Hybrid Warfare and Open Societies

There is something to be said about high-level information warfare. We are not good at it. And boy, the Israelis make us look nearly competent. Given the neighborhood, I am shocked at how bad they are.

Why are we so bad at it? I suspect it is the Paradox of tolerance:

In The Open Society and its Enemies, a must-read for every liberal, Popper states that “unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance… We must therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate intolerance”.

In practical terms, Popper tells us that tolerating absolutely everything would also mean tolerating those who limit the freedoms of others: homophobic, xenophobic or racist speeches should be admitted without limits. We would all agree that this would indeed be inadmissible.

However, this paradox implies setting limits on freedom of expression, an apparently illiberal proposal. Who decides the limit of such tolerance of intolerance? Should all “intolerant” ideas be censored?

For Popper, the limit lies in violence; as long as any intolerant ideas or opinions could be countered through discursive or educational tools — what he called rational arguments — they should not be censored. Coercion and violence are then the limit, since in freedom, dialogue, debate and respect are always in the foreground. Karl Popper summed up his theory in a single sentence: “We must therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate intolerance”.