Tolerance is the ideology of slavery. Russia needs to abandon the concept of "tolerance in

Social activist Irina Bergset about the disastrous European model of "gender pluralism" and the danger of dehumanization.

Today, November 8, 2016, on the Zvezda TV channel, a recording of the TV program "Process" took place about how justified is the introduction of the Western ideology of "tolerance" in Russia today? Irina Bergset, coordinator of the "Russian Mothers" movement, was invited to the TV program as an expert.

"Today, Russia has been hit by a flurry of claims from Europe and all sorts of European organizations about the fact that, they say, the European word “tolerance” is being introduced very slowly here. And how much faster? On September 1, 2016, in every school in Russia, by order from Europe, the academic year in our country began with an all-Russian “lesson of tolerance”. And from day to day the Government of Russia will approve new strategy"tolerance" to "eliminate motherhood in the Russian Federation by 2020" and to replace the stereotypical role of a woman-mother with a "tolerant" European model of "gender pluralism".

This strategy was written under the dictation of the Council of Europe by the Ministry of Labor of Russia. And he not only wrote and agreed with the EU, but allegedly already “discussed” it with the Russian people. The strategy of "tolerance" was presented to the Russian government as the most important and urgent for every Russian woman. Allegedly, this strategy is exactly what the Russian "women" just lack for complete happiness. So from day to day, under the onslaught of the Ministry of Labor, the leaders are about to approve the course for "tolerance" in every Russian kindergarten, in every school, in every university, and what is there - in every workplace of boundless Russia. Only one question remains: “Did the Ministry of Labor ask our Russian people whether a simple man and an ordinary woman want to bend under the “tolerance” of Europe and the USA”?

Today we will try to prove that the “tolerance” strategy written by the Ministry of Labor for Russian women, is a real sabotage. And, without exaggeration. To do this, let's figure out what is "tolerance"? And why should this word be literally “banned” in Russia?

Reason 1. A new type of weapon: “paralyzing words” are bombing Russia.
IN modern world various types of weapons are used. Including the weapon "word".
There is an opinion that a “linguistic” (verbal) war is also being waged against Russia today. Before the battle, "artillery preparation" is usually carried out, and our "enemy" is shelling Russia with special shells - "words with a striking effect." How does this type of weapon work? A “new obscure word” is being launched into the country. For example, the word "tolerance". In appearance, it seems to be ordinary, foreign, something like the word "tolerance", but pronounced in a Western manner. Then "embedded" foreign agents begin to use this word. Gradually, a new "word-weapon" gets into the newspapers and television of a foreign country. Then this word begins to be recognized and “absorbed” by the population “without translation”. Just as a fashionable substitute for, for example, the concept of "tolerance". Nothing seems to be happening, are there fashionable words?

But in fact, in the case of the word “tolerance”, what happened is that half of the country, not having time to understand what it is, got used to the fact that this word should be “repeated” at any opportunity. Things even got to the point that “tolerance” was called not only “tolerance”, but also “patience”. There was a complete substitution of concepts: this means that the shells of the "enemy" hit the target. The Russians are deceived and put to sleep. And what? "Word-weapon". Fortunately, our people are smarter than the opponents expected. Half of the country still does not know what it is - "tolerance". And therefore it is not infected with the “tolerance virus”. Well, our great and mighty "Russian language" is also not a bastard. It has a unique ability to "neutralize" "spy words".

But the question is: why is such an attack with a shifting word being carried out? To break the resistance in the minds. For deception. To cover the maneuvers of the "enemy". To paralyze the people. And thereby "defuse" and "conquer" by the method of a new modern hybrid war, which also includes such a subspecies of shells as "nerve words".

Reason 2. "Non-resistance to the enemy" is alien to Russia by any action.
Remember Gandhi's formula: "non-resistance to evil by violence"? Gandhi called for action, but for peaceful action against evil. And the liberals today, calling on Russians for "tolerance", are pushing Russia to complete inaction against evil. To the complete acceptance of evil (including terrorism). This is what the term “tolerance” is dangerous for. The Russian people are a very friendly people, a tolerant people. But the Russians should not turn into a people inactive to evil.

The liberal hypocrisy lies in the fact that they speak to their own people in foreign language. Liberalization, in fact, means filling the Russian colloquial space with other people's words. Moreover, liberals do it intentionally and aggressively. The expansion or invasion of other people's words into Russian speech is carried out even before the real enemy with tanks and infantry attacks the country. The liberal "flurry of foreign words" is a kind of indoctrination of the population before an attack and before the seizure of our territory. That is, the liberals provide a preliminary stage of the war by "hammering" into the minds and souls of the Russian people of alien words and images. And the word "tolerance" is a kind of liberal "buckshot". It would be more correct to say "slop" with which they "water" the Russian people. Is this a betrayal? Yes. Is it serving the armies of other states? Yes. In fact, the liberals are "political officers of the enemy armies." Because the liberals are promoting purely "enemy" values ​​on our territory.

The word "tolerance" lulls attention, turns off "immunity" and the instinct of self-preservation in the nation that is bombarded with "tolerance".

The word "tolerance" does not mean either "tolerance" or "patience". "Tolerance" means "non-resistance to evil." This word acts on the human brain, on our consciousness, like a nerve gas. A person is confused, and the reaction to an enemy attack is either delayed or does not occur at all. Do you understand? The purpose of this kind of “weapon” is to “confuse”, “confuse” and thereby “neutralize” and “neutralize” the enemy, in this case, - population of Russia. The word "tolerance" is a "word-weapon". From the point of view of psycholinguistics, this is a “nerve paralytic” linguistic shot that paralyzes the “criticality” of consciousness. The word "tolerance" is a "button" for turning off our "mindfulness". This is the "word-Kashpirovsky", which "inspires" all Russians: "sleep, sleep", while the enemy's armies will take your cities and villages.

Reason 3. "Tolerance" is the complete opposite of "peacefulness".
"Tolerance" and "friendship of peoples" in our country means accepting another as he is. People may have different customs, beliefs and traditions. But! Notice we are talking about the "good" sector. We - the inhabitants of Russia - are very different in the forms of manifestation of "good". We have different dialects, beliefs, cuisine, fairy tales, signs. We excel in the “culture” sector, which means goodness. In the understanding of "evil" all the peoples of Russia are absolutely the same. Evil is unacceptable for Russians. Evil for any inhabitant of our country must be punished and defeated. And the criminal, whoever he is, should be in prison. This means that all of us in Russia "resist evil" effectively. And that is why Russia retains its territory and its traditions.

And the word "tolerance" means that evil must be "accepted without resistance." Who came up with this? It was invented by social engineers from the UK. And these uncles want everyone in Russia to believe that supposedly “evil must be loved at all costs without resistance.” Dudki. The Russian people know that "peacefulness" is "non-belligerence" for good. And “tolerance” is “non-militancy” to evil (falsehood). There is no such concept in Russia and never has been. It is absent in principle. European social engineers offered to present a non-existent niche in reality as a kind of "tolerance" to evil and vice. In Europe - got accustomed. In the USA, too. And in Canada - perceived with a bang. Both in Australia and New Zealand. And in Russia they spit. The people cringe. Something, they say, is not right here. The Russians feel in their guts that they are being deceived by this “tolerance”.

