Intolerance is a sign of powerlessness

Concept of intolerance

It is common for every individual to be hostile towards people whose way of life is radically different from what he is used to. The manifestation of intolerance is most often found in rejection of such human characteristics as:

behavior;
character traits;
beliefs;
manner of dressing;
speech culture and others.

Sometimes intolerance towards someone can only cause us negative emotions, but some openly perceive with hostility the characteristics of other people, poisoning their lives. The most unpleasant thing here is that over time, people who are unpleasant to us are given not the most flattering labels. It turns out that intolerance is a universal human quality, which is expressed in denial and rejection of what is unusual for us. Intolerance can manifest itself not only in relation to an individual, but also in relation to entire nations. We often come across condemnation of such features as:

culture;
national characteristics;
religious beliefs.

Intolerance Intolerant

Intolerance as a personality quality is an unwillingness
to show a respectful and friendly attitude towards a different worldview, lifestyle, convictions, beliefs, opinions, traditions, habits, behavior and shortcomings of other people.
“Probably V. Vysotsky should be considered the most intolerant of Russians,” the liberal will say. - “Just listen: “I don’t like open cynicism, I don’t believe in enthusiasm, and when a stranger reads my letters, looking over my shoulder. I don’t like myself when I’m a coward; I feel offended when innocent people are beaten. I don’t like it when people get into my soul, especially when they spit on it.” An adept of tolerance and permissiveness will say: “Maybe he didn’t like gays and maniacs? Such nice people. Do you know that in Ukraine sexual maniacs are called pussy villains? It's a shame, right? This is probably why they move to us. We must understand and accept that people have an increased sexual appetite. In childhood they were forced to eat by force, so even now they cannot “eat” without violence. People! Be tolerant of sexual predators!”

Such talkers can rant for hours about the absolutization of tolerance and permissiveness, until one day the cherished intolerance bites them in the butt. It is clear that tolerance must have limits. It's paradoxical, but it's a fact. Unlimited tolerance strengthens intolerance, self-destructs, turning into its own opposite.

In a favorable environment, intolerance rears its head and gradually gains the upper hand over careless tolerance.

Intolerance looks reprehensible at everything that is not characteristic or unusual for it. For her there is no “other” and “different”. She thinks in terms of “bad” or “good.” Intolerance is the denial of another

. He who is not with us is against us. The values of others are evil. Well, at best, they are misconceptions, prejudices or biases. Intolerance is one of the extreme forms of a discomfort state, manifested in the desire to discard, suppress, destroy its sources, in particular, people and organizations expressing different opinions, different ideas about the essence of their comfortable and uncomfortable state.

Intolerance always comes with disrespect and judgment of the other person. An intolerant person, faced with a different point of view or unusual behavior of others, will rush to prove that he is right. He does not want to accept the right of others to be different. Therefore, he begins to condemn them, criticize them, show intemperance and categoricalness. He does not so much strive to prove that he is right as to defend his importance, his Self. Intolerance is the daughter of pride. A sense of self-importance, a sense of superiority and ignorance are always actively involved in her fate. An intolerant person cannot and does not want to hear others, because he is absolutely confident in his beliefs.

The great French educators fought for tolerance, but the French Revolution, which grew out of a thirst for freedom, was intolerant in the extreme. The Bolsheviks, although history conceals this, did not think of much in comparison with their French colleagues. It sometimes took the Bolsheviks months and years to demonstrate their intolerance towards other parties and alien class elements. The French Revolution immediately forgot the behests of Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu, losing the slightest tolerance for everything foreign and different. The terror was terrible. A. Bushkov in the book “Stalin. The Red Monarch" writes: "The young noblemen were stripped, tied face to face with naked girls of the same class and, having been cut on the head with a saber, thrown into the water. It was called a "revolutionary marriage." The fighters of the elite battalion named after Marat began the day by drinking a glass of blood. There was a workshop for the production of various haberdashery from the skin of executed people. The Vendeans, in turn, stuffed gunpowder down the prisoners' throats and set them on fire. The terror continued in accordance with the “Law on Suspects,” according to which anyone who “spread false news,” “obstructed the education of the people,” “corrupted morals,” or “corrupted public consciousness” deserved death. Anyone can be caught up in this, fortunately no evidence is required, only mysterious “moral evidence” is enough. Witnesses, jurors, lawyers - none of this is expected in the new trial.”

