This is my translation of article written by Yuri Nesterenko. “Толерастия: ещё хуже, чем СПИД”. It tells about harm of perverted tolerance, which author calls “tolerasty” (Tolerance+pederasty). My personal opinion in this area is very close to one that Nesterenko has so I show my support with this publication.
I use to incline more and more towards thoughts that tolerasts should be destroyed. If not in physical way (greetings to Breivik!) than in moral one.
First of all, let us determine the terminology. What is “tolerasty” and its difference from “good” tolerance? Does “good” tolerance ever exist? Answer on the last question is undoubtedly yes. Having zero tolerance (this means, no tolerance to all foreingn, in personal as well as in state scale), people burn, stone to death and slay each other because of faith, ethnicity or even preference of other sports team. Tolerasty is particular (and almost the strongest) form of liberasty, about which and its differences from normal liberalism I used to write. Except of mentioned article, tolerasty can be determined separately.
If normal tolerance is agreement to not venture in other’s home with a charter of one’s own, than tolerasty is permission for others to venture in your home with their own charters. This is critical and fatal difference.
Several years ago I already written about resemblance of tolerasty as social disease to AIDS, as destroyer of immune system. Bit it need to be refined, because reality is much worse.
Enemies (bacteria, viruses, cancer) who are the threat to life of biological life form have no minds. They are attacking without matter of one’s immune system strength (this depends on the outcome but not rate and intensity of attack). In the organism of society things go other way. Tolerasts are not only refusing to defend and preventing others from it, but also aggravate the attack. They provoke not only with their own (sometimes common because of their actions) weakness, denial of self-defense – they give to enemy a moral right to attack.
Let we have an abstract example. Some group of women begins to promote an idea that any man has a right to rape any woman he liked. Of course this is proclaimed not so rude, something like: “Women must not refuse man’s desire”, but even macho without mathematical education can make a conclusion from it. Activists of this movement explain their arguments so: “We, women, have a great guilt in front of men. For centuries, they were dying in wars, making the hardest physical work, dueling for us, making sacrifices for us… Whatever they have done, we were not only using it, living at their expenses, encouraging gender inequality, creating fairer sex cult as idea of superior woman to whom the man must worship (“and who was able to create this? Not men themselves for sure!”), but also were fooling them, betraying them, stealing from them, teased, humiliated and mocked them, pretending to be untouchables. It is time to end up with the legacy of such uncivil past and compensate all that men suffered!”
All abstracts from here are not without some basis, so one will be not able to reject this as full nonsense. The essence of their demagogy is in several points:
A real trouble of gender inequality is viewed from one side, with positive or negative facts only;
No reasons of all that was said about are discussed; instead of it the conclusion is “it is (only) our fault”;
Argument of collective guilt is used for explanation of collective responsibility and need of compensation the suffering of dead ones (or living, but completely foreign to ones who suffered) with a way chosen.
Let us suppose now that this theory gained a great popularity amongst women or at least that it seems so with efforts of loudmouth minority. Anyway, number of open opponents is decreasing – a small number of women will agree to bear a mark of backward man-hater. How rapists will meet this situation?
Of course they will be overfilled with joy, having so many silly women who are ready to please them with any way, but not only that will happen. Rapists won’t be trying to distinguish silly women from clever ones. They will claim any woman (despite of her own opinion) as legitimate prey, reacting on resistance with real anger and indignation (with consequences clear for victim): “What’s the hell? She must!” And of course, army of rapists will gain new reinforcements from those who before all this either was daring to dream about rape only in their ill-minded dreams or was throwing such minds away. Not all men are rapists (even potential ones), but for big trouble there is more than enough of those who are rapists or will became into them under propaganda. First of all, troubles for those women who are against this idea.
It is also important to point out that those followers of ideology being taken as example are worse enemies of normal women than rapists. Because “followers” are aggravating the amount and insolence of rapists. Because they are making uncontrollable trouble from controllable one. At least, because they are recognized as “friends”. A friend, who changed his side to hostile one, being close and using instinctive trust, is always able to make greater harm than foe. By the way, the worst tolerasts are ones who are preaching their ideas sincerely and without personal interests, though it seems to be unimportant. Sincerity buys with itself. It is unable to unmask this. At last, sincere followers of some ideology cannot be even bribed.
They can only be destroyed.
I once again say: not only physically (Though during war enemy propaganda agents caught behind frontline are shot. It is also hard to imagine a triumph of justice greater than death of tolerast from his defendants – this of course happens*) But the tolerance towards tolerasty must be absolutely zero. I understand how bad example of criminals is, but treatment of tolerasts must be similar to treatment of coc###ckers in jail. An absolute disdain, proclaiming them an abomination which is contemptible even to touch both in physical and metaphorical way; violators will become the same as ones they touch. Neither business nor alliances with tolerasts even in critical situation, no admission of any help from them, if they ever will offer it being driven by their tolerast principles (though in reality their tolerasty ends up when they meet its opponents, being changed by hysteria “Nazis-fascists-racists-homophobes! Oh dear, oh dear! Punish them, shut them up!”)
Oh yes, of course I know their counterargument: „All opponents’ logic has a basic idea of war between us and Muslims, third world immigrants, homosexuals etc. But we say that there is no war and all people are brothers to each other! (except of Nazis-fachists-racists-homophobes, which must be punished and shut up)”. Well, ones can say whatever they want to. A boy named Phoma from soviet juvenile poem denied existence of alligator even being in his mouth. But in response, the alligator “swallowed and submerged into muddy water”. Meanwhile “not enemies” are not even covering their intentions, confirming words with deeds – look for statistics, terrorism as well as common crimes. And rape cases too. Examples you will find are far not theoretical – we heard (not in Pakistan or in Yemen but in Europe!) statements like “European women must not provoke Muslim men with revealing clothes, otherwise the victim is one to blame!”
The trouble with homosexuals is likely not so evident. They are still neither terrorists nor rapists (pedophilia is the separate trouble and not every pederast is pedophile). Sometimes they require from Church to edit the Sacred Scripture, but this is trouble of Church’ followers. Sometimes they claim for right to have their stupid parades, which are disgusting, but one can turn away and don’t watch. Well, sometimes they are trying to claim for adoption rights…
But this is already not just “well”, because if yesterday you allowed homosexuals to have parades and marriages, today they are treating the child with hormones to change his sex. That is a real crime (Don’t lecture the demagogy about how badly the child was treated by common heterosexual society. In reality the number of heterosexual couples who are willing to adopt children is huge; there is no need of such “help”).
I’ll say once more: tolerance is when we are not bothering homosexuals with our rules, and tolerasty is when they are bothering us with their ones. Being adults, they can (voluntary) do whatever they want in their places of living, have various events in closed clubs. But they must keep off our streets, our schools and our children1. If there would have been some method of prepubescent children examination to determine that a child will become 100% homosexual in the future, than homosexual adoption would have a sense. But there are no such methods, and this means: hands off.
By the way, “friend or foe” is not determined by origin. If tolerast was unlucky enough to be born in normal family in some wealthy European country, this does not mean that he will be protecting traditional values of European culture and civilization. If one wants to defend rights of Muslims, he is welcome to convert into Islam and go somewhere like Saudi Arabia. There, those rights are constantly violated. Yeah, with Muslims themselves, who else can do this? Because no one ever seen such miracle as Islam democracy. Likewise, if one wants to protect homosexuals’ rights then he must be a kind of “initiated”. The existing sexual orientation is hard (mostly impossible) to change but this is important for activists only, not for supporters. An act of oral or anal sex with some of favorites, for having no claims upon oneself: everybody will know that this is stand up for own rights, not some foreign ones. Yes, it’s better to be a pederast that a tolerast.
By the way, why heterosexual opponents of homophobia do not wear badges “I am pederast”? Or at least “I am gay”, if they prefer a word with distorted meaning to medical term. Are they so shy? You folks should do how it is said in old russian joke “Take off your cross or put on your pants”2.
The funniest thing will be when you will come to support Muslims wearing such badges.
Of course all this does not mean that if tolerasts are always our enemies, then any of their opponents are our friends. Or if a good idea becames into bad one being supported by at least one tolerast. (Unfortunately, the mistake as: “If those are against Putin, than Putin would be better” is not rare, and this is additional harm done by tolerasts) We are speaking only that tolerasts are main enemies of our civilization of European origin. If we’ll defeat them, then we’ll beat all other opponents – there is not a first time. But if not… if we won’t realize a need of struggle…
In fact the battle is already lost, but only because we didn’t started to fight. It is important to understand that enemy is really weak, having nothing but rather primitive demagogy. And we still have a chance to turn a defeat into the victory.
1. Don’t mock up the fact that child-free and asexual one is speaking about “our children”. Firstly, those are different things: I’m against sex as pleasure but not as a way of reasonable and responsible bloodline continuance. The other thing is that I have neither wish nor skills of upbringing, but if somebody has ones this is wonderful. Secondly, as asexual one, I still choose from variety of alternatives one that is closer to normal – heterosexual family. Similarly, for me as atheist “our” family is European, mostly based on Christianity but not one of Muslim civilization.
2. Speaking literally, this is stupid joke: circumcision is not so rare amongst Christians (beginning from Jesus Christ himself) and willingly conversion of adult into other religion is not hypocrisy (in addition, in U.S.A circumcision is popular as hygienic act without relation to religion), But the phrase from joke became almost a proverb, speaking about double dealing and hypocrisy.
My comment to one of reference materials (all hyperlinks were removed from article).
* Here, Yuri Nesterenko pointed to some russian blog as source of Elin Kranz story. From Western sources, I found controversial information about activities of Kranz before her death. Several persons claim that she was starring in Swedish sexist propaganda video “Mix up” (I’m not giving the link to this abomination here) but no exact names of its staff are known so this conclusion was made from appearance of Kranz only, while that Nordic type is common amongst Swedish girls. Anyway, the one thing is certain here: Kranz was a Swedish multiculture diversity supporter. She was mutilated and murdered by her defendant – serial African criminal named Ephrem Yohannes who fled from U.S.A. to continue his rampage in more “convenient” (for crime) Sweden, where thug doesn’t have to worry about being shot by some vigilant citizen. The similar story of Italian painter Giuseppina Pasqualino (Pippa Bacca) can be mentioned here as another example of murder by defendants. She was raped and murdered by Turkish criminal Murat Karatas during her hitchhiking trip towards the East, which was supposed to become a propaganda of “peace”.