INTOLERANCE— THE SOURCE OF THE VIOLENCE

On November 10 in Portland Oregon the “protests” transformed and became “a riot.” Men in masks using baseball bats started damaging cars, smashing windows, setting fire to buildings, looting businesses, setting police cars on fire, and destroying private property. Later, at least one person has been beaten by angry hoodlums simply because he voted for Trump. And why? Because they didn’t get their way in the election. This response is not the democratic response, it is the response of primitive societies.

Now we know where the earlier violence came from. Earlier during the campaign violence burst out at some of the Trump Rallies and people complained and even charged Trump with causing it. But now we know the truth of the source— “the angry left.” The good news is that others on the Left are calling for calm.

So, what is the source of the violence? Where does it come from? It arises from the intolerance of those on the Democratic party’s “far left.” Many of the protesters are simply communicating their views and opinions and are not engaging in violence. Yet even some of them, far too many of them, are justifying the violence by their words. In interviews with them in the past two days many have argued that those committing violence have the right to disagree. What? You mean disagreeing is the same thing as committing crimes of violence? When did that happen?

What’s amazing is the rise of a new form of intolerance. Some or many on the liberal side now hold some very intolerant attitudes toward anyone who disagrees with them or has a different view thing. They proclaim tolerance and act with rigid intolerance! They charge Trump and the right wing as being intolerant as Hitler and yet are so intolerant that they engage in violence!

Where does violence come from? Intolerance. When people become intolerant and will not allow diverse opinions and view-points, they begin to shut down and prevent people who think and value differently. This is the problem with the whole “politically correct” movement— a problem George Orwell spoke about via his creative novels— his 1984 and Animal Farm books. Today far too many University Professors and students have invented an intolerant set of values that they define as being politically correct and punish anyone who violates it.

Interesting enough the two candidates who did not subscribe to political correctness started two movements—Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Conversely the persons who were “politically correct,” namely, Obama and Clinton, were on the losing side. They would not even name the enemy— Radical Islam Terrorism. That phrase has nothing to do with legitimate Islam. Instead it emphases a perversion of Islam, something “radical” and a belief system committed to violence and terrorism. Every Moslem believer that I know (and I know hundreds who are valued colleagues in

Neuro-Semantics) are quick to condemn that perversion. May their numbers grow!

The intolerance of some on the left is now showing up in the protests and which is getting out of control at times in the riots. What are they protesting? They cannot be protesting the election process about popular vote because we have always elected presidents by the Electoral College. And Trump won 290 to 228; State after State that were expected to go for Hillary did not, but went for Trump. Whatever “rationalization” they come up with to justify the protests, it will be shallow, inadequate, and forced. There is no reason. None occurred when Obama was elected. None with other presidents.

The problem is intolerance. Paradoxically they intolerantly carry “No hate!” signs and speak hateful language about Donald Trump! In all of this there is the lack of critical thinking. If they listen carefully, they might discover that Donald Trump never once said that he hated anyone. He never encouraged anyone to hate any other person. What he did instead was to focus on certain criminal behavior—murders, inability to vet people coming into the country, etc. Did he sometimes over-state his case and fail to contextualize the persons involved? Yes he did. Yet the idea of “hate” was invented and promoted by various media outlets. A great way to sell papers and increase an audience, but a terrible way to accurately communicate.

The fruit of intolerance—violence—arises from the seeds that have been planted for many years. What are those “seeds?”

• Entitlement: The world owes me; the government owes me happiness and anything that I say is a “need.” I expect that I get health care, college education, no taxes, etc.

• Over-sensitivity: You should never say anything that upsets me. If you say anything that I don’t like, you must stop. Otherwise you are abusing me. I have the right to demand that you not offend me. You do not have the right of speech, only I do. (This is also called immaturity!)

• Lack of discipline: Don’t expect me to discipline myself, be responsible for myself, and don’t enforce the laws when I violate them or others violate them.

• Failure to understand democracy and “the democratic contract.” There is an astonishing lack of understanding of our history and what democracy is and means. I solved that problem with the book— Political Coaching (2015). (You can order it on www.neurosemantics.com).

If that’s the source, what’s the cure? How do we cure dogmatic and rigid intolerance? That’s the question, isn’t it? That’s what we have to change. What we need is openness, acceptance of differences, critical thinking, willingness to engage in debating issues and not personalizing them, etc. And that’s what we work on every way in Neuro-Semantics ... and that will be the theme of forthcoming posts.