Tolerance and intolerance are very “subtle” concepts. It will always be difficult for us to find the line beyond which the fight against intolerance will turn into the Polunin “Nizya” - the flowering of censorship and prohibitions. On the other hand, by giving the green light to intolerance, we risk security and corruption of morals. For example, society is interested in the question of how to treat people with non-traditional sexual orientation. Where is this fine line between tolerance and intolerance? The position of Faina Ranevskaya is curious in this context. At a troupe meeting, the actors discuss a comrade who is accused of homosexuality: “This is the corruption of youth, this is a crime.” “My God, an unfortunate country where a person cannot control his ass,” Ranevskaya sighed.

An intolerant person, without hesitation, will say that they all need to be drowned, shot and hanged. In a word, depending on character and imagination. But we must remember that among them there are many extremely gifted people who bring great benefit to society. Humanity would lose a lot if it lost Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, Michelangelo, Monet, Rodin, Handel, Wagner, Saint-Saens, Byron, Mercury, etc.

It is impossible to erect an iron curtain between “straight” and “other.” Hiding them in prisons and mental hospitals is an adventurous, absurd idea. We have already learned and passed this lesson. Making homosexuality the norm is also a danger. We ourselves create polarization and agitation of non-traditional orientations. Apparently, the line between tolerance and intolerance lies on the plane: if a person adheres to a non-traditional orientation, it is his personal matter. But when he begins to impose it on others, tolerance comes to an end. Tolerance already does not tolerate intolerance, but when it exceeds all reasonable limits, it is necessary to reduce its ardor. Remember how in I. Krylov’s fable the cook shames the cat who ate the sour cream: “And you... wow, what a shame! Now all the neighbors will say: “Vaska the cat is a cheat! Vaska the cat is a thief! And Vaska, not just in the kitchen, should not be allowed into the yard, like a greedy wolf into the sheepfold: He is damage, he is a plague, he is a plague of these places! (and Vaska listens and eats.).” Then Grandfather Krylov advises both the cook and us: “And I would tell another cook to notch it on the wall: So as not to waste speeches there. Where power needs to be used.”

Well-known journalist Dmitry Kiselev, in the context of our topic, said: “Gay culture has the right to exist in Russia, and it de facto exists. But it is a minority culture and will remain so. Because the culture of a minority should not be imposed on the majority, especially by force, by propagandists. I do not believe that non-traditional sexual orientation is a disease. I don’t even think that it goes beyond the physiological norm, but I am convinced that it goes beyond the social norm. Every country has the right to a social norm. Our social norm is family. The Russian state is obliged to support our social norm also because it is vitally important for it. A family is children being born. And we have a demographic crisis. Supporting the spread of gay culture in our country is tantamount to self-destruction.”

Intolerance is presented by demagogues as an aggressive, dark elemental force that prevents a modern humane society from boldly striding into the city of the Sun in the land of universal happiness. Faith, integrity, strong convictions, life principles and a willingness to call a spade a spade fall into the same cauldron with intolerance. What kind of tolerance is there when not only individuals, but also entire social groups and even states fall into the category of harmful thinkers?

Tolerance and intolerance are two poles, dual oppositions. Let's say we want to become tolerant. Therefore, the polarity of “becoming tolerant” is relevant for us. But we would be wrong if we lose sight of the other pole – “becoming intolerant.” To move towards tolerance, we need a pole from which we start. It is created automatically in the subconscious. The more we want to become tolerant, the more it is important to us, the more we subconsciously make ourselves intolerant. If it were otherwise, we would not be able to move to the opposite pole. Importance creates excess potential, to eliminate which equilibrium forces are used. Therefore, you need to work with both poles. If we engage in intolerance, the forgotten pole (tolerance) retains its opposite. Therefore, the issue of intolerance cannot be resolved by forgetting about tolerance. Tolerance and intolerance - parrots are lovebirds. Working with intolerance, we also work on tolerance.

