Tolerance (the Berkeley-Popper Mix)

How Not To Defend Atheism - Crazy gay, jewish Atheist goes postal at street preacher:

I'd be alot freer if people like you were put in prison... as retaliation for the COLLECTIVE CRIME OF RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM, MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA!

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy are louder and plainer than usual, but the animating force is the same narrative broadcast by the media, taught in schools and, ironically, preached in mainline Christian churches.

The point of the jewish narrative isn't that intolerance is bad or wrong as a general principle, the point is that jewish intolerance of "the dirty goyim" is good and right because "the dirty goyim" are intolerant of jews, and that's what's bad and wrong.

As I noted in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2, philosopher jew Karl Popper put it this way:

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. [...] 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.

Jewish rhetoric about tolerance is best understood as an effort to promote the best interests of jews. From the screaming queer nobody to the world-renowned philosopher, jews don't have any qualms about dictating to everyone else what "we" should do to best serve them. "The dirty goyim" should recognize this double-talk for what it is: dishonest, destructive, criminal, intolerable.

John Derbyshire and The Suicide Thing

Mangan's Importing problems links John "the jew thing" Derbyshire's Radio Derb Transcript, highlighting this rhetorical question:

Why on earth are we planning to import more such problems for ourselves?

It neatly captures Derbyshire's muddled "conservative" view. He asserts "we" are doing this to "ourselves", but can't explain why. Earlier in the podcast he notes:

There is an expression in statecraft that I think we got from Cardinal Richelieu. At any rate, it's always stated in French: raison d'État, "reason of state."

The idea is that those charged with running a country have the overriding duty to see that the country goes on existing, even if this means doing things contrary to the country's stated principles or religion. You get a similar flavor from the American maxim that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Statesmen should never, never be in the business of aiding and abetting national suicide.

How does raison d'État figure into suicide? It doesn't. The word for statesmen aiding and abetting the destruction of a nation is genocide. If democracy is the idea that George Soros has the same political power as Joe Sixpack, then the suicide meme is the idea that George Soros and Joe Sixpack are both trying to kill themselves. Both ideas are ridiculous, but you'd never know it from the sober, serious respect they get from intellectuals.

Derbyshire knows well enough that any White who opposes any aspect of the open borders regime, for whatever reason whatsoever, is pathologized as "racist". Those who demonstrate any actual awareness of race are demonized as "nazi". In either case such opposition is censured and marginalized. Dehumanized. Demoralized. Misled. Overpowered. It flows from the top down.

By chance I just recently re-read Derbyshire's Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You, published by jewcy.com in 2007. It is part of a longer series in which Derbyshire tries to demonstrate, to a jewish audience, how well he understands the jews. His purpose, apparently, being to convince them that his attitudes about race do not make him any threat to jews. A large part of his posturing consisted of him sneering at and trying to distinguish himself from Kevin MacDonald:

Generally speaking—and I certainly include myself here—American conservatism is proud of its Jews, and glad to have them on board. Not that there aren’t some frictions, particularly on mass immigration, the mere contemplation of which just seems to make Jews swoon with ecstasy (American Jews, at any rate. Israeli Jews have a different opinion…). MacDonald gives over a whole chapter of The Culture of Critique to the Jewish-American passion for mass immigration.

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review conveys the gist of the chapter Derbyshire refers to.

So why on earth would someone who knows what Derbyshire knows forget it and pretend "we" are doing this to "ourselves"? Based on Derbyshire's own rationale, as he lays out in that jewcy.com article, it seems his primary concern is to maintain his status (such as it is) within a regime which he implicitly recognizes is dominated by jews and jewish interests.

Derbyshire's coy use of "we" is self-implicating. He is part of the problem he complains so disingenuously about. He conflates the genocidal "we" who have power (with whom he identifies from the margins) with the broader "we" who have no power (and less knowledge than he does), both downplaying the crime and distributing responsibility for it.

It is no accident that the suicide meme finds purchase mainly in the "conservative" race-aware/jew-friendly millieu with whom Derbyshire remains somewhat popular. It cannot take hold in the anti-White mainstream where it is regarded as unthinkably "racist" to worry about what's good or bad for Whites. Likewise, it flops in forums and minds where jews are recognized as adversaries rather than allies.

Earlier this week Moonbattery, a long-running blog that falls somewhere within the race-aware/jew-friendly sphere, posted Conan Audience Applauds Its Own Extinction, invoking Derbyshire but contemplating a less suicidal view:

It isn’t your imagination. Liberals really do want to eradicate the white race. John Derbyshire (who was canned from National Review by establishmentarian thought cop Rich Lowry for failing to toe the liberal line on racial issues) found confirmation by watching the knee-jerk libs comprising the audience of Conan O’Brien’s show.

See CONAN Monologue 06/13/13.

The audience no doubt consisted primarily of reasonably well-to-do white people.

Consider for just a moment the implications of a people so deranged in its dominate ideology that it would cheer its own eradication. But then, how else would you explain the policies imposed by the liberal ruling class except as a methodical program to completely wipe us out by destroying our traditions, our mode of government (limited, constitutional), our culture, our pride, our freedom, our morals, our faith, and even our biological kind?

What progressives are progressing toward is this: a world in which America and Americans no longer exist. They are the enemy at a far more profound level than even the Nazis or the imperial Japanese.

Contra Derbyshire, there is no delusion here that "we" are doing this to "ourselves". There is explicit recognition that "the white race" is targeted. Still, there are several flaws.

The ruling class is as much or more pro-jew as it is anti-White. That ruling class applauds the eradication of Whites, not jews. They don't pathologize or demonize jewish traditions, culture, pride, freedom, morals or faith, much less their biological kind.

Why?

The ruling class is "liberal" only in the sense that it is disproportionately jewish and their discourse, across the board, is pain-stakingly sensitive to "minority" (a proxy for jewish) sensibilities. To participate in the ruling class you must support the existence of jews as a people, separate and more equal than any other, everywhere in the world. You may not support the existence of Whites for any purpose other than as metaphorical whipping boys.

"Nazis" are the metric of immorality for this regime exactly because the rulers are jews.

Where some Whites begin to see the significance of race, many still wish to ignore the significance of the racial animus jews have for Whites. It is in these minds that the suicide meme finds fertile ground.

"Something bad is happening, but it's not the jews, it can't be the jews, my friends (especially the jews) will crucify me if I catch The Jew Thing. Therefore, it can only be us, we must be doing this to ourselves."

This line of thinking has a solipsistic and masochistic appeal. But it's just another White guilt-trip. Reassuring because it is both simple and self-fulfilling.

Identifying the problem, for the White race, as suicide, insanity or "liberals" is a form of denial. The problem, for the White race, is the genocidal, judaized ruling class - which is only so genocidally anti-White because it is so thoroughly judaized.

The Nature of Jewish Power

Steve Sailer at Taki's, on Jewish Wealth by the Numbers:

Similarly, in Israel, you can write openly about one of the more interesting and important subjects of our era: Jewish wealth. For instance, the Israeli-American centrist think tank Jