Tolerant, Really Tolerant, Totalitarian

The following op-ed from Junge Freiheit discusses the increasingly totalitarian nature of German social and political culture, all in the name of promoting “tolerance”. Everyone may speak freely, provided they reinforce the Narrative!

Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Tolerant, Really Tolerant, Totalitarian

by Felix Krautkrämer

[Caption: In defense of tolerance, a number of opinions may not be expressed]

A columnist recommends to a reader that he not send his children to a gay wedding — and the newspaper fires her. A Munich innkeeper who refuses to throw right-wingers out and treat them like lepers is threatened with loss of his franchise.

A political scientist in Berlin suddenly finds himself the target of internet charges of racism and sexism. His crime is to make differentiations in his views on political processes, accommodating his study to reality, rather than wishful thinking.

This is Germany, 2015. The Germany in which nearly daily sermons on the great good of tolerance emanate from parties, unions, churches, media and the much-invoked “civil society.” But as so often in the case of false preachers, this chalice is filled to the brim not with water, but with wine.

Divergent opinions are combatted

And apparently the thought police have slurped so freely from it that they are blind drunk. So blind in the faith that they are Doing Good that they do not notice the abject venality of their methods.

The rage of the homosexual lobby, howling for the firing of the columnist, demonstrated above all their own intolerance. Deviating opinions are fought with all means available. Anyone who expresses them must expect to be despised.

This is a familiar trait of dictatorships with a democratic face. Everyone is free to express an opinion — but must be prepared to deal with the consequences. These may extend from exclusion to a ban on studies or exercise of profession, to expatriation or prison.

It is no secret that democracy is not necessarily practiced everywhere the description “democratic” is used. Even the socialist dictatorships once claimed to be democratic and serve the Good. But the reality was different.

Officially there is freedom of opinion and profession

And today? Officially the Federal Republic is a democratic, constitutional state with constitutionally guaranteed freedom of opinion and profession. That is, the polar opposite of a totalitarian thought-control dictatorship.

According to Wikipedia, totalitarianism is a regime which “practices intervention in all social relationships, often connected with the claim of shaping a ‘new human being’ in accordance with a particular ideology.” Who could possibly think such a thing about the Federal Republic in anno 2015?

26 thoughts on “Tolerant, Really Tolerant, Totalitarian

  1. It was translated that the caption in german reads “In defense of tolerance, a number of opinions may not be expressed”

    The actual translation is actually this:

    “To protect tolerance, a number of opinions may not be expressed.”

  2. “The rage of the homosexual lobby…”

    Yeah, think I pointed out that nexus here (inartfully) a while back.

    Too bad I was slapped down for it.

    • Would that be the rage that blows up trains in Madrid, skyscrapers in New York?

      Would it be the rage that hijacks airplanes and flies them to Entebbe? Would it be the rage that blows up Bologna train station?

      Would it be the rage that blew up pubs in Birmingham (England)? The rage that killed people in the bomb attack in Enniskillen?

      Is it the rage found in attacks in schools, cinemas & shopping malls — where innocent people are gunned down in the US?

      Can you name a single mass murder carried out by “the homosexual lobby”? Can you name a single assassination carried out by “the homosexual lobby”?

      Throughout history there have been murders carried out by devout believers of religion, by nationalists, by socialists, by lone individuals. I can’t think of a single incident where anyone has done this in the name of gay rights.

      As for when “the homosexual lobby” act like fascists and demand the sacking and/or criminalisation of critics — these are without exception LEFTIST advocates of gay rights. It is Leftism which should be singled out – the same Leftism which behaves fascistically towards those who step out of line on any subject stamped by the Left as ideologically correct (women’s rights, racism, pro-abortion).

      It is the fascistic behaviour of Leftists which should be correctly identified. These people will kill in the name of their agenda (like the vegan who was responsible for the murder of first anti-islam martyr of the 21st century – the homosexual Pim Fortuyn). That is the where the rage comes from; not from a liking for Judy Garland.

      • That is a hand washing exit strategy in subtracting a special interest group that sought advantage and promotion over their fellow citizens, to claim that a large constituency of the LGBT movement in their own right did not profit from and indulge in the totalitarianism of tolerance project is a nonsense.

      • I’m coming into the thread a bit late:

        I agree with you Joe that leftist totalitarians have co-opted individual causes as camouflage for more centralized control and deconstruction of society. An excellent litmus test is support of Islam. It is logically impossible for a gay-rights group that is really for gay rights, to support Islam or support the Palestinians against the Israelis. Similarly, it is logically impossible for feminist groups that really exist for the benefit of women to suppress criticism of Islam or criticism of FGM.

        I’ll go out on a limb and say that the only groups that are for the benefit of gays are more social or service groups than political…for the reason that basically, there is no systematic discrimination against gays as individuals in the country. There is room for work on recognizing the rights of gay unions: social security and pension benefits, rights of medical access and so forth, but this work doesn’t require a social revolution.

        So, I agree with you that the shrill totalitarian suppression of any possible criticism of gays is more affiliated with leftism than any real defense of gay interests.

        In that vein, I totally disagree with the vicious treatment of the Christian bakers who didn’t want to bake a cake for the gay wedding. You either protect freedom or enforce conformity. In my opinion, their freedom consisted of their right to pursue their beliefs.

  3. I noticed in some one the PEGIDA articles that attendance at the demonstrations dropped off after a time. I wonder if there isn’t pressure being exerted on participants to stay away else they might lose opportunity or employment?

  4. One day Germany, and all other social democracies in Europe, are going to have to choose between protecting homosexuals and giving in to Muslims. My money is on the ones who will resort to violence.

  5. Can anyone fill in some details of the Munich innkeeper story? Or link to a German source?

    • I’m guessing it’s connected with PEGIDA, but I’m curious about what exactly happened.

  6. In the UK street preachers are arrested for delivering flyers. Christians can be fired for speaking of homosexuality in private conversation. It seems that the “democracies” the debate has become an afterthought, or may not even be feasible, the most feasible is to accept one side and get away with it. To be a Christian in European countries is almost becoming crime, it is easier to be a Christian in the Middle East, that being a Christian in a European country without reprisal.

    • “To be a Christian in European countries is almost becoming crime, it is easier to be a Christian in the Middle East, that being a Christian in a European country without reprisal.”

      What [material that I deprecate]. I suggest you know nothing about the bravery & persecution of christians in the Middle East.

      • That statement more meaningless. I’m not talking about the Middle East, because I know very well the bravery of persecuted Christians there, I’m talking about the brutality of European laws that unfairly punish Christians on their own soil, for allegedly inciting hatred for defending their religious and moral position. You are a British? If you are a British, then you know the facts that I have explained, therefore, you have a sense of what happens if someone says in public that homosexual practice is wrong.
        Do you think certain someone hold the job for saying that homosexuality is wrong? And that goes against God’s purposes? And this be characterized as hate speech, leading even imprisonment and processes? I suggest you search for more. Yes, European countries are better for the Christian refugees, to escape physical persecution; but not best to exercise their religious freedom. That’s a fact. Search more before committing such misconceptions.

    • Thanks. It’s really important that information on these demonstrations is recorded. I watched how the UK establishment neutered the EDL (for now). I have no doubt that the governments in other countries are just as adept at destroying popular movements. What PEGIDA has achieved in Dresden is very significant.

  7. Tolerance to the hard Left – that is, all our Western governments, means Impotence. We are now no more than pale faced little worker grubs.

  8. What poses as ‘democracy’ nowadays is, in reality, a sort of velvet totalitarianism. Unlike Hitler’s or Stalin’s dictatorships, the ‘democratic’ rulers prefer manipulation to coercion. They attained an unprecedented degree of sophistication in their manipulation techniques.

    Using such techniques they can easily convince millions that rattlesnakes are the best pets for toddlers or that arsenic is an excellent remedy for a cold in the head. Most insane views are successfully sold to the masses as the only truth possible.

    Of course, these methods do not always work and some people sometimes refuse to accept certain elements of this madness. In such cases, as we have seen from the article, the ‘democratic’ authorities can use force against such recalcitrants, if they think it expedient – fire people from their posts, put them on trial for ‘hate speech’, organise smear campaigns in the media in the best traditions of Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

    Democracy in the 21st century is a carefully preserved illusion, a smokescreen for a sophisticated tyranny behind which ugly things lurk.

    • I read that as “a smokescreen for a sophisticated tranny.” Nowadays one never knows . . .

    • I noticed many years ago how some people would refer to “real democracy” when they meant something like ‘everyone is equal in economic condition.” Maybe they believe that such equality would obtain if only everyone had an equal voice in the system — that is, if we got rid of “money in politics” and funded all campaigns publicly. But in case that equality doesn’t result, then it’s necessary for the “true democrats” to impose equality.

      As for the right not to be offended, it appears to apply to some much more than others.

  9. As ESW so sadly proved, to say that mohammed “married” a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine is now hate speech.
    Anyone reading Islamic texts know that to be true however, we just must not say it.

  10. The way people tolerate being manipulated and ordered about… it makes one wonder if they have a deep instinct for dictatorship, kings, rulers. I realize that some folks need lots of exogenous imposed structure, but it would be so sad if mankind in general, and in the majority, really wanted autocracy.

    But animals live in all kinds of social structures. Maybe we need rulers and we are not built for democracy?. .

    Nice time to find out. After we have selected Earth. ychhh!

    • Under normal benign circumstances most people tolerate that sort of thing until they personally start suffering problems. What they don’t seem to get is that, by the time enough people start personally suffering consequences, it’s too late to do anything about it and may have been too late for a long period of time.

      What level of authoritarianism people want seems to largely depend on what problems they think they have and whether they believe authoritarianism will solve those problems. If there’s a serious threat and they have no idea what to do, they start wanting someone to tell them what to do. After that, they may find themselves stuck with it beyond its original justification is resolved.

  11. “Tolerance” is nothing but Dhimmitude

    Be “Tolerant”, get used to being “Tolerant”, and learn how to be a good dhimmi. That is what the ideology of “Tolerance” is all about.

Comments are closed.