Petr Kovalev Other articles by the author: https://www.podskazki.info/karta-statej/

Religious intolerance

Perhaps one of the most destructive manifestations of intolerance for humanity is the attitude towards someone else's religion. The basis of any religion should be faith in one God, but one should try to treat the rituals, prayers and holidays of each individual religious branch with respect and understanding. Intolerance towards other religions led to wars, persecution and oppression of those undesirable. Such phenomena were described in one of his articles by Ernest Radlov.

When Christianity was considered a forbidden religion, its followers were persecuted and declared state criminals. All disasters and turmoil that occurred in the country were attributed to Christians. Although they were quite harmless for public policy, and also preached values such as freedom of the church and freedom of conscience.
When Christianity became the state religion in 312, pagans, Jews, and various sects began to be persecuted. Here, intolerance began to manifest itself on the part of Christians who believed that they were the ones who knew the truth.
The merger of the state with the Christian church led to the Inquisition, which kept all believers in fear.

From this we can conclude that the attempt of one religious movement to declare its monopoly on the truth leads to intolerance towards other religions. It is therefore important that justice, understanding, and cooperation between representatives of different religious denominations prevail in such matters for the benefit of all believers.

How to implement the principle of zero tolerance for intolerance

Any attempts to forcibly restrict someone's freedom should be severely punished. And there should be no political correctness.

The fight against intolerance must be waged primarily through a ban on relevant propaganda. If, for example, a clergyman calls for the implementation of Sharia laws (and these laws provide for death for converting to another religion, death for “illegal” sex, etc.), then such a clergyman should immediately be deprived of citizenship and sent to his teachers in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Together with everyone who supports him and shares his views. If you wish death on others, you have no place in Modern society.

Violent actions should be punishable by imprisonment, and their approval should be punishable by deprivation of citizenship and deportation from the country (to states with an ideology close to extremists).

If anyone tries to forcefully impose any tradition or custom, then such tradition should be prohibited. Including in cases where an ethnic or religious group tries to punish its members for departing from traditions.

In France, Arab girls who do not wear a headscarf are persecuted by their fellow believers. Similar facts were described in the French press; this caused outrage in French society and led to a ban on the wearing of religious symbols (including Muslim headscarves) in educational institutions.

A ban on tradition must be established when three conditions are simultaneously met:

A social group imposes this tradition on all its members by force. Those. There are people who would like to stop following this tradition, but are unable to do so or are subject to persecution (in any form) for this.
The ban applies only to this social group and does not apply to other people. Otherwise, a ban on tradition would limit the freedom of other people.
Most members of a social group approve of the forced imposition of tradition or do not oppose it.

If the majority of members of a social group consider the right to reject a tradition to be legitimate, then they should not suffer from a ban on the tradition. In this case, the tradition cannot be prohibited, but it is necessary to persecute those orthodox people who are trying to take revenge on people for abandoning the tradition. Members of a traditional social group are obliged to provide assistance to the state in this matter, and refusal of such assistance should serve as a reason for banning the corresponding tradition.

In uncivilized societies, cases of Nazism, racism and even genocide often remain barely noticeable to the outside world, since they are carried out spontaneously, by the population itself, within the framework of many “private” conflicts. Typical examples are the genocide of Russians in Chechnya in the 1990s or the ousting of Serbs from Kosovo. Such cases become possible as a result of widespread mass intolerance inherent in traditional societies and thanks to the anti-legal consciousness of the traditionalist population. Modern society must monitor such cases and firmly rebuff them.

