Intolerance is killing democracy
Is this deliberate?
World wide wars have been fought, millions of people have died, all in an effort to save us all from the extreme intolerance of fascism. Governments through some form of democracy has been maintained, at least in part, to ensure intolerance does not take control. Yet, if the media is to be believed, intolerance is silencing opinions, declaring that some views are not “acceptable”. Acceptable to who? To a democratically elected majority? Sadly no. Ideas are declared unacceptable by a self appointed un-elected group who consider themselves so superior to everyone else. Is this an accurate statement? or is the truth far more sinister. Is the present politically correct intolerance actually an extremist plot to destroy democracy? Is it extreme socialism or extreme fascism, that is trying to suppress ideas they do not agree with? Could be either, as in actual real effect, as experienced by the governed, they are the same.
Tolerance is defined as- to treat with indulgence or forbearance, the beliefs, actions etc. of others.
Some things are widely accepted as being not tolerable; for example, dictatorships by Fascist or Communist repressive regimes, who control by fear and allow no views to be expressed other than their own. Democracy is government by the majority and so in a democracy it is the majority who decide what is tolerable.
Most democratic majorities will take the view that in general, murder, child abuse, wanton destruction of property; these are all things where tolerance can not be shown; hence there are secular laws against these things. Under British and American secular laws, everything is allowed unless it has been specifically banned by law. So how have we reached a state when a person can be vilified, harmed, prevented from expressing an opinion, when they have not broken any laws? In Britain a world wide renowned author is being subjected to abuse because she voiced, a popular belief that, men and women are biologically different. She did not suggest either was superior in any way, just that they are biologically different from each other. This throws up a consideration that appears in so many of these cases of orchestrated intolerance, the idea being declared as unacceptable, is generally something the majority find quite acceptable. So is all this politically correct constructed intolerance, actually a deliberate plan by people who wish to overthrow democracy? Who else wants to prevent majority views being expressed?
What causes people to assume they, and those homogeneous to themselves, should be the arbiters on what views the majority should be allowed to hear? There are not many candidates for election who will stand in the hustings and declare that if elected they will stop all expression of popular belief, stop all generally accepted normality begin acceptable. They will suppress all ideas and opinions, other than their own. So how can the people organizing the intolerance, bypass democratic supervision of what every they wish to silence? The answer is in the fact they they operate within a democracy, one which is tolerant. They can only demand intolerance because of the tolerance of the majority. They use the very concept they wish to destroy, as weapon. There is visible political selectivity in the choices of who to “outlaw;” for example, one set of targets for intolerance at a level where every statue and remembrance plaque must be removed; are those who supported eugenics-- oddly except for one very famous supporter, the founder of a world wide abortion clinic. We appear to be living in the “Orwellian nightmare.”
The fact is, that they know they can not get elected in a democracy, while standing on a “platform” of intolerance and so they seek to silence others though media pressure, through economic sanctions, not legal sanctions but quasi or downright fake, moral ones. They are seeking to turn the democracy into a dictatorship, without even having contested an election. They try to use the very tolerance and the apparent apathy, of the majority, to subvert and enslave that same majority. Students have what they may hear spoken about controlled, but not by those wishing to expand their ideas and thinking, but by groups of activists who use the reluctance of the majority, reluctance to get involved on “politics” to subvert and redirect the flow of knowledge reaching the students. Such is the danger to democracy. Our very tolerance added to our reluctance to actually oppose anyone, is being used to destroy what so many died to achieve. The silent majority will express their views through the ballot, but we have to take care to ensure that the majority are not subverted by the zealots and those who wish to dictate what we all are are allowed to think and say.