As the anarchist-wannabes in Minneapolis continue to grow bolder and bolder in their riots (AKA "peaceful protests"), stage attacks against ICE agents, and, on Sunday, storm a church in neighboring St. Paul during a worship service after an anti-ICE activist claimed the pastor inside was affiliated with the agency, here's the salient question:
Is the federal government's response to the ever-more dangerous behavior commensurate with activists' increasingly violent actions? If not, what message does that send?
Here's a broader, more philosophical question:
When does tolerance of intolerance reach a point that threatens the existence of the tolerant?
The Left sees “intolerance” not in violent extremism (in which, conservatives aren't predisposed to participate), but in anyone who dares to question, much less oppose, so-called "transgenderism," illegal aliens — including "the worst of the worst" — hanging out in America's Democrat-controlled cities, support of Israel, opposition to on-demand abortion of a viable baby, et al.
That’s not philosophical differences on display; it's totalitarian logic in a social justice disguise.
The Left — the most intolerant group of people in today's American society — hides behind the word "tolerance" as they redefine their hatred of most, if not all, of the things patriotic, freedom-loving Americans cherish. Hence, disagreement is redefined as hate, enforcement as compassion, censorship as safety. Meanwhile, again, the people preaching “inclusion” are the first to exclude anyone who dares see the world differently.
This Brings Us to a Guy You've Likely Never Heard Of
Austrian-British philosopher and academic Karl Popper (1902-1994), author of The Open Society and Its Enemies, believed that a truly “tolerant” society must reserve the right to be intolerant toward intolerance. This is not to be confused with intolerant governments crushing dissent, as we've seen most recently in Iran, as the Islamist extremists in Tehran have allegedly killed thousands of innocent civilians for the "crime" of peacefully protesting against the totalitarian regime.
Popper wrote in the book, in part:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
If that single passage doesn't clearly illustrate the challenge we face against the rabid Left, it's beyond-blatant hypocrisy, and its ever-eager quasi-official media, what does?
ALSO CHECK OUT: Wild: Anti-ICE Activists Disrupt Church Service Because They Think One of the Pastors Is an ICE Agent
Watch: Crazy Moment Nick Sortor Is Allegedly Robbed in Minneapolis - FBI Is on It
So back to the question:
Is the federal government's response in Minneapolis — or anywhere else where rabid activists push the limits, for whatever reason — commensurate with increasingly violent riots?
If not, and to answer my second question at the top, the message sent to these people is not dissimilar to the messages sent to spoiled children whose parents allow them to behave badly. In other words, both groups are likely to continue to push their unacceptable behavior until... (fill in the blank).
The Bottom Line
The true paradox isn’t that tolerance can’t tolerate intolerance — it’s that the most intolerant people in society now hide behind the word “tolerance.” As a result, as a tolerant society, when is enough, enough?
