thing in their OATHS that take and that is to Perserve, Not To Change .  I think todays Electied Temp. Servants Mouth the words  But have no under standing of the meaning . they say them just to get through a cermoney .  we need to creat a law with sever punshiments for disobaying their Oath Mabey that will Give the words Meaning.

Not much has changed yet.


Nope :/ 

But we Do have a Knight... And we are seeing just whom the the swamp consists of :)

Oh, was just bored, so I snooped around and checked out the blogs.

Just to see who I could wake up !!


I see. Too bad most from the 'old' days are gone :/

No, they are still here, some past away, I read a lot of different blogs, and some was well....not that good.

 But anyway, take care, LOL Tif



Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.


Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors. adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service