But the Russian people are right. You can not replace these 2 words: "tolerance" and "peacefulness" with each other. Because they have never been and are not the same. These words are not just different, they are not even opposite. Simply, the Russian people had, have and will have “peacefulness”. But with what do they eat "tolerance"? Obviously not fat. And certainly not with garlic.

Reason 4. The "combat substance" of "tolerance" is inaction to aggression.
To understand the essence of the word "tolerance", let's draw a bullet or a schematic projectile, inside of which there is a warhead. "Tolerance" is written on the body of the projectile. And inside this “word-projectile” there is an inscription on the warhead: “non-resistance to evil” or “do not act” (stop, stand, freeze and ... die). Here is what the word actually means.
We all in Russia have the same understanding of what is "good" and what is "evil". In the sector of "good" among different nationalities and peoples Russian Federation different customs, dances, fairy tales, songs, cuisine. We show “peacefulness” to the fact that we “express ourselves” in different ways both as a nation and as individuals in this kind of “bloc” - goodness. As for “evil,” we are all intolerant of evil in Russia, no matter who committed it: a Tatar, a Russian, a Buryat, or a Yakut. It is clear to everyone in the Russian Federation that the villain and the criminal must be punished. This is the cement of society: peacefulness to a variety of forms of expression of "good" and a categorical rejection of all forms of "evil".

Implemented in the Russian-speaking environment foreign word"tolerance" means total "non-resistance to evil." At the same time, "tolerance" directively requires accepting any "evil" and any "vice" "without any kind of resistance." Moreover, the word "tolerance" is applicable in Europe and in the West exclusively to the sector of evil: "do not resist perversions", "do not fight against sin", "do not act when you are attacked". Which is wild and unacceptable for any resident of Russia. Because it is alien and contrary to human nature in general.

Reason 5. "Word-saboteur" provides "zero immunity" against evil.
From the point of view of medicine, "tolerance" is the complete absence of the body's resistance to external infection. "Tolerance" is nothing more than "zero immunity", that is, the absence of a fight against a disease, against a virus, against an attack by harmful microorganisms. This medical term thrown into Russia as a "word-saboteur". Such "spy words" are created by military social engineers as a kind of special weapons. These "word-shifters" are thrown into the territory of the intended enemy and act much like a nerve gas. Deceptive words infect entire nations. They paralyze the "criticality" of the population towards evil. They "completely lull vigilance." As a result, people become defenseless against evil. At the same time, the developers of such a verbal experiment in their special laboratories calculated that when at least one such “mutant word” with a deliberately distorted meaning enters the environment of a living language (for example, the Russian language), an irreversible “chain” reaction occurs. Its essence lies in the fact that, like a cancer cell, such an “intervening word” can block the “recognition” of danger.

Reason 6. The ideal "tolerance" is death.
"Tolerance" is a medical term for the body's inability to resist "foreign". Complete "tolerance" in medicine is the death of the human body. That is, tolerance is a synonym for "dying and death." In fact, "tolerance" is nothing but "the path to death through the refusal to fight for life."

That is, a foreign term has been introduced into Russia that calls on everyone to give up and die?
The word tolerance should be banned. And the one who came up with the "lessons of tolerance" for Russian schools is, in fact, "pushing" our children to death. And to total absence struggle for life. Because "tolerance" is introduced into Western societies as a basic component for justification:

Legalization of the killing of people - euthanasia (in Belgium, Holland, USA, Canada, etc.),
- legalization of the killing of children and adolescents by the method of "medical suicide" (Canada, USA).

Reason 7. Tolerance is the absence of a struggle for life (for good).
It is wrong to think that this term is not liked only by the uninitiated. Simple people they feel that this word contains “untruth” and “falsehood”. It means "complete apathy", "one hundred percent inactivity", "paralysis" and "immobility not only of the body, but also of consciousness."
Finally, this is the basic and fundamental element - the cornerstone of the Western "philosophy of death."

Take a look at the 10 wild “anti-commandments” of the “philosophy of death” fashionable in the West, which are inscribed in 1980 on stone slabs installed in the state of Georgia in the USA:

1. Nature needs no more than half a billion people to balance.
2. Artificially give birth to people.
3. Create one state on Earth with one language.
4. Do away with traditions and religions.
5. Create a worldwide law.
6. Decide everything through the world court.
7. Destroy the petty nations and their laws.
8. Name a person's rights and duties.
9. Focus on sexual diversity.
10. Man is a cancerous tumor of the Earth. Die as soon as possible, making room for nature.

Here are 10 barbaric dogmas of the Western "philosophy of death" (which is otherwise cynically called "inverted humanism"). And "tolerance" is the "main pillar" of the Western "theory of accelerating the extinction of mankind on Earth."

Reason 8. "Tolerance" is a "dehumanizing gene".
At present, the West has set a course for the complete dehumanization of people. On the transformation of children - in "sexual animals". This is already a fact enshrined in Western legislation.

AND basic element of human dehumanization becomes precisely "tolerance". "Tolerance" is an axiom from an ideology built on non-traditional values. We are talking about the "ideology of homosexuality." The "ideology of homosexuality" is based on the complete and absolute denial of sex. "Sex" in the understanding of traditional humanity is the main, fundamental, basic and system-forming concept, an identification feature of a person. That is, in the system of traditional values, the sex of a person makes a person a person. And vice versa, in the "ideology of homosexuality" "gender denial" and "tolerance" are the basis of human dehumanization. The removal of the concept of "sex" from the human value system turns a person into "nothing", into an abstract "gender", "non-human". From the point of view of the "ideology of homosexuality", man is by no means the "crown of creation", but only a transitional stage on the way to posthuman civilization. What kind of civilization will it be? Homosexuals are building a civilization of "manimals", and this has already been officially proclaimed in the West.

For the production of such a civilization in the West (USA, Great Britain), experiments on crossing humans and animals are already being officially carried out with might and main. And for the "endangered" traditional humanity (7 billion people), the "ideology of homosexuals" offers "tolerance" as a "premium" (mockery) for non-resistance.

Reason 9. "Tolerance" is a backbone concept of the "ideology of homosexuality".
The ideology of “permissiveness of vices” is built on this concept, where all forms of perversion are presented from the position of supposedly a variety of forms of sexuality. And the second most important system-forming concept in the "ideology of homosexuality" is the word "gender". On these two pillars (“gender” and “tolerance”) the “ideology of homosexuality” is built, other names for which are “genderism” and “gender mainstream”. The words are incomprehensible, foreign, but in fact they mean nothing more than "complete destruction of morality, religions, values" and replacing them with omnivorous "tolerance". That is why one cannot be neutral about the aggressive planting of this word in Russia.

As soon as people and countries get used to the dangerous word “tolerance”, values ​​and humanity are taken away from them. At first, “tolerance lessons” come to schools, and then they are very quickly (as in Canada, in the USA and in Europe) replaced by lessons on the “Fundamentals of Homosexuality”. Today, the "Fundamentals of Homosexuality" are studied in almost all kindergartens, schools and universities in the West (Europe, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia). Moreover, in almost all educational institutions of the West, this subject has become not only mandatory, but uncontested, even in Catholic educational institutions. Those who do not agree with the official ideology of the West - "Fundamentals of Homosexuality" - today are ruthlessly fired from their jobs, put on trial and sent to prison. The "ideology of homosexuality" is implanted in the West dictatorially and without alternatives. This ideology regards normal people (ordinary men and women) as "gender disabled" and suggests "putting them in mental hospitals" and "liquidating them in concentration camps." "Homosexual ideology" is rapidly radicalizing and turning into a gender dictatorship in the West. And the "ram", erasing humanity from the face of the Earth, is the "radicalization of tolerance."

Reason 10. "Tolerance" is manipulation public consciousness.
"Tolerance" is a tool for manipulating public consciousness. It encourages people to accept what previously seemed completely unacceptable. Just as in medicine, where "tolerance" leads to the inevitable death of the human body, so in society "tolerance" leads to rapid decay, irreversible degradation and complete destruction of the human community. The concept of "tolerance" was imposed on Russia by the West twice before the wars: before the First World War and before the Great Patriotic War. The third time the West insistently demanded that Russians become "tolerant" was in the 1990s: during the collapse of the USSR. Because, from the point of view of the West, it is "tolerance" that will push the peoples of the Russian Federation to give up "their self", from the defense of primordially Russian values. Social engineers expect that it is "tolerance" that will push traditional civilizations not just to "surrender without a fight," but to turn "tolerance-bombed" inhabitants "into soldiers of the enemy's army." That's what this Western "tolerance" really is. And neither our children, nor Russia today clearly needs it. This word should be abandoned, each time replacing it with the word "peacefulness".

For these ten reasons, the parents of Russia demand to stop the adoption in Russia of the "Strategy of Tolerance", which was developed and already submitted to the Government of the Russian Federation by the Ministry of Labor of Russia. In addition, the parent community persistently calls for a "ban" on the holding of "tolerance lessons" in all schools in the Russian Federation, replacing them with peace-loving "peace lessons" and "friendship lessons."

The policy of mondialism and the ideology of tolerance as its component claim today for totality and universality, entering into a competitive struggle with traditional value systems. Obviously, tolerance is still a new, emerging ideology, striving for the intention of historical embodiment, but has not yet fully achieved it. Whereas traditional value systems during their long existence have accumulated a sufficient number of contradictions, for which they are rightly criticized. Therefore, understanding the claim of mondialism to universality, we must right now, at the point of entry, determine all the possible contradictions that it already contains, and, if possible, exclude them. After all, we do not know how this experiment of replacing traditional systems developed by mankind over thousands of years with a new ideology will end. The article is devoted to this task, in which I will try to highlight the most controversial provisions of the ideology of tolerance, from the point of view of traditional values.
In the development of a phenomenon, it is important to take into account its origins, which determine the maximum of its capabilities. The origin of the phenomenon of tolerance was the 30-year war in Europe between Protestants and Catholics at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. If until that time Europe had maintained unity, despite internal wars, then by the end of the 16th century. contradictions had accumulated to the extent that they were bound to split European countries. The confrontation between Protestants and Catholics was a confrontation between two mutually annihilating systems, between which dialogue became impossible in principle, which led them to mutual destruction. And in this situation, the only way out was tolerance, as “indifference”, according to the definition of V.A. Lektorsky, when rival systems live in the same house, but seem to not notice each other. This gives them the opportunity to dampen the conflict so that later long time again try to negotiate, only with the involvement of other methods, since tolerance acts here as resuscitation, and not as a therapy for the conflict.
The elevation of tolerance today to the rank of universal human values ​​means its transition from a deterrent to conflicts into a dominant value system. In such a new role, it is designated as "tolerance for another, another", . It is obvious that the concept of "other" is quite often used by the authors of studies on tolerance, and, therefore, plays one of the key roles in this ideology. Therefore, starting from the concept of “other”, we will be able to explore the very model of the new value system.