One should not think that such a rebuff is impossible within the framework of the rule of law. For example, when a black riot began in Los Angeles, the American leadership took tough measures and over 30 thousand people were arrested in a few days. Active participants in the riots were held accountable through a fair process.

The most humane measure would be the deprivation of citizenship and the expulsion from the country of fundamentalists and other promoters of violence and intolerance.

One of the manifestations of nationalism is the support of a “countryman” by representatives of his nationality in a conflict or dispute with a representative of another nationality. For example, in a conflict between a Chechen and a non-Chechen in central Russia, the Chechen has the forceful support of many of his “countrymen.” Such support is provided outside the legal framework (i.e., by illegal methods) and regardless of the essence of the conflict (i.e., support for a Chechen is carried out on a national basis, and not because he is right according to the law). In other words, such support has all the signs of nationalism, and since it is carried out by force, it also has Nazism .

In modern society, such manifestations must be strictly suppressed by law enforcement agencies. It is necessary to adopt an article on organized illegal pressure with the possibility of detaining those suspected of carrying out such pressure (for example, in the event of the appearance of a large “support group” for one of the parties to the conflict, this group should be detained and bear criminal responsibility for mafia support). If in the “power support group” the share of a certain nationality significantly exceeds the share of this nationality in the region, then these people should bear criminal responsibility for Nazism and inciting national hatred (this proposal is equal in relation to all nationalities, it is equally directed against the Dagestan bandits in Moscow , and against Russian bandits in Dagestan).

It should also be noted that many so-called “diasporas” have a hierarchical structure, with their leaders engaged in ransoming “their” criminals from the police, organizing force support in conflicts, etc. That is, these are not diasporas, but classic mafia structures engaged in anti-legal activities. And their active members must be dealt with in the same way as members of criminal gangs.

Undoubtedly, “classic” Nazis, such as skinheads, should receive a similar rebuff. Their actions are doubly harmful - firstly, they are illegal, and secondly, they are unfair and hinder the integration of national minorities into Modern society, because As a rule, attacks are carried out on the most harmless representatives - for example, on foreign students, and not on members of ethnic criminal groups.

All these measures must be carried out uncompromisingly, without succumbing to forceful pressure and aggression.

Every victory of an intolerant society over a tolerant one destroys the germs of tolerance in an intolerant society. Ideologists of intolerance get an additional reason to say that intolerance leads to victory, and tolerance leads to “decay,” etc. Therefore, “pacifying” an intolerant society is meaningless - it does not lead to compromise, but to a further increase in intolerance (and therefore an increase in aggressiveness).

For the same reason, one should never comply with the demands of terrorists, and also follow logic like “tough policies will lead to the growth of terrorism.” By accepting this reasoning, we thereby demonstrate the effectiveness of violence, incl. terrorism and encourage it.

Undoubtedly, all this will be accompanied by desperate resistance, incl. associated with a risk to people's lives. But when a thief is detained, he also resists, and sometimes even shoots back on crowded streets - but this is not a reason to allow him to continue stealing.

Intolerance and ideology

Intolerance is also one of the characteristics of any ideology. This is explained by the fact that the basis of any ideology, like religion, is its own dogmas, its own ideals. The psychology of any leader is superimposed on the policies he pursues, which, in turn, shapes the psychology of the masses. The people receive their idea, through which they are united and united with the political leader. But at the same time, often those who hold different views automatically become enemies. The dominant ideology can suppress the resistance of those who disagree with it. Although we must pay tribute to the fact that some political movements are characterized by bright, humane ideas. But there are also parties that are characterized by absolute extremes in their activities. These include:

the ideology of fascism - the leader’s confidence that the state has the right to interfere in the lives of its citizens, control them, convince them of the superiority of their race over others, and fight dissent in every possible way;
a policy of repression - a complete ban on the manifestation of freedom and openness when discussing various political decisions, the lack of freedom of speech in the state, the impossibility of holding fair elections, intolerance towards dissidents and their punishment.