If you know of Herbert Marcuse, the following Leftist definition of “liberating tolerance,” from his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance,” might be familiar to you. If not, read on!
Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: ‘fire’. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.
The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the ‘end of ideology’, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness–from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.
Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right–these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronomous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)–it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become prevalent in national and popular behavior, it translates itself almost immediately into practice: the safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction and the deed of destruction is dangerously shortened. Thus, the break through the false consciousness may provide the Archimedean point for a larger emancipation–at an infinitesimally small spot, to be sure, but it is on the enlargement of such small spots that the chance of change depends.
Note that Marcuse strongly advocates both the silencing of the Right (“regressive movements”) and violence against the Right (“it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word”) in the name of “tolerance.” To justify this, he claims a “clear and present danger” (of what?), invokes the old Rousseauian / Marxian notion of “false consciousness,” and implies that it has been imposed to suppress “small and powerless minorities” (“racist!”).
While no one in the Usurper Regime has been foolish enough to quote Marcuse’s lunacies as justification for their tirades against the Right, the lineage of their ideas should be obvious.
The run-up has deeper roots than most are aware.
1 comment
I strongly recommend reading Repressive Tolerance. It’s a perfect example of how letting the Frankfort School Leftists into this country led to the craziness we see today.
https://www.americanlibertyreportnews.com/articles/leftism-how-the-frankfort-school-poisoned-the-classical-liberal-mind/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/marxism_the_frankfurt_school_and_the_leftist_takeover_of_the_college_campus.html
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTAIb2OgrbrqHXl69WtJfF9ReaBuYahmKcCKd1xXl58/edit?usp=sharing