Tolerance and its limits

Nation states, in particular traditional racially homogeneous societies in the West, are now tested with multiculturalism, thanks to vast waves of immigrants, resulting in significant demographical change and heightened racial tensions and challenging the traditional homogeneity of these societies.

Private property, which the Founding Fathers of the United States and other thought leaders of Western societies believed essential for preserving individual freedom, is now being threatened with abolition under the growing pressure of environmentalists, globalist corporations, international organisations, ie the World Economic Forum, and the insidious influence of socialist ideologies among local governments and institutions.

Modern states, whose sovereignty has long been characterised by a centralised government, territorial integrity, and independent political and legal systems, are being tested to be replaced by global mega-corporations like BlackRock and Vanguard. These corporations, with their vast resources and global reach, are increasingly influencing not just economic policies but also social and political decisions, challenging the traditional concept of state sovereignty.

Finally, humanity, regarded as possessing the integrity of both mind and body, is now being tested to transform into new beings, transcending the limitations of the human body and mind through technologies such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence (AI), nanotechnology, and cyborgism.

Crucially, how should society respond to a situation of continually increasing demands for public tolerance without knowing where to draw the lines?

Tolerance signifies a complex relationship between governments and the people. When people become intolerant of a government policy, the government needs to consider how far it can tolerate such intolerance. In the UK, a new term, cultural nationalism, has recently been introduced. This term refers to the belief in the superiority and preservation of one’s own culture, often at the expense of others. Thus, to claim that “Western culture” is under threat from mass migration and lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups is considered unacceptable and dangerous as it is believed to promote ideologies of terrorism. This categorisation is a litmus test for how tolerant the UK is of free speech in the face of intensifying anti-migration sentiments.

In such situations, public intolerance can be exacerbated, potentially inciting widespread discontentment, anger and even hatred. Public intolerance is often expressed through civil movements and disobedience, especially when critical values for their prosperity and survival are at stake. The public refuses to obey specific laws, demands, or commands of a government or authority, either through peaceful or violent means.

Currently, the relationship between the public and governments in the West is deteriorating in areas where the political integrity, competence, and accountability of leaders and institutions are increasingly being questioned, resulting in a decline in trust in government. It exposes a kind of mutual intolerance – the public is more intolerant of political incompetence and corruption, eliciting more widespread public criticism. This results in governments becoming increasingly defensive, proposing more censorship and punitive measures.   

This mutual intolerance has its blind spots, as many Western governments are uncertain about the extent to which they can tolerate public scrutiny, criticism and intolerance. Equally, the public is uncertain about how far their intolerance can go when their discontentment is further neglected, curtailed, or punished. Then, in an environment of such intolerance, everything gets out of control as intolerance becomes a blind, limitless and destructive force.