The spokespersons of unitary tolerance are always prepared to turn intolerantly against any group which does not fit in: the obstinate enthusiasm for blacks meshes seamlessly with the outrage over obnoxious Jews. The “melting pot” was an institution of free-wheeling industrial capitalism. The thought of landing in it conjures up martyrdom, not democracy.

— Father of Critical Theory, Theodor Adorno, Jewish exile, From his 1951 book entitled "Minima Moralia"

Why would a Jew, intelligent enough to predict the coming violence of WWII and flee from his country, write this right afterwards?

Adorno shows a major flaw in the "Paradox of Tolerance" (Karl Popper, "Open Society and Its Enemies" 1945):

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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

The Adorno quote describes nothing about today's right and is identical to today's left (maybe a warning to the Jews).

The Popper quote describes followers from being kept from hearing the other side's argument (who today is doing this?).

The Popper quote describes the followers will answer arguments with "fists or pistols" (punch a Nazi, anyone?).

The Popper quote describes canceling, shouting down speakers, screaming into town hall microphones. Is the right doing this? Or is that the left?

It would appear that the left is using the Paradox of Tolerance as a Divine Right to punish their political enemies at will by declaring them "intolerant" and then ushering in predetermined social and cultural behavior that is historically well documented to be generally intolerable.

Additionally, isn't "abolishing Whiteness" kind of intolerant? Isn't calling "Whiteness a disease" kind of intolerant? (Does anybody honestly believe that by saying, "but, I'm a Jew!" will, in the end, solve the obvious problem of your pale complexion to those who believe this sort of stuff?)

Here's a particularly relevant quote underscoring that assertion from the same essay by Adorno:

The usual argument of tolerance, that all human beings, all races are equal, is a boomerang. It opens itself up to easy rebuttal by the senses, and even the most compelling anthropological evidence for the fact that Jews are not a race at all, will in the case of a pogrom hardly change anything at all, since the totalitarians know very well who they want to kill and who not.

The left's Herculean efforts to "not appear to be Nazis" has in effect put them historically shoulder to shoulder in the same behavioral pew.