In modern Western thought, “other” is understood as some kind of shadow content that acts against the will of a person and is aimed at destroying traditional cultural norms and values, the very image of a person, replacing them with forbidden images and anti-norms. Consequently, tolerance, calling for tolerance for the other, postulates the destruction of the traditional, in order to save humanity from world conflicts. The reason for the conflicts of the modern world is seen as the diversity of cultures and the presence of traditional value systems.
V.V. Shalin writes: The diversity of "sociocultural patterns" "contains conflicts and tensions." “According to the logic of socio-historical development, people strive for the integrity of the human world.” But, since "there is no monopoly worldview system, just as there is no set of generally accepted ethical and moral principles," tolerance should become this single norm, based on the rejection of former traditional systems.
But is it possible? There are different ways of perceiving the world given to a person freedom to resolve the original conflict between good and evil, soul and body, spirit and matter. Having created this or that form of perception of the world, the people have created a vessel in which their soul is placed, their path, which they follow in their free will. Without such a vessel, it will cease to be a people, a community, since the main thing that makes it one will disappear - the unity of world perception. The difference between peoples is also a necessary component of ethnic self-consciousness, designed to outline the boundaries of the shape of vessels. It is a necessary tool of self-identity, which in itself is not a cause of conflict. The cause of the conflict is, as a rule, the desire to appropriate for oneself what belongs to another, and it does not stem from the difference between people and communities.
But it is precisely the destruction of culture as such that is the common thing that is characteristic of everyone and that is absolutely universal. In this sense, tolerance, calling for the destruction of the diversity of cultures, and postulating itself as a universal value system, produces an inversion of shadow contents, when the forbidden becomes the rule, and the norm becomes a ban. The trickster goes beyond the boundaries of comic culture and becomes a cultural hero. In every culture there is a given myth that it is called upon to overcome - the myth of self-destruction of the very foundation of the human, its culture,. Tolerance for the other is the acceptance of shadow contents, anti-culture, and this is indeed universal and is contained in human nature and memory, only it is directed to the prehistoric period of the existence of the prehuman.
Thus, tolerance, calling for tolerance for something else, postulates the destruction of culture as such and the image of a person as he developed in the previous historical period.
The tool for the destruction of culture in general and traditional value systems in particular is the understanding of the other as social minorities. Indeed, the social majority and minority are opposed and mutually annihilate each other, since they share different norms and rules.
For example, same-sex marriage and family cannot exist in the same society as norms, since the former is historically characteristic of the decline of culture, when humanity stops thinking about the future, while the latter is a necessary link in the reproduction of culture.
Or, there are moral and cultural norms accepted by the majority, which were created and established over the centuries by common collective work and consent. Recognition of the ideas of individual groups, without the voluntary support of the majority, and raising them to the status of a norm destroys the community itself, depriving it of the core on which it stands. In this sense, it is the minorities, whose norms are elevated to the rank of generally accepted and due to all, that destroy the freedom of choice as such and the very essence of the human being, acting as an instrument of inversion of shadow contents and hence the archaization of humanity (through its overthrow into a prehistoric state through the destruction of cultural norms).
Thus, tolerance postulates the destruction of the possibility of dialogue between different cultures, since one community sees the other in the mirror of this ideology as different, shadowy, destructive for it. Tolerance also destroys culture from the inside, equalizing the norms of the majority and the minority, and thereby depriving society of its common value orientations. But the destruction would not be complete if it did not concern the language. Language is the cause of the emergence of culture, the development of consciousness, thinking. Language is the guardian of culture in general and ethnic culture in particular, imprinting its symbolic code, a coordinate system that, through transmission next generations keeps the people. Therefore, the meaninglessness of language, its fragmentation will again lead to the desired archaization of man.
Thus, the discourse of tolerance does not create anything of its own, new, but wedged into the Christian context. But in the Christian context of human community based on love and acceptance, completely different statements are inserted that are deeply contrary to Christianity, and it is rather difficult to understand them, because they are vague. And in this text, a certain ideology is drawn almost imperceptibly, but as a red line.
For example, V.A. Lektorsky writes: "Without the development of mutual tolerance, clashing civilizations, cultures, nations, social groups, individuals can simply exterminate each other." But why should civilizations clash and want to exterminate each other? Apparently, they should, since they are different.
“People, be tolerant of each other, to your differences, to your dissimilarity to each other, to the presence of different views. Live amicably, negotiate with each other in cases where you need to jointly solve common problems, find a solution that suits different social groups, different societies, in cases where their interests collide. The dialogue of the subjects is necessary, indeed, it is the dialogue that is the basis of a healthy unified society, and this dialogue, as well as its fundamental reason and condition, was introduced by Christ and left to mankind in the form of commandments. All Christian statehoods arose and still exist on them. Why look for some new grounds for dialogue? Why replace what is given by God? But a new artificial invention is inserted into this Christian discourse - tolerance. Tolerance for the other is the basis of dialogue, tolerance for the absolute difference in value orientations as well. Tolerance replaces the commandments of Christ, and what happens? I think that white is black, but you think that black is white, and how can we agree? Not to notice each other, says the ideologue. But how then can such a society live if everyone ignores each other? This is impossible! Therefore, I will insist that white is black, and since I am in the minority, then I am right, because minorities in the ideology of tolerance are always right, because "If tolerance is not cultivated, only mutual destruction remains", .
V.V. Shalin writes: in order for “tolerance to become a cultural norm and a real regulator of the interpersonal and international movement of people towards the integrity of the human world, a procedure of civil law legitimation is necessary”, i.e., the minority legitimizes its anti-norms, following which already legally obliges a citizen, even if he refuses to follow them.
And those who disagree are called xenophobes and intolerant, imbued with the energy of “malice and hatred for everything different, for people who use a different language, profess a different religion, adhere to a different system of values”, . The fight against xenophobia is the fight against intolerance not so much towards something else, but towards the very idea of ​​tolerance as tolerance towards everything that exists. But the theorists of tolerance themselves cannot define the boundaries of both tolerance and intolerance. Claiming to replace the value systems existing throughout mankind, they do not provide a clear and precise explanation of the new ideology. Therefore, any action of a person, a people can be interpreted as intolerance and suppressed with the help of force, and its resistance can be interpreted as hatred. K. Popper called this "the paradox of tolerance", when "unlimited tolerance should lead to intolerance." “In the name of tolerance, we should proclaim the right not to be tolerant of the intolerant… We must proclaim the right to suppress them, if necessary, even by force.”
Another example. V.A. Lektorsky writes: “Unanimity, whether it is understood in a confessional sense or refers to an ideology (let us recall the recently so popular arguments about the solidity, indestructibility and absolute scientific character of the Marxist-Leninist ideology) is still perceived by many of our compatriots as something preferable to tolerance and pluralism, which are often presented as an expression of moral weakness and fragility of convictions. In any case, authoritarianism and paternalism (not to mention totalitarianism) are completely incompatible with the idea of ​​tolerance.” Here, unanimity is definitely identical with authoritarianism and totalitarianism and is opposed to pluralism as freedom of expression, even if the majority is against this idea. But Christian values ​​are not reducible to unanimity, as one thought, they proclaim the moral and moral Absolute, an objective value that exists outside the will of a person, but to which a person can turn or not turn in free will. But it is on the way to them that a person acquires the ability to express himself, for, being a creation of God, he reveals in himself the grain of the spirit in all its fullness and diversity. Having declared Christian values ​​to be like-minded, ideologists deprive a person of self-expression, offering him the only way renunciation of oneself, for pluralism without a spirit is a fall into lack of spirituality, these are games of reason, devoid of reason.
The substitution of meanings is carried out in the texts of ideologues and by placing false information, inconsistencies and addressing real social problems, but also not brought to its logical end, in one syntagmatic row. In these syntagmas, themes and rhemes are interchanged, creating the impression of a conversation about the urgent (theme), in fact, as its solution, substituting a reference to the ideal legal and state structure in the person of the United States, Israel and the countries of Western Europe, which in this semantic accent becomes a rheme - precisely the meaning for which the thought was expressed.
For example, “the authors believe that the considerable experience gained by the United States in the field of regulating ethnic conflicts within the country can be very useful for modern Russia- of course, with a very careful miscalculation of all the consequences of its adaptation. Upon careful reading, we find that the United States has a positive experience in resolving ethnic conflicts (“The efforts of the American authorities are paid tribute to the efforts of the American authorities to impose tolerance, on a targeted state policy based on racial and ethnic belonging”) and it needs to be adapted to Russia, which has a negative experience of ethnicity. hostels (“In Russia today, the defining marker of the “friend or foe” relationship is ethnicity; other grounds - such as race, confession, citizenship - are significantly less significant"), with reference to Chechnya ("As for Chechnya, then ... can the occupied territories be considered an organic part of the state if for several centuries the population of these territories does not recognize annexation and fighting for independence?"), .
Turning to historical facts, we get the opposite statement: the United States was formed through the genocide of the indigenous population North America, the US turned Cuba into brothel, the US bombed Yugoslavia, the US destroyed the flourishing states of Iraq, Libya, while Russia preserved and protected many peoples and nationalities, preserving their cultural and religious identity. Murder royal family, the danger of the collapse of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the collapse of the USSR at the end of the 20th century were provoked by the introduction of Western values ​​into the minds of the ruling elite and the activities of the West, which led to the destruction of the traditional values ​​of Russia and interethnic conflicts today, from which the Russian people, as a people, suffer the most, on which the multi-ethnic state of Russia rests. Accordingly, the call of the authors of the collection to follow the American way of regulating ethnic conflicts should be understood as the further disintegration of Russia and the genocide of its indigenous population - Russians and peoples close to them in terms of value orientations.
In general, the texts are formed by a series of interrupted thoughts and contradictory or distorted concepts and therefore are discrete. It is the discreteness of the text that serves as a marker of the archaization of the consciousness of the bearers of the ideology of tolerance. For the ancestor of man, coming out of natural ecosystem, acquired the discreteness of consciousness, as consciousness of death and loss of home. And culture became the basis that allowed this discreteness to be overcome, replacing it with the continuity of generations and tradition. The emergence of discreteness is again a fact of man's conversion into his ancestor and archaization.
Thus, tolerance in its modern form there is the proclamation of the inversion of shadow contents, designed to destroy the dialogue of cultures, the cultures themselves and language, as the basis of the human. Since the call for tolerance towards the other is a feature of the unspiritual monologue world, for the world itself must be diverse, and in this form reach its fullness. If humanity is weighed down by this diversity, then it has lost contact with itself and is striving for extinction. But tolerance is not able to solve this problem, since it is only an extreme means of reducing the conflict. Moreover, tolerance, elevated to the rank of a universal value, just destroys what is still human in people, because you need to be intolerant of another, while realizing there is otherness, unacceptability for yourself, and accept it all with your soul or reject as something that contradicts conscience and the moral imperative, which is the same for all people on Earth.

