Depressive Tolerance

Tolerance will be enforced by executive power, i.e. by special judicial institution or special police, if Ministry of the Interior proves to be more appropriate than Ministry of Justice, and, in order to prevent any unwanted contingencies, we’ll get the Orwellian “Ministry of Love” to employ all those non-governmental activists who failed to worm their way into public institutions. This cements the already standard procedure of letting the NGOs implement Government’s policies, while gently laying the police baton in the hands of NGO activists arguably relieving their Freudian penis envy a bit. This author really can’t conceive any other interpretation of this paragraph but, if the reader thinks we are overreacting, just take it easy – this has only just began.


Before discussing something, it is appropriate to possess at least a vague notion about what it is. Before drafting a law, it is consequent to determine whether it is reasonable or …
… yeah, right. We just sketched entirely consequent line of thought, bearing little semblance to customary human behaviour. Yet … so what? It is not a reason to lament over irrationality and incapability of human beings to set things straight in their own minds. Lameness of thought is an endemic, but not the defining attribute of man. Where there is a weakness, there must also be at least the possibility of strength. Where stupidity reigns unchecked, there’s also an intelligence realizing this. However, there are individuals who consider themselves free from this common inadequateness to rational life. In the European Union they are mostly occupying executive boards of influential NGOs or are serving members of it’s institutions, and, if they are really Fortuna’s favourites, they more or less rule the damned thing from their seats in judicial-executive institution named European Commission. Their main task, in accordance with their declarative ability to be consequent, is to define and proscribe, down to the minute details, just what the lab rat thrown in the labyrinth of postmodern political experiment should think, speak and do. Naturally, they also proscribe what will happen to poor thing if it stumbles over to the wrong side of their ever more complicated network of rules.

The Model European Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance In this article we’ll analyze one of the initiatives of this consequent men and women, conceived to finally enthrone in law the principles of thought, speech and act fairly along the lines of ancient Prophets or, as it occurred in more enlightened times, Central comity of Communist Party of some ill fated country from long dead Eastern Bloc. It is an initiative for active implementation of the virtue of Tolerance. If our reader is perplexed as to how the implementation of Tolerance can have bad or, as we’ll demonstrate latter, catastrophic consequences for freedom of thought, speech and act, this author begs for patience. Namely, in what follows we will analyze „The Model European Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance“ (further: MESPT), a document written by 5 (yes, ‘five’) individuals under the aegis of international NGO The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (further: ECTR), with the ambition to lay a foundation for legislatives regulating thought, speech and action of all 743.122.000 citizens of European Union. The detailed analysis of document’s preamble and nine paragraphs will be aided by putting the MESPT in context of current anti-discrimination legislative policy of EU and drenched in most venomous remarks directed against shitheads who conceived it, or are implementing and/or supporting it. The reader with weak stomach is therefore respectfully advised to quit reading further.

The MESPT document is not a convention or declaration, hence it is not merely an expression of principles and values on which the member states of EU should model their legislative and educational systems. On the contrary, it is a Statute “designed for adoption by the respective national legislatures of European States.“ Obviously, then, we are dealing with the draft of a law and not some moral manifesto, as it’s title can seem to indicate. Naturally, it’s easy to get confused, because MESPT does something positive laws never do, and, by their very nature, cannot do. It proscribes the good and the bad, identifying them with legal and illegal. In addition, it’s authors clearly endeavoured to include in it a regulation of one human activity never before sanctioned by secular means. This activity is thought. MESPT, as we shall see, very clearly proscribes the “good thought” not simply as morally favourable, but as legally sanctioned form of social action. The idea of putting the thought into context of social – and this means: group – action is a novelty in itself and something of a contradictio in adjecto. However, as the declared purpose of MESPT is to legally regulate every form of human activity, it is entirely consequent that thought become “socialized”, i.e. transformed into “group thought” of sort, as well. After all, isn’t it entirely consequent to implement the contradiction by enforcing it ad absurdum?

