Whenever we have to address the issue of “progressive” ideology in America today, the debate inevitably finds its way around to the grand idealism of “acceptance” and “tolerance.” The assertion by leftists is that they are on the side of “freedom” and human rights, and that by confronting or separating ourselves from certain behaviors we are revealing our bigotry and discrimination. In other words, leftists assert that all personal beliefs and behaviors must be embraced by the populace in order for society to become pure.
Except, this is not what they really believe. Leftists argue for tolerance of aberrant behaviors while admonishing normal human tribal and biological reactions. They have a vision for the world, and certain beliefs are not accepted within that Utopian fantasy.
The basis of the leftist religion is not a deity, it is self perception. They worship themselves and think the collective is valuable so long as it reaffirms their identity. Anything that might restrict their pursuit of self aggrandizement is considered oppressive. This is why they often argue in favor of moral relativism. They have a delusion in their mind of what they are; they see themselves as a fantastic gift to the world. But, if people are allowed to judge them on their moral failings then they will always be reminded that they are not all that impressive. So, they seek to control the views and speech of others.
While they speak constantly of acceptance, they rely on zealotry to achieve their objectives. They are highly intolerant of people who do not want to participate in their movement or their activism. In fact, one of the most used protest slogans of the political left is “silence is violence.” By refusing to support them, or by keeping to yourself, you automatically become their enemy even if you don’t directly oppose them.
At bottom what leftists really promote is a series of double standards while using accusations of bigotry as a weapon to silence their critics. They have taken control of the narrative because many Americans are afraid to say the truth out loud. The truth is, tolerance is overrated and destructive. Gatekeeping and discrimination, to a certain degree, are absolutely essential to the survival of humanity.
That is to say, intolerance of certain people, beliefs, actions and ideologies is a good thing. We need to bring back rational intolerance.
There are people within the liberty movement and conservative circles that hold more libertarian views on this issue and some of them might suggest that my position runs contrary to the concept of the non-aggression principle. They might say that as long as people are not harming us directly then we should stay out of their way. I say there is a fine line between tolerance and submissive pacifism.
Obviously the globalist establishment and their puppets within the political left are relying on provocateur tactics to a certain degree. One might suggest that they WANT us to lash out violently so they can demonize us further, or they want us to embrace government power more fully so they can paint us as authoritarian. This is a simplistic grade-school view of provocateur methods, though. In reality, the goal of provocateurs is not to get us to react, their goal is to frighten us into DOING NOTHING.
Look at the circus surrounding January 6th, for example. The establishment turned a protest of unarmed people who walked into a building and then left of their own accord into an “insurrection.” Did some people get violent? Of course, though not a single person died because of the actions of protesters. Was there property damage? Nothing compared to the billions in damages caused by the BLM and Antifa riots. But conservative protesters are being labeled enemies of the state and are being locked up right now while BLM is labeled “mostly peaceful.”
The double standard is clear, but the reason for it is often misunderstood. They do not want liberty movement organization. They do not want planned actions. They do not want open marches by conservatives. They do not want the world to see our numbers. They wants us silent and complacent and uninvolved. Provoking a reaction is not the end game. The double standard is not the end game. The end game is for conservatives to give up because they fear the double standard.
Every strategy of the left circles back around to pacification of the population, whether they are accusing us of racism or transphobia or fascism or insurrection. None of this matters. The moment we abandon the fallacies of tolerance and block destructive efforts is the moment we become truly free and effective. There are certain situations in which the non-aggression principle does not apply.
Currently, the US is experiencing full blown 4th Generation warfare. In the span of less than a decade we have seen the imposition of Critical Race Theory, trans ideology, Marxism and a spectrum of progressive concepts invade public schools. American children are being indoctrinated into the leftist fold in a dizzying propaganda blitzkrieg.
Now, the libertarian mindset would suggest that we simply pull our kids out of public schools and remove our participation. That might work for some people, but the vast majority of parents are going to continue placing their kids in schools because they feel they have no other choice. We don’t have the time needed to create new educational systems and alternatives. School vouchers are a start, but even then it would take well over a decade for parents to adjust. The only answer is to shut down the indoctrination, by force if necessary.
Leftist teachers that promote their ideology in class need to be removed from publicly funded schools. CRT, gender fluid propaganda, and one sided socialist concepts will have to be banned from these institutions. Drag shows for kids need to be punished. Gender affirmation surgeries and chemical therapies for children need to be abolished. The invasion of woke disinformation into our media needs to be confronted and companies that promote it should be buried through boycotts.
Tolerance is killing us. Intolerance is the answer. While certain ideological movements might not target you personally, they will eventually destroy everything you love through attrition. And it’s never going to stop, because moral relativism is always finding new ground to desecrate.
You will not be allowed to have principles. You won’t be allowed to call out bad behaviors. Everything evil will be made acceptable. If you really want to know where we are headed as a civilization, check out this trend being protected by courts in Pennsylvania – Satanic clubs for elementary school children at public schools. Some of these clubs are already active.
The first inclination of those of us that defend constitutional values would be to cite religious freedom. Of course, satanic and luciferian groups consistently argue that they are NOT a religion, per se. Rather they claim they are an ideological system. The reason the “After School Satan Club” uses the satanic moniker is because it is by definition religiously related. An ideological club is not necessarily protected by US courts. A religious club is protected. But should this apply to every religious club?
In a way, it makes sense that this would be the natural evolution of leftist conquest. Eventually they are going to need some kind of religious framework to fill the void that politics leaves behind. And what better “religion” than one that is founded in the belief of subjective morality and self obsession?
In this specific instance, I don’t accept that a cult built around promoting narcissism, moral relativism and transhumanism should be allowed around children. I think that communities should gather up their torches and pitchforks and run these people out of town, but that’s just me.
Is this intolerant? Intolerance of behavior rooted in deconstruction is absolutely necessary. Whether you are a religious person or agnostic or atheist, it is undeniable that some methodologies encompass the absolute worst in humanity and should not be embraced. The narrative of tolerance is leading us down a path to quiet compliance and consent.
The political left and the globalist establishment like to play games with our principles. It’s the old Alinsky tactic of holding your opponents to their own list of standards while you operate with no standards. That is to say, they use our love of freedom against us and suggest we must allow them to do what they want or we are not living up to the rules we value.
However, it’s not authoritarian to protect the next generation from indoctrination and it’s not hypocrisy to discriminate against the dark side. If that makes me a bigot, so be it. I would rather live in a civilization of reasonable bigots than watch the world burn in the name of foolish “equity.”
Article cross-posted from Alt-Market.
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
“Tolerance is killing us.”
Hardly, . . . refusal to call communists COMMUNISTS but instead calling them “leftists” or “progressives” or dems or other such nonsense —- all part of the Wall Street—directed communist takeover —- which appears to be successful!
Tolerance is fine as long as the tolerate and tolerated are both within the bounds of God’s standards. In fact, it is necessary to hold to God’s standards and only God’s standards, lest we, like the pharisees “teach for doctrine the commandments of men” making up a bunch of nonsense that God never commanded.
The line is drawn at sin. It is not to be tolerated.
As for those given to sin, when they face their Maker on judgment day, there will be no tolerance shown. God does not tolerate sin. For us to defy Him and tolerate it would not only put ourselves at odds with Him, but would give them a false sense of security and lead them toward eternal damnation.
Speak the truth. The commandments of God are not grievous (1 John 5:3). It is not grievous to bear true witness. If God said it, it is so.
The problem is people conflate matters, in order to serve their own wicked agenda. Within God’s standards, we are essentially commanded to show tolerance – skin color for example. Outside of God’s standards – i.e., sin – we should show no tolerance whatsoever. In fact, the Bible says when it comes to consequence of sin, we are to not show pity (Duet 19:21), much less tolerance. 2 Tim 3:5 says “from such turn away”. 1 Cor. 5:11 says do not associate with them. Believers are told not only show no tolerance, not only show no pity, but turn away entirely.
I don’t know why so many professing Christians seem to have trouble understanding a concept that God couldn’t have possibly made any simpler for us to understand.
If it’s not sin, then tolerate it.
If it’s sin, then don’t tolerate it.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.