Lektorsky V. A. Classical and non-classical epistemology. - M., 2001. - 256 p.
Tolerance against xenophobia / Ed. V.I. Mukomel and E.A. Pain. - M.: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2005, - 188 p.
Shalin V.V. Tolerance (cultural norm and political necessity). - Rostov-on-Don, 2000. - 356 p.
Perunova N.V. Value-archetypal complex: structure and typology. - M.: Direct-Media, 2013. - 184 p.

At an open joint meeting of the Departments of Diplomacy, World Literature and Culture, Sociology and Philosophy, held on March 22, 2002 at MGIMO(u), a meeting was held with the head of the Department of Personality Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov by Professor A.G. Asmolov, initiator and scientific director of the Federal Target Program "Formation of attitudes of tolerant consciousness and prevention of extremism in Russian society."

The meeting was organized as part of an institute project supported by this program. A.G. Asmolov made a keynote speech "Tolerance is an ideology open society". The report of Dr. psychological sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Personality Psychology, Moscow State University and Head of the Scientific and Practical Center psychological help"Gratis" by G. Soldatova. The meeting was attended by the head of the project "Diplomacy and Tolerance" First Vice-Rector of MGIMO I.G. Tyulin, heads of MGIMO departments Professors T.V. Zonova, S.A. Kravchenko, A.V. Shestopal, head of the Center "Church and International Relations" Professor A.B. Zubov, university teachers, students.

Opening the meeting, the head of the Department of Philosophy A.V. Shestopal made brief digression in the history of MGIMO's participation in the Federal Program. He noted the international nature of the Program, its connection with the programs and declarations of UNESCO, in the development of which MGIMO graduates took part.

At the origins of MGIMO, A.V. Shestopal emphasized, there were people who did a lot to enhance the role of the humanities in Russian science. Here, a special role belongs to one of the first MGIMO rectors, Academician Yu.P. Frantsov and the first head of the Department of Philosophy, Professor A.F. Shishkin.

A number of prominent scientists gathered around him by Y.P. Frantsov, such as Y.A. Zamoshkin, B.T. Grigoryan, E.A. .

Unfortunately, hopes for a reduction in conflict in international relations by the end of the 20th century did not come true. In the 1990s, everyone witnessed the tightening of world politics, the desire to eliminate contradictions from a position of strength. At the same time, the society's need for a policy based on other principles, for a policy of mutual understanding between countries and regions, is becoming more and more obvious. It is from our country, from our diplomacy that many expect initiatives aimed at mitigating the climate of the world community.

A.V. Shestopal reminded that recently the university has made a number of efforts in this direction. First of all, it is worth noting the program "Spiritual and Moral Foundations of the World Community and International Relations", which was initiated in 1996 by Professor of the Department of Philosophy V.S. Glagolev and Deputy Head of the Department of World Literature and Culture V.R. Legoyda. As part of this program, conferences were held at MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy, and a number of publications were published. This program gave rise to the idea of ​​creating the Center for Church and International Relations, which is actively functioning at the present time.

Shishkin's readings are held annually at MGIMO, dedicated to ethical issues in international relations. The topic of the last readings, which took place in December 2001 - "Elites and Morality" - included the discussion, among others, of issues moral formation foreign policy personnel.

The round table "Ecology and Tolerance" held in March was devoted to international cooperation in the field of ecology.

Thus, A.V. Shestopal summed up, we already had certain developments by the time when, at the initiative of the MGIMO administration, we took part in the implementation of the Federal Program within the framework of the Diplomacy and Tolerance project.

I.G. Tyulin, a man who did a lot to highlight the issues of humanitarian cooperation in the training courses and scientific research of MGIMO in general and the Department of Philosophy, in particular, became the project leader.

“I consider it extremely important,” A.G. Asmolov began his speech, that it is here, in one of the elite universities, that we can discuss the issue that any declarations will go to quicksand if they do not meet with an understanding that tolerance should become the actual basis for designing the world."

Having defined tolerance as the norm of life in the world of diversity (diversity), as the recognition by the subject of the unconditional value of another, different subject, A.G. Asmolov warned against reducing the concept of "tolerance" to mere tolerance. It is not enough to "tolerate" and put up with the fact of dissent of another, with his belonging to a different race, nation, confession. "The basis of tolerance is the labor of putting oneself in the place of another." That is why, ethically, the criteria for tolerant behavior are the ability to sympathize and, more importantly, rejoice at one's neighbor. The main act of tolerant behavior A.G. Asmolov called the entry into contact even with those who cause fear.

A.G. Asmolov noted that, unfortunately, it is much easier to describe the phenomenology of intolerance, to point out: “Here is grief, here is pain, here is extremism, racism, xenophobia!” Many phenomena are recorded in the language, representing the pole of mass consciousness, opposite to tolerance. You do not need to have an "X-ray" apparatus to notice how conflicts flare up in the modern world (Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Middle East), despite calls for love and harmony. The hotbeds of these conflicts, like Belfast and Ulster, are turning into stable historical constants and, like active volcanoes, are constantly fraught with danger.

The fanaticism we see in famous movie M. Romm "Ordinary fascism" - the most terrible, reflected in art, however, according to A.G. Asmolov, the least studied antipode of tolerance. We are more comfortable hiding this term in the history books of the Middle Ages, but fanaticism, as we saw on September 11, 2001, is not only a characteristic of the past. We must turn to the origins of this phenomenon if we are to predict future sociocultural dynamics. Its origins are not only in totalitarian systems, but also in the home, in the family.

Nevertheless, both in politics and in the history of culture, two lines can be traced that developed in parallel - intolerant and tolerant lifestyles. What are the situations in which people have always acted as bearers of the values ​​of tolerance? Of course, these are situations of mediation. The figure of a mediator between worlds ready to collide is a key figure in the historical and cultural development of mankind. One of social institutions tolerance could be diplomacy.

Turning to the consideration of the methodology behind the development of tolerance problems, A.G. Asmolov named the reason that determined, in the opinion of the scientist, the low cognitive complexity of the rigid consciousness of the carriers of intolerant attitudes.

"In the 19th-20th centuries, we were increasingly imbued with a binary vision of the world - Darwinian, Marxist, Freudian. A vision that found methodological justification in the concept of binary oppositions by K. Levi-Strauss," A.G. Asmolov stated. Due to this, the understanding of development - the history of various biological, social, political systems - is unequivocally linked for many with the idea of ​​conflict. The essence of this development is given in the ironic formula of K. Popper, the author of the book "Open Society": "the survivor survives."

And all political parties are now divided into two types: "parties of answers" and "parties of questions". The first ones know everything: where to go, how and, most importantly, against whom. However, other parties with a liberal orientation (which, in fact, should be associated with the values ​​of tolerance), at the political level, remain prisoners of a binary, "black and white" consciousness.

“Of course, I’m not going to deny the constructiveness of the “conflictological” theories. Their emergence had economic, social, and psychological preconditions,” A.G. Asmolov clarified. , the concept of symbiotic development. Meanwhile, already P. Kropotkin spoke about this a hundred years ago in the book "Mutual Aid as a Factor of Evolution".

Creating a full-fledged dynamic picture of development implies both attention to the diversity of reality and taking into account the regular variability of its interpretations. This is what should form the basis of the ideology of an open society - the basis of the ideology of tolerance.

With the help of what specific technologies can tolerance installations weaken the positions of totalitarian stereotypes? AG Asmolov, head of the "University Resource Center for Practical Psychology and Pedagogy of Tolerance" project, sees the main way in training specialists to teach children and adults the rules of cooperation. An important role in this matter is given to the media, as well as the development of special training programs.

“Our goal,” A.G. Asmolov said, concluding the report, “is for the “culture of dignity” to replace the “culture of utility”.

The report of G.U. Soldatova was devoted to the development and testing of specific technologies for the formation of tolerant consciousness. After all, "without setting practical goals, the problem of tolerance runs the risk of turning into mere demagogy."

What is tolerance and what is the level of tolerance in Russia. It is this question that we will discuss in detail today.

Is there a limit to tolerance? Where will total tolerance lead mankind - to a world where the words "mother" and "father" are forbidden, traditional relationships are considered savagery and barbarism, and the multicolored "rainbow" future has long since become an ordinary everyday life?

To a world where the aggressive invasion of other cultures and ideologies completely crushes hospitable hosts? And how can this threaten the state and society?

(from the annotation to the book "Merciless Tolerance")

“Tolerance (from the Latin tolerantia - patience, patience, acceptance, voluntary suffering) is a sociological term denoting tolerance for a different worldview, lifestyle, behavior and customs.”

Wikipedia also adds: “Tolerance is not the same as indifference. It also does not mean accepting a different worldview or way of life, it consists in giving others the right to live in accordance with their own worldview.

A very necessary, according to the essence of the concept, thing in our society, we sometimes lack it so much .. this tolerance. Like a seasoning for a dish, or an absorbent that absorbs all the toxins and clears the way for good.

But is it really that simple? Is it so white and fluffy, contributing to the friendship of peoples, worlds and different worldviews?

Let's see if tolerance, which has become so popular lately, is so good?

Now Russia has begun to celebrate the International Day of Tolerance, our children are taught lessons in tolerance, on TV, on the Internet, someone will definitely highlight phrases about the need for Russian society to transform into a tolerant one in a special intonation or in bold type. This sugary-glamorous word, reeking of the cloying aroma of the West, is now found literally at every step.

Tolerance is a medal with two sides. And reassurance about the positivity of tolerance will not cancel the danger that is fraught with insipidity called "acceptance of all without disputes and opinions."

When tolerance is good

The official definition of tolerance (Wikipedia) reads:

"According to the definition of the Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary“tolerance is tolerance for a different kind of views, mores, habits. Tolerance is necessary in relation to the characteristics of different peoples, nations and religions. It is a sign of self-confidence and a consciousness of the reliability of one's own positions, a sign of an ideological current open to all, which is not afraid of comparison with other points of view and does not avoid spiritual competition.

Tolerance means respect, acceptance and correct understanding of other cultures, ways of self-expression and manifestation of human individuality.

Tolerance does not mean concession, indulgence or indulgence. The manifestation of tolerance also does not mean tolerance for social injustice, renunciation of one's beliefs or concession to other people's beliefs, as well as imposing one's beliefs on other people. «.

Tolerance in the correct, positive sense of the word does not imply any ambiguity, compromise with something unworthy, adherence to principles, moreover, it is a factor in establishing peace, “preventing” war, productive interaction of people completely different, and does not imply (as the concept says) avoiding competition, comparison.

After all, if everyone were intolerant and gave vent to their feelings, aggressive instincts, then the war would begin everywhere not only at the international level, but also at the domestic level: people would not be able to make friends, live together, study .. the world, saturated with conflicts, could not to lead a full life, etc.

But in this case, mind you, tolerance is opposed to readiness to incite strife, disrespect for someone else's worldview, and besides tolerance, there are many other qualities that contribute to the conflict-free existence of people.

There are people in the world who are not like us. Moreover, we ourselves are different from each other. Okay, we are ready to accept, sometimes tolerate, those who are more or less different from us, but we most often do not want to understand those who are already more radically different from us. Unlike not so much in the extraordinary, creative plan but in the fact that people have disabilities, a different race, etc.

After all, it’s right not just to endure, but to accept disabled people, people of a different nationality (if they are not aggressive and do not pose a danger), otherwise we will come to a new format for the T4 program (killing the disabled in the 20th century, embodied by the National Socialists), fascism and similar.

Any extreme degree of intolerance towards those who are not their fault and not because of a whim in a difficult situation or simply with peculiarities leads to the embitterment of the latter or to the aggression of those who are intolerant.

We need to respect other peoples (so that we are respected too), we need to respect a different faith and people who adhere to a different religion, and here the issues are not so much life, death and salvation, but political ones, because we live on the same earth, and all adequate faiths call for peace .

It is necessary to respect people who have some kind of disease that limits their life, that is, one cannot treat people with disdain only because of some of their external defects. And this cannot be brought up all at once, by introducing lessons of tolerance, one needs a systematic, versatile immersion in the ideology of correct values, an adequate attitude towards others. Inclusion, zeal for the rights of “not like everyone else”, propaganda of moral values ​​- only slowly move this cold block of general indifference, but in order to achieve any significant results, more time and effort are needed.

After all, we are not barbarians, we live in a civilized, cultural world. The era of conflict resolution is long gone, when bearded Indians in loincloths sorted things out with spears, roars, murders, when a person was almost no different from an animal.

We are part of an intelligent, smart, subtle world, you can’t kill someone on the forehead (although this happens often) for a cutlet eaten from our plate. Diplomacy may not exclude revenge, but it presents it so carefully that a person does not immediately understand that he has been avenged.

Even revenge must be cultural. The more gracefully and carefully one manages to realize ambitions, revenge, etc., the higher the level of intellect and culture of the people. “Advertising” of anti-nationalism, subtle revenge, good manners, proper upbringing, acceptance of those who are different from us as almost the fulfillment of religious commandments - is already heard from everywhere, and in an appropriately veiled form.

The same propaganda of tolerance that everyone and sundry has been talking about lately is part of all this.

Does the world get better by passing through the filters, or does it just acquire an external gloss, but internally everything is the same as in prehistoric times? As Freud said, art, cultural activity, creativity is an ideal way to transform animal energy into creative energy, and the world really gets better, the level of violence and cruelty decreases. It means that the world is really getting better.

But even a smarter, more educated, cultural world has much more potential than the barbarians, which, in the event of a war, against which no most powerful propaganda of tolerance can insure, suggests a smart and global strategy for waging battles.

“The most frequent vectors for the study of tolerance in sociology are:

Gender Tolerance

Racial and national tolerance

Tolerance towards the disabled

Religious tolerance

Sexual orientation tolerance

political tolerance

educational tolerance

interclass tolerance.

When tolerance is bad

We are “stuffed” with absolute tolerance for everything, it happens, without much inoculation cultural property, and even when there is a clear inflection of the stick, it is worth saying Magic word“tolerance” and many begin to think that this is how it should be, that everything is right. The concept of this very tolerance is good, and we need tolerance itself, but it has long become only a tool for instilling other values.

After we begin to accept those who really need to be accepted (people with disabilities, other races, religions), we are offered to accept gays, lesbians and others like us as equals. And those who stand in opposition to the universal ideology are condemned .. comparing gays with disabled children.

That is, tolerance and the need for its manifestation is already becoming higher than Christian commandments. In this case, when, under the guise of noble ideas, we are offered to selflessly endure any abomination, tolerance already ceases to be a good phenomenon and turns into what it actually is in the modern world.

This is just the same subtle way to plant in the minds of our children, in our minds that gays are normal, they need to be respected, their choice is sacred, and we can become the same, because we will read lines from the Constitution about our rights and freedoms(the fighters for tolerance taught us this) and let's say the code word "tolerance" - and let everyone be ashamed that they do not share the "pure" thoughts of gay people.

Under the guise of absolute nobility, a program is being introduced for the collapse of society, the destruction of family, Christian values. After all, look: people with disabilities are only slightly better accepted, but lesbians are already treated as a matter of course, as a fashion trend, as if they are rhinestones on skirts, which is temporarily popular, and not elements of the decay of society.

And this is the main goal of instilling tolerance: not the acceptance of the disabled, but the acceptance of all abominations as a matter of course.

For example, very interesting picture adds up if you take "puzzles" of other tolerance values:

« Immunological tolerance - the immunological state of the body in which it is not able to synthesize antibodies in response to the introduction of a certain antigen while maintaining immune reactivity to other antigens. The problem of immunological tolerance is of importance in organ and tissue transplantation.

Ecological tolerance - the ability of organisms to live and develop in a wide range of conditions environment (including under unfavorable factors).

Tolerance in pharmacology, immunology and narcology - a decrease in response to repeated administration of drugs, drugs or psychoactive substances; habituation of the body, as a result of which a larger and larger dose is required to achieve the effect inherent in the substance«.

There is no need to rush at gays, prostitutes with spears, but being indifferent to their ideology means making it clear to your children that this is not bad. And everything that is not bad, according to the usual logic of the younger generation, is good. It’s worth adding here that real gay lesbians hide their orientation (and it’s their problem how they live in such a perversion), and they don’t really outwardly differ from the rest of the society, and those who pretend to flaunt all their intimate sides just arrange a circus , get high from the corruption of the world, but not from the fact that they are not like everyone else.

This “show” is especially dangerous for teenagers who begin to try everything in this life ... because they were told that homosexuality, sex change is just like putting on a new fashionable dress, “if it doesn’t fit, you put on another, you need to try.”

Maybe introduce the obligatory manifestation of tolerance towards drug addicts, alcoholics, life-sentenced?..

“The word “tolerance” (which is a synonym for tolerance) is present in almost all dictionaries of the Russian language. In particular, the dictionary of V. I. Dahl interprets "tolerance" as the ability to endure something only out of mercy or indulgence. Other dictionaries give a similar interpretation. According to M. V. Semashko, the concept of "tolerance" contains a passive acceptance of the surrounding reality, non-resistance to it, the ability to turn the other cheek.

However, activists and defenders of a tolerant position in society say that tolerance and tolerance are not at all identical concepts, that tolerance is broader and implies active social activity along with self-confidence (there are even theories that say that those who find fault with others - they simply do not have self-confidence), not infringing on the freedoms of other people, which contributes to the manifestation of their own freedom, etc.

Naturally, if we say that tolerance is agreement with all nonsense, breaking principles, tolerance for sin, how many followers will there be? And if we say that this is equality of freedoms, a peaceful way of resolving conflicts, in which it is easier for everyone, and especially those who promote tolerance, then there will be many times more people who want to go this way.

"Merciless Tolerance" is a collection of contemporary fantasy stories(Russian writers) with a consistent focus on social modeling, in which "traditional values" are replaced by new ones, often completely opposite.

The genre of most of the stories in the collection is defined by the word "liberpunk" - this is a kind of dystopia that deals with the hypothetical consequences of an ultra-liberal public choice, with possible future excesses of political correctness, tolerance and "minority dictatorship"" (lines from the annotation to the book are in the epigraph to the article) .

The format of behavior described in the book is not so far from reality and from the format of the behavior of our society. Tolerance has nothing to do with religious values, along with the acceptance of other cultures, races, it involves the acceptance of any abomination. Tolerance cubed.

Somehow I wanted to watch one foreign series, modern (I won’t write a name so that it doesn’t look like an advertisement for nonsense), at first an exciting plot, good acting .. but through the whole story the same thing: clones, prostitutes, homosexuals ... A trick in the fact that when you realize that you are watching nonsense, you want to know how it all ends, it pulls you to watch it, which I noticed from many viewers of the series who express just such impressions.

The creators managed to develop the plot to a climax before they began to present propaganda of homosexuality, etc. This is how Western society gets hooked on the "needle of tolerance" to everyone and everything, including through the media, films. And you know, through TV shows and the like, through books (which are written by open or fake gays), the best way is to introduce this lifestyle into society.

People look and begin to see in the faces of non-traditional orientation human, ordinary ... they begin to believe that homosexuals are able to love, they begin to feel sorry for the latter, to treat them as normal people, and the tolerant behavior of others in the film is a worthy format for the audience to bring it to life ... Generations grow up on this. Through interesting story- instilling ideas that are corrupting society.

Level of tolerance in Russia

According to statistical funds, the level of tolerance in Russia has increased many times in recent years. However, in reality and in life, I personally observe a slightly different picture: the acceptance of dubious “heroes” has accelerated and improved, and the position of those who really need respect has not changed much.

The most tolerant Russians, according to statistics, are born handicapped babies and adults, beggars, vagabonds, alcoholics, AIDS patients, mentally ill. According to research by another center of statistics, alcoholics are in the forefront among those to whom Russians are the least tolerant. Russians are not ready to be friends with sectarians, murderers, homosexuals.

About tolerance in Russia in the program of the channel "Culture" ( interesting opinions, without pathos):

About extremes and other values

Manipulation of tolerance leads to vilification of peaceful values ​​as well.. and extremes, both one and the other, are harmful. It's always best to think for yourself...

People either begin to reject all tolerance as something identical to tolerance, or completely agree with everything, or nothing changes in their lives, because they don't even know what tolerance is.

Tolerance is neutral in itself, it equalizes both bad and good. Therefore, one cannot be good, intelligent and in every possible way positive, principled, if one does not agree with any kind of tolerance, one who accepts abominations is no better than one who with a club expels “dubious” elements from our society.

There are completely different and not so ambiguous, confusing and politically global (albeit not fashionable) concepts, good ones, for example, mercy, nobility, condescension, adherence to principles, mercy, firmness of one’s position, etc.

Tolerance as an ideology of civil society is a social project aimed at shaping the historical motivation of the individual, big and small social groups to tolerant behavior as the leading motivation for a civil open society, which ensures the sustainable development of a person and social groups in a world of diversity and contributes to the formation of the ideology of tolerance in a multicultural society.

The mission of the project is to involve people of different views, worldviews, confessions, national cultures to the ideology of tolerance as a system of value orientations of society that realizes the right of every person to “be different” and reduces the likelihood of various conflicts based on human phobia, xenophobia, ethnophobia, migrant phobia, fanaticism, nationalism and racism that threaten the existence of man and mankind in the modern world.

The methodology of the project is a cultural-activity historical-evolutionary approach to understanding the patterns of human development in the process of social development. In the context of this approach tolerance is understood as a universal norm for supporting diversity in the evolution of various complex systems, is the potential for the development of numerous forms of symbiosis, coexistence, social and political interaction, cooperation, mutual assistance and consolidation various kinds, races, peoples, nationalities, states, religions and worldviews.

Tolerance as a Norm for Supporting Diversity and Sustainability different systems performs the following functions in the historical-evolutionary process:

a) providing sustainable development a person, different social groups and "humanity as a unity of diversity" in a changing world;

b) the right and value of each person as an individual, the right to “be Different”;

c) balance and harmonization of the interests of the opposing sides in ideology, politics, economics, as well as in any other forms of interpersonal, social and political interaction of individuals, large and small social groups;

d) the possibility of dialogue, negotiations, accumulation of the potential of solidarity, harmony and trust of different worldviews, religions and cultures.

Thus, we emphasize once again that in the context of the historical-evolutionary approach to the development of complex systems tolerance is considered as a mechanism for supporting and developing the diversity of these systems, ensuring the expansion of the range of capabilities of these systems in various unpredictable situations and their stability.

In its turn, xenophobia acts as a mechanism for reducing the diversity of systems, reflects the trend towards the development of closed systems (authoritarian systems; totalitarian social systems; worldview systems that implement the ideological principles of fundamentalism and fanaticism). The dominance of xenophobic tendencies leads to the rigidity of systems, the growth of their isolationism and separatism, and, thereby, the inability to change in unpredictable situations.

In the development of complex systems, tolerance reflects the strategy of mutual assistance, cooperation, and symbiotic evolution. Xenophobia is associated, first of all, with the understanding of conflict as a monopoly driving force in the evolution of various systems, the basis of interspecies, social and class struggle.

When developing the ideology of tolerance as a key discourse of a multicultural polyconfessional open society, it is emphasized that tolerance - this is life according to the formula of reason, while xenophobia is life according to the formula of prejudice.

Numerous manifestations of xenophobia at different stages of the development of civilization explicitly or implicitly grow on the basis of the ideology of fundamentalism, the psychology of fanaticism and the technology of terrorism.

Chronological start social project aimed at developing ideology of tolerance as a school of life with dissimilar people in a polycentric world became the Federal Target Program of the Government of the Russian Federation "Formation of attitudes of tolerant consciousness and prevention of extremism in Russian society" (2001-2005) / scientific supervisor - A.G. Asmolov /. This program was created in the period from 1999 to 2001 on the initiative of A.G. Asmolov and E.Sh Gontmakher. In the development and implementation of the program in 2001, such leading researchers as Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Anthropology and Ethnography V.A. Tishkov, Director of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences Professor L.M. Drobizheva, Director of the Institute of Sociology of Education of the Russian Academy of Education, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education V.S. Sobkin and Professor of the Department of Personality Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Moscow State University. Lomonosov G.U. Soldatov.

The leaders of the Holocaust Foundation Alla Gerber and Ilya Altman actively contributed to the implementation of the ideology of tolerance.

In the period from 2004 to the present, projects aimed at developing a methodology and practice of building tolerance and reducing the risks of xenophobia in the education system were carried out within the framework of the Federal Target Program "Development of Education" / 2006-2011 / with the participation of Professor of the Department of Developmental Psychology of the Faculty of Psychology Moscow State University O.A. Karabanova, Dean of the Faculty of Psychology of the Rostov University, Professor P.N. Ermakov, Dean of the Faculty of Psychology of Tomsk University Professor E.V. Galazhinsky, Rector of the Moscow Psychological and Social University Academician of the Russian Academy of Education S.K. Bondareva.

From 2001 to 2011, the flow of research, including Ph.D. and doctoral dissertations, devoted to the study of the phenomenology of tolerance, trust, and the prevention of intolerant behavior in society, has sharply increased in Russia.

In 2010, Alexander Asmolov, Evelina Aliyeva, Irina Abakumova, Galina Birulava, Aleksey Gusev, Pavel Ermakov, Yuri Zinchenko, Olga Karabanova became laureates of the Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation for the creation of a cycle of works "Forming Attitudes of Tolerant Behavior and Preventing the Risks of Xenophobia in the System of General Education" , Tatyana Skripkina and Galina Soldatova.

In 2010, for a series of studies on the issues of tolerance and the prevention of the risks of xenophobia, A.G. Asmolov was awarded the Order of Friendship of Peoples by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation.

In 2011, a new stage in the development of the ideology of tolerance was the fundamental research of an interdisciplinary team, supported by a targeted grant from the Russian Humanitarian Foundation, led by the Dean of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education Yu.P. Zinchenko "Tolerance against xenophobia". The collective monograph "Tolerance against xenophobia" will be published in 2011.