The document was finalized and presented on October the 16th 2012., but it’s authors started pushing it again after Charlie Hebdo massacre. After presentation, ECTR conducted “consultations” with Council of Europe and European Commission against Racism and Tolerance in Strasbourg. Note that Council of Europe is not an institution of EU but “international organization promoting cooperation between European states in the area of legal standards, human rights, democratic development, rule of law and cultural cooperation”. However, this doesn’t mean that MEPST’s authors’ ambitions are not directed to judicial institutions of EU, but rather that they are fairly methodical people. Council of Europe plays a key role in integration of potential member states and it’s influence is much wider than that of the EU institutions managing only actual member states. Conventions passed by Council of Europe as, for instance, European Convention on Human Rights, have power of obligation for all applicants for membership and serve as paradigm for reforming of their respective legislatives. That said, it is interesting how advocates of MESPT are now presenting their document mostly to MP’s and representatives of judicial and political institutions of individual member states. It indicates to an ambition to push the new Tolerance laws primarily at the fundamental level of still partly sovereign member states and only afterwards at the level of EU institutions. On the other hand, for years now the European Commission is trying to get the so called “Directive for Equal Treatment” ratified (Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation {SEC(2008) 2180} {SEC(2008) 2181}) in European Parliament. The Directive originally conceived as a basis for laws improving the work conditions for people with disabilities, mutated into network of rules regulating both public and private life through murky anti-discrimination principles, and it is a fairly reasonable to conjecture that MESPT will be pushed somewhere in between it’s paragraphs.



Repressive Tolerance and group thinking MESPT comprises Preamble and nine paragraphs. We should note that, on the ECTR web page, it is in one place named “European”, while in the other it mutates into “National” Statute for Promotion of Tolerance. At the very outset this provides us with insight into just what amount of crap it’s authors give both to someone else’s national sovereignty and their own attention to minutes of logical and legal expression. Namely, it is obvious that they, for all intents and purposes, devised a draft law as if it were legitimate for them to do, and that they are pushing it before officials of sovereign states who are apparently obliged to appropriate and implement it. This author is at pains to point out a single one more blatant public breach of national sovereignty in non-communist European history after WWII. Naturally, it would be hypocritical to feign blaze astonishment. If someone at this late date of postmodernity still hasn’t realized, based on abundant evidence, that one of the purposes of European Union is to abolish the national sovereignty of it’s member states, he is at this moment probably finalizing the details of divorce from his own reason. However, that said, MESPT is so arrogant and so blatant in it’s blending of attack on sovereignty with the attack on basic civil rights that it leaves even those who understand where the transition really leads slightly astonished. You know how it is: we all wait for death, yet when it knocks on our door, we are nevertheless left speechless. Here’s, for instance, how MESPT is described by it’s authors:

The Model Statute is designed for adoption by the respective national legislatures of European States. Its purpose is to fill a vacuum: although all European States are committed to the principle of tolerance, nowhere is this principle defined in binding legal terms. The principal challenge in preparing the Model Statute was to go beyond rhetoric and generalities, spelling out concrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance.

So let us repeat: MESPT is a draft law devised by five people from certain NGO in order to be implemented by sovereign member states of EU, and enacted as an obligatory, prescriptive framework for thought, speech and action of all their respective citizens. Tolerance is the foundational principle from which and for which special laws supporting this framework will be designed. Eminently, without prejudice, it relates to social groups, and, only derivatively, to individuals as members of groups. In order to understand the meaning of this cardinal virtue, we must first point out how MESPT defines the ‘group’ and the ‘Tolerance’:

Group” means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature.“ (MESPT, 1.(a))

Tolerance is defined as:

Tolerance” means: respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group as defined in paragraph (a).” (MESPT, 1. (d))

For a moment, let us put aside the fact that those concepts are too vaguely defined to serve as a foundation for strict laws that will proscribe what it means to be lawfully tolerant and to criminalize what is unlawfully intolerant. The real radicalism of MESPT is revealed only when we compare them to some definitions from document’s Preamble:

… respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity and the inherent right of every person to be different.
… tolerance postulates an open mind to unfamiliar ideas and ways of life.
… the concept of tolerance is the opposite of any form of unlawful discrimination

… tolerance has a vital role in enabling successful coexistence of diverse groups within a single national society.” (MESPT, Preamble)

Well, here we are presented with almost imperceptible shift of individual human dignity towards the dignity of a group. Namely, MESPT does not speak about the dignity of person in the sense that every man is valuable in- and of himself, so that he must be tolerated, i.e. protected from any unlawful harm. No, nothing of a sort. Dignity of person does not stem from identity but from difference of one’s own group towards another. That way, almost imperceptibly as it were, individual is ditched and replaced with the member of the group. He is endowed with dignity only insofar his group is different than others and he is it’s legally defined member. This of course doesn’t endow him with the right to, God forbid, act intolerantly inside his own group. No go, Tolerance is all-obligatory and in order to implement it, institutions of government must enforce it. And this is where things get really ugly:

It is important to stress that tolerance must be practised not only by Governmental bodies but equally by individuals, including members of one group vis-à-vis another.

Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (Government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practiced either in vertical or in horizontal relationships.“ (MESPT, 3. iii, iv)

Therefore, the individual, as primarily member of a group, must tolerate other groups and their members, but also the members of his own group. And what if he doesn’t? The quotation above leaves no room for frivolous speculation. Government must enforce Tolerance, by making sure that institutions, groups and individuals are tolerant of different groups as well as different individuals in groups different from other groups must tolerate other individuals insofar they are different on grounds of their respective groups being different, or because they are members of, the same group but don’t accept some of it’s features and prefer the features of some other, different, group.

Ridiculous? Of course it is ridiculous when it is actually an attempt to consequently implement the obvious contradiction. There is, however, no contradiction in the choice of the subject of coercion, i.e. the Government. In order to outlaw the Intolerance, Tolerance must be enforced by repressive state apparatus and not only in cases like discrimination on the work place, but it must also be enforced in private and intimate relations; for how else to enforce Tolerance on personal relations then by total surveillance of citizens? In this sense, MESPT is without a shadow of a doubt the blueprint for introducing the police state in both the public and private life. Hence:

To ensure implementation of this Statute, the Government shall:


Without prejudice to existing control mechanism, set up a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute.


(ii) The special administrative unit should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice (although the Ministry of the Interior is another reasonable possibility).

(c) Establish a National Tolerance Monitoring Commission as an independent body – composed of eminent persons from outside the civil service – vested with the authority to promote tolerance.“ (MESPM, 6.(b))

So, there it is, you can’t get it wrong. Tolerance will be enforced by executive power, i.e. by special judicial institution or special police, if Ministry of the Interior proves to be more appropriate than Ministry of Justice, and, in order to prevent any unwanted contingencies, we’ll get the Orwellian “Ministry of Love” to employ all those non-governmental activists who failed to worm their way into public institutions. This cements the already standard procedure of letting the NGOs implement Government’s policies, while gently laying the police baton in the hands of NGO activists arguably relieving their Freudian penis envy a bit. This author really can’t conceive any other interpretation of this paragraph but, if the reader thinks we are overreacting, just take it easy – this has only just began. However, let us make a little digression into some deeper implications of the concept of Tolerance advocated by authors of MESPT.

96870Surveillance and punishment The only way to regulate the relations between persons is to survey them in the moments when they escape warm anonymity of the herd for the intimacy of confessional, bedroom or, for that matter, circle of friends. We see how the authors of MESPT give concrete proposals how the repressive apparatus should be constructed, but even if we bracket this fact for a moment, we can point out one often overseen feature of postmodern social justice warriors who consume this kind of legal crap as it were a vanilla ice cream, and who will be the target group to further enforce it; it’s own civilian informers and snitches. Namely, they are complete, hundred per cent, racists, sexists and collectivists while only thing differentiating them from their Nazi and Communist predecessors is their adolescent adherence to transgression. Libels of Nazism directed towards individuals who for some reason dislike some social group are, on the part of politically correct fanatics, nothing more than pissing against the wind. Because it is crystal clear that they are, as well as the offender they denounce, utterly incapable to observe black man, Muslim or homosexual as a person, but only as an amorphous fragment of group identity. In this sense, the totalitarian Tolerance is cementing the differences between people by herding them into ghettos and pitting them against each other. The only bridge connecting man and women of radically different groups is the fact that they are persons, therefore beings in possession of intrinsic, although not always developed, dignity as individuals. The basis of sympathy towards other human being is transferring of perception of one’s own value to him or her, a simple truth this document turns on it’s head. Namely, Tolerance proscribes, to the contrary of all facts of experience, that one’s own value is achieved only by gluing and stitching value of another to oneself. This renders dignity of person into completely heteronymous matter, prone to infinite possible redefinitions by political institutions. Defining the individuals through groups eradicates their lowest common denominator quite efficiently. And in the end, everything outside the reach of Tolerance is criminalized.

And what exactly are some of those crimes against Tolerance to be prevented and sanctioned in the future? Let us start by defining their potential victims:

The purpose of this Statute is to:

(e) Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.“ (MESPT, 2.(e))

Bearing in mind how vaguely all of these criminal acts are defined, while, when it comes to coercive measures, suddenly everything becomes clear and precise, there’s really no need to point out that something is rotten in here. But it’s no fun to talk about principles all the time. That way we can’t insult anyone in particular. So we’ll point out the italicized word and ask how exactly can antifeminism become form of discrimination? If we are aware that feminism is a movement relying on certain anthropological and sociological theories which, just to mention in passing, have to do with true social sciences as much as FEMEN members have to do with N-size bras, we have to ask ourselves: what it really means to commit anti-feminist crime? The answer is simple. By defining the cardinal sin of Intolerance, MESPT teaches the following:

Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.“ (MESPT, 1(b))

Well now, if we are to stick to concrete examples in order to show just how criminal Intolerance looks like in practice, the italicized misdeed is something we can commit right now. The author begs the readers to consider following passages as a thought experiment only. God forbid the undersigned would even think, let alone say, the following:

“Feminists, judging by the example of FEMEN hags, are international chicken coop of aggressive members of gentler sex, dominated by “alpha” males, who by means of shrieking, simulated masturbation using the crucifixes and other religious symbols, and by flashing their tiny but – a redemptory feature – apparently firm tits, collectively attack the enemies of people who devise documents like MESPT. By doing so, they rely for their personal safety on civilized tradition of free speech and traditional male reluctance to kick female ass, which is, admittedly, aesthetically more useful in other ways, and all that in order to efficiently perform their duties towards concrete policies of Euro-Atlantist Bloc. They justify their existence with all those theories that prevent model citizen to describe some aging feminist publicist as a hag who exercises her urge to remain in the public spotlight and masks it with combination of verbal brutality towards males and saccharine sentimentality towards victim groups as, for instance, Palestine children, while her entire oeuvre indicates to a fact that her only real motive is sentimentality over her own self and gaining attention by wielding other people’s children as a weapon. And all of this is possible because scientific community takes seriously whole bunch of quasi-scientific theories gathered under the aegis of woman- and gender-studies”

If – Tolerance forbid! – this passage really expressed this authors opinions and attitudes – and it is not, everybody knows that firmness trumps size – you, the reader, would have a full right to report him as a full-fledged criminal (and you won’t, because who in the right mind would imply that FEMEN hags are in fact members of under capacitated chicken coop, apparently cock starved because dominated by a single cock?). This passage is a criminal act on various levels. It is insulting towards FEMEN members and aging feminists and it pronounce factual truth, but legal untruth, that feminist theory is crap. Naturally, one can object that public speech doesn’t tolerate first two points, not because they are untrue – in case of FEMEN they are empirically proven – but simply because they are insulting. However, behaviour of FEMEN members is borderline terrorist, yet it is not deemed essentially illegal, while most feminist publicists strategically use profanities, which never posed as an obstacle to their public acclaim as well as the approved political correctness of their expression. Pointing out of worthlessness of feminist anthropology and sociology is also a “group libel”, because it practically calls for epistemological genocide: the destruction of bogus science by denial of it’s financing. So the passage is unequivocally a criminal act, a deed of verbal delinquency equal to calling for a lynch mob. The only problem is it doesn’t call anyone to anything, but simply states the truth known or, at least, glimpsed by more or less everybody. MESPT, for all intents and purposes, revokes the freedom of speech and, consequently, the freedom of thought rendering the freedom of rational act impossible. The groups are defined in such a way that more or less anybody can define him- or herself as a member of a victim group. If the document should really be incorporated into legislative, this will create hypertrophy of self-victimization. As the public action will become possible for individuals only if they can present themselves as members of victim group, it is obvious that we’ll end up with the situation where public life will be rendered into permanent struggle for acquiring this symbol of high social status, necessary for procurement of power to accomplish fairly mundane interests. Here we must point out the essential thing. MESPT delivers the freedom into the hands of law maker and it’s enforcers. If we can think, speak and act only as group members, then every thought, word and act is possible only if government provides us with ability to express or enact it, by enforcing it in our name through legal framework which will have to grow increasingly complicated if it is to satisfy the appetites of all citizens. We are talking, therefore, about complete surrender of one’s own mind and will into the hands of institutions of repression. One should not deem this impossible, because silent invitation to renouncing one’s own independence is being sold as a provision of social status – in fact, the provision of only conceivable right of citizenship, justifying and rewarding the weakness of individual. “Strength is weakness, weakness is strength”. Isn’t it a slogan that would even sell a fridge to Eskimo?



Instilling the Tolerance However, despite all conveniences MESPT provides to people eager to renounce their own conscience, social engineering cannot be implemented without systemic conditioning of younger generations. In this respect, it’s authors haven’t left us wanting as well:

The Government shall ensure that:
(a) Schools, from the primary level upwards, will introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others.

(ii) It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary school. Yet, these courses must be offered also at higher levels of education, up to and including universities.

(b) Similar courses will be incorporated in the training of those serving in the military and law enforcement agencies.
(c) Training and tolerance awareness courses will be made available to different strata of society, with an emphasis on professional groups.“ (MESPT, 8.)

There’s more where that came from, but this passage will suffice. Tolerance, as we can see, shall be enforced from the cradle to the grave, regardless of age, profession or social position. Everybody will be trained in Tolerance as defined above. At this moment, this author’s homeland of Croatia is expecting the implementation of so called “Civil education and upbringing” programme, which, among other things, strives to prepare children for lowering the minimum age for voting to sweet 16. Aside of the fact that mass extension of voting rights in past totalitarian regimes – and especially in early Stalinist Russia – served to extensively legitimize the power of the state and not to extend the freedom of it’s citizens, this appears to be, quite accidentally, a good ploughing method for preparing the social grounds to be fertilized by manure of Tolerance. Seeing how it all fits together neatly, one could even get the idea that Euro bureaucrats working in diverse fields are – perish the thought! – conspiring together. In any case, Croatian educational monstrosity, like all curriculums founded on UN’s World Core Curricula, with their “civil competences” and “outcome-based education” is wonderfully apt to implement Tolerance and interface our little piece of mud into the system of transition.

Well, let us let the children play, while they still can. Here in Balkans, when you hear the word ‘law’, the first thing that pops in your mind is “I’m screwed”. This is completely appropriate reaction to MESPT, because we are, indeed, about to get very screwed.

Namely, six crimes are listed in paragraph 7. of the document: we already mentioned two of them (incitement to violence and group libel), furthermore, another one is related to “hate” crimes and three are in various ways related to Holocaust. The last three open so many questions that we can’t appropriately analyze them inside the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that they serve to enthrone this historical event as an Event, i.e. a transcendent being of a sort, towards Which everyone, except victim group of course, will have to pay reverence with recognition of their inherited and ineradicable guilt. This, in accordance with Tolerance laws, will surely apply even to those members of victim group who beg to differ, and whose famous representative nowadays is an American political scientist Norman Finkelstein. If you want to know how the man accused of “Holocaust denial”, although all of his family, save for mother and father, was slaughtered in It, looks like and what he’s got to say, you can consult this link.

But let us go back to Intolerance in wider sense of the word and the crimes this author committed against feminists. Authors of MESPT don’t strictly proscribe the penal sanctions to be applied, except in one case. Namely, when they are committed by children:

Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.“ (MSEPT, 7 (b))

So, for instance, when horde of apes is sexually exploiting juvenile and adolescent girls of other group, and the police, out of fear from being Intolerant, doesn’t react for years, because apes are members of protected group, i.e. Muslim minority, and victims belong to Christian or secular majority, and their numbers after few years explode far above thousand, as was the case in British town Rotheim, then the kid who develops aversion towards the group that brutalized his sister will have to be very, very careful about what he says or does about it. Well, this author has to note that, although he can’t prove it, he is of strong opinion that authors of MESPT know full well just what will happen afterwards. Inability to express the insufferable frustration in words leads to psychosis and, in given case, will probably end up in explosion of psychotic violence. And if it comes to such violence, the social control over both vertical and horizontal relations in society has to be strengthened. Dear reader: the Tolerance is not your virtue. It is a virtue of elite. When vaguely defined social groups become the fundamental identity of some nation’s population, then the permanent clashes are unavoidable, as well as their permanent regulation. And regulation is possible only if it comes from above; it becomes permanently necessary, as a constituting element of redefined human nature, because man is no more a person but member of a group. This is fairly simple equation. A generalization, one could say. But does this really make it unconvincing if we interpolate in it the fact that MESP is a 12 pages document, therefore the equation as simplified as it is shameless. Be that as it may, it can only result in chaos and the only open question remaining is, whether it’ll be controlled or uncontrolled chaos. The purpose of education instilling something is control. How successful it will prove to be, and what new deviations will it engender, depends on success of imposing MESPT on EU member states and consequent strict implementation of criminalization of Intolerance.

Closely watched media In the end, to protect people from reading monstrosities the reader was exposed to by reading this criminal article, the authors of MESPT haven’t neglected the regulation of media:

The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance,
The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission.“ (MESPT, 9, (b), (c))

Well, let’s get back to our example of criminal group libel against FEMEN members, aging feminist and feminist theory, this author already committed. Let us then subtract FEMEN hags and Baba Yaga and retain only blasphemous attack on feminist theory. This paragraph can serve to protect exactly that, the feminist’s conceptual foundation, it’s scientific relevance. If antifeminism is crime, any proposition criticizing feminist ideas, no matter how well founded, and denying epistemological value of gender theories and similar rubbish, is in itself also a crime. It will be detected and punished by mass media complaints commission. Let’s continue the experiment by trying to creatively infer just how this commission will work. Some person, for the sake of argument will call her a “scag”, reads a news papers or magazine article questioning the unquestionable truth that her gender is unrelated to a factual state of her (his/it’s) sex organs. The “scag” will promptly perform her/his/it’s civil duty and contact some NGO which will render her/his/it’s complaint into a fiery tractate against misogynist hate speech. Media complaints commission will consult the law and sanction the offender. Of course, in order to realize this more than likely scenario into efficient and customary practice, it is imperative to train whole bunch of potential informers and snitches, as well as inquisitors. However, the matter is delicate, because:

This is a delicate matter, inasmuch as there is no intention to censor the media. The media complaints commission is supposed to consist of independent persons, but it has to be set up by – and report to – the media themselves, rather than the Government.“ (MESPT, 9. (i))

Here we are presented with standard example of modifying the “public-private” into “political-civil” partnership, where Government gives the order, and non-government sector enforces it, which should fool someone who thinks that the only function of his head is nodding, that it is an example of divorcing, and not in fact of total merging, of Government and civil society. Similarly to two already mentioned institutions for enforcement of Tolerance, media complaints commission would be a Government’s non-Governmental organization which by virtue of non-Governmental- prefix is licensed to harass and mug the journalists straying from party line. The fact that it is not, in contrast to central institution for enforcement of Tolerance, attached to concrete Ministry of Justice or Internal Affairs, would only serve the purpose of maintaining the illusion of independence and private character of media, which will regardless of this be obliged to accept it’s decisions and bow to it’s complaints. Having said that, it is obvious that article you are just reading is a crime against Tolerance and on many levels. Luckily, it’s published on Internet, on the authors privately owned, non-profit, website hence not in the privately owned media but privately owned electronic publication. However, if it is a crime, then how can institutions let this author go unpunished? The law must apply to all. Authors of MESPT are aware of this contradiction and address it in the last sentence of the document:

There is a related issue of Internet abuse through the spreading if intolerance. However, initiatives to bring about a legal regulation of cyberspace are currently debated in a wider context. It is too early to speculate how the matter will be resolved.“ (MESPT, 9 (c), (ii))

So, in plain English: “We don’t know how it’s going to be, but we very well know what we want”, all five of us. If this initiative gets off the ground, there’ll come a moment when you won’t be able to legally read articles such as this. Perhaps it doesn’t grieve you much, but it would be appropriate, in conclusion, to note one more thing. From all the atrocities one encounters on Internet, from pornographic bestiality to chopping the heads off with blunt blades, it seem that only Intolerance merits it’s regulation. We are insinuating maliciously, of course. The authors of MSEPT haven’t said it. But they sure as hell did think it, because if the law cannot be universally applicable, there must be something wrong with it.

After all:

There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.“(MESPT, 4. (f) ii)

In conclusion we should point out that everybody should read MESPT. This analysis was far from exhaustive, and there is a plethora of interesting things contained in it’s 12 pages as, for instance, omitting the prefix i- from the word ‘immigrant’, together with few interesting paragraphs concerning this particular social group. The question of special treatment of Holocaust is also a story in itself as well as an update of vintage definitions of “anti-Semitism” and “Holocaust denial”, and we must also point out extremely interesting bios of the ECTR members. In any case we should congratulate them on their courage in writing such blatantly open letter of intent of Euro-Atlantist elite towards European people. Additionally, we should commend them for not hiding the fact that their draft law designed to regulate lives of hundreds of millions was written by only five people. And, last but not least, we should honestly and unequivocally invite them to:

“Fuck off!”

Branko Malić

Print Friendly
Liked it? Take a second to support Malić on Patreon!

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *