Karl Popper Defined the Tolerance Paradox
Setting Limits to the Ideas of Others (1945)
Dr. Karl Popper, one of the early philosopher/economists at the London School of Economics (See: Progressivism to Gradualism to Socialism to Globalism), defined the limits of tolerance in what he called, The Paradox of Tolerance (1945). This was his major contribution to the furtherance of Open Societies {originally developed by Henri Bergson (1932)}. Dr. Popper taught that one cannot be tolerant of ideas opposed to the development of the open societies concept. Thus, he sought to legitimize intolerance to the ideas of others becoming one of the major stratagems used today, especially by the political-media complex. We will discover Dr. Popper, and his successors, have committed several logical fallacies to legitimize a stratagem that not only suppresses free speech but actively seeks to eliminate all opposition even using violent means.
This defense of the Tolerance Paradox is
Invalidated by Several Logical Fallacies
One of the first logic issues is the violation of the Law of Identity; tolerance is not defined, it is assumed. Everyone uses the word tolerance but if they do not define it the same then the logical fallacy of equivocation makes every discussion ambiguous. As used tolerance appears to mean the acceptance of any idea, belief or goal proposed by anyone. However, this is a straw man logical fallacy to force a false dilemma conclusion. Actually, tolerance is simply the willingness to allow people to express divergent opinions without fear of retaliation. This does not guarantee acceptance or implementation of such expressions that run contrary to biblical morality.
The above graphic misstates tolerance as the acceptance of opposing views which is not tolerance but foolishness. This forces you to accept their false dilemma contained in the shaded box. Notice the use of the terms: fair, objective and permissive that are not defined though forcing the reader to agree with the conclusion {false dilemma}: freedom from bigotry. What constitutes bigotry? What is meant by abusive restrictions? The reader fills in the meanings without understanding what meanings the writer has assigned. One cannot assume both are using the same definitions unless the definition {Identity} is clearly written. The rejection of bigotry is used to justify being intolerance to those who are different, the definition of bigotry. Thus, they legitimize their bigotry while condemning your difference of opinion as bigotry. This violates the Law of Non-Contradiction {one cannot be bigoted and condemn bigotry simultaneously} forcing the reader into accepting a “both-and” conclusion. Logic is binary, “either-or” conclusions; i.e., issue is either right or wrong but not right and wrong. If you disagree with their implementation of open societies then you are intolerant legitimizing its proponents intolerance toward you, even violently.
Hitler Becomes the Straw Man to
Justify Using the Tolerance Paradox
Mr. Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany in the mid-20th century, has become the quintessential image of pure evil even above Mr. Stalin and Mr. Mao who all did the same murderous practices in support of their regimes. Even the mere appearance of balanced toward Mr. Hitler’s policies brand one as his evil disciple and a supporter of the implementation of his racists policies against those who are different {bigotry}. Certainly, one cannot condone many of his policies though the genesis of these policies came from Progressive Era Western culture. The straight arm salute to the flag {Bellamy’s Pledge of Allegiance}, belief in the superiority of the Aryan {white} race over other races {first written as a scientific treatise by Charles Darwin} and the practice of eugenics to purify race {promulgated by Ms Sanger and lives today as Planned Parenthood} are a few examples. Mr. Hitler has become the straw man legitimizing the practice of the Tolerance Paradox, intolerance. This then is used to decrease the power and sovereignty of independent, national socialist states such as Great Britain, United States and Russia. However, when it is useful to their goal intolerance toward similar methods becomes tolerance.
Stated goal of Islam is World Domination by
Suppressing or Eliminating Non-Muslims
Open societies proponents tolerate the tremendous influx of Muslim immigrants into Western nations even though the avowed aim of many of these immigrants is to institute Sharia {Muslim} Law by overthrowing current laws and morals {basis of right and wrong}. Sharia Law, based on the Quran, Hadith and Siras openly teach violent suppression of all who do not submit to their beliefs. Yet, because these violent Muslims seek to oppose and weaken Western nationalistic governments. Open societies proponents use Tolerance supporting these peoples while practicing Intolerance toward all who oppose the goal of national destruction. The inherent contradiction is openly stated in the above two graphics. The difference: Mr. Hitler espoused national socialism, strong national sovereignty defined as evil by open societies proponents. Islam seeks to establish a single, global Islamic culture under one ruler, a caliphate. Even though the essential values of the very liberal open societies proponents and the very conservative Islamic elements contradict each other, the former supports the latter because it advances their open societies agenda; i.e., globalism {International Socialism}. They have no qualms with their contradictory logic nor it seems do many in the media. This is the wolves in sheep’s clothing gradualism enshrined in their early logo.
The Frankfurt School and their Critical Theory {criticize everything except one’s own agenda} are a separate but essential element supporting open societies. The use of pseudosciences {psychology, sociology, education, and nursing} inoculates their agenda into schools and universities, physical and mental healthcare and into the legal-political systems until a critical mass of citizens are developed who accept global socialization. This onslaught was promulgated by public media outlets: movies, music, literature, television shows, etc. They slowly dismantled biblical moral foundations of Western cultures. Pseudoscience relativistic values displaced biblical absolute values. Emotional appeals replaced logical analysis to legitimize the righteousness of men’s beliefs {secular humanism}. This core belief will seek to unify all peoples via one belief system into a global unity under one overarching benevolent government. All who oppose this unity of man are labeled as bigots, racists and intolerant. This paradox legitimizes the intolerance of open societies proponents against Christians who reject the glory of man for the glory of Christ, the Living Savior.
As Christians our understanding of tolerance is based on what the Bible says. We do not ignore how various denominations perverted tolerance, substituting piety and persecution, in spite of Christ’s words, using intolerance for their own ends}. Christ said, “…Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Mt 5:39-47). Though oft misused Jesus was not demanding a wobbly morality. He never said compromise the truth. He did say do not compromise the truth and this world would hate you (Mt 5:11-12). Yet, He did say you cannot force people to accept the truth whether through governmental laws or personal coercion. Christians demonstrate tolerance to the ideas of others and, if necessary, demonstrate the fallacies of their thoughts. We do not do this in a harsh and lordly fashion but in a lowly approach as one who had once been lordly before coming to the truth of grace. Jude instructs us to wait on the mercy of Christ and not our efforts to bring the lost to the knowledge of the gospel (Jude 20-23). In the past Christians, and Christendom {pretenders of Christianity}, used education to force a Protestant morality on America by force of law. When this was finally overthrown in the 1960s the opponents used the force of law to weaken or remove Christian morality. They used pietism in support of their religion of man to return to the error of Babel (Ge 11:1-9). Bible proved true: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” (Ho 8:7). We are reaping the whirlwind because those who went before us ignored the proper application of tolerance. Now, intolerance is used against us even while we are charged with intolerance. Such is the demon Dr. Popper set in motion long years ago on the eve of victory.
In our next post I will discuss one of Dr. Popper’s disciples, Mr. Soros and his Theory of Reflexivity, or the legitimacy of the positive feedback loop to justify one’s actions.