In the 1970s the summer of love was declining. The time for flower power, promiscuity, and LSD-fueled utopian dreams was turning into the territory of a few aging hippies who were, quite frankly, starting to look (even more) ridiculous. However, there was a pocket of utopians who were too brainwashed to give up the "fight against the system" and who turned into real terrorists, planting thousands of bombs throughout the United States. You may know the names: Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panther Party, etc. The surprising element in all of them was the presence of white, well to do university students, who at the shout of Marx, Mao & Marcuse spread terror, took lives, and were hellbent on overthrowing capitalism. They were angry about Vietnam, black imprisonment, third world issues, and the very foundations of a liberal society. Back then nobody thought of opening a dialogue with those criminals and, even if they would have, they saw themselves as "revolutionaries" and, thus, dialogue wasn't on the table for them. Some died, some others were imprisoned, but most were pardoned and eventually were rehabilitated into civilian life, even as educators, by the so-called 'democrats'.
With this information at hand, then, the question is unavoidable: why are the heirs of those terrorists offered dialogue today? We have not reached (yet) the stage of bomb planting by the Marxists. However, the necessity of violence is embedded in their underlying ideology, they will move into that stage soon, and nobody should then be perplexed about the behavior they exhibit in public. The quintessential Marxist is embodied by Antifa. But that is just one of the heads of the hydra.
Like the 70s anti-capitalist terrorists, the belligerent "kids" of today are middle class, university educated believers in the mutated version of Marxism. The emphasis is not on the struggle between the working class and those who own the means of production. Now, it is a Derridan world of deconstruction where the Foucaldian jockeying for power takes place between white and non-white, straight versus their socially constructed seventy something genders, and Enlightenment values "oppressing" everyone else. The permanent state of communist revolution has morphed into the victimhood olympics yet their aggressiveness, reductionist view of the world, and unwillingness to think for themselves (hence proclivity towards clash) remains untouched.
Look at the recent incident involving Jacob Rees Mogg. Whatever one may think about the MP's ideas, he courageously approached them during their attempt to shut down discourse, their faces covered, and invited to dialogue. They did not know what to do. It is not in their mental arsenal to debate. They explicitly refused to do so and kept shouting that he was not worth debating. Violence is the maneuver of those who have nothing else to offer and, faithful to the script, that is the bottom line of their worldview. Without any fear of losing this bet, here's $5 that any attempt to maturely debate the left won't work. Their intransigence is the stuff that is built into all forms of extremism. All attempts to debate their dogmas is seen as an affront and is met with violence, e.g. cultural universalism, equity (i.e. equality of outcome), anti-scientism, censorship of dissenting speech, corporate evil, social constructionism, patriarchal oppression, white racism, rape culture, etc. These people are --and this you can take it to the bank-- paranoid. And it is by choice.
The biggest risk our civilization faces right now is that the extremists are no longer in the fringe. These people run universities, political parties, and are in the government. In places like Germany, the press and the police are silent about the crimes by muslims while it persecutes Germans for exercising their free speech to question the government's genocidal immigration policies. In places like Canada, professionals are in danger of not being able to earn a living if they don't swear an oath to the cult of diversity. Sweden has been lost to inclusion.
Yes, Einstein said that peace cannot be kept by force but achieved by understanding. There is no room for understanding with the intolerant and violent left, it is now clear. The strategy of appeasement that is both the strength and the weakness of the West has failed miserably. Churchill rightly encouraged us never to yield to force. The radicals are now using force, growing by the day, and history predicts that it will become more asphyxiating. Has the time come to use muscle? By the time the liberal democracies knew that the communists or their cousins, the national socialists, were evil forces that had to be dealt with by force, millions had already perished in the most horrific way.
This is the most pressing question for anyone who treasures the cultural, economic, and social achievements, opportunities, and beauty achieved by the Enlightenment, i.e. the quintessential Western crown of a Christian heritage built on the virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity. Whether we decide to continue trying to reason with them or that enough is enough, the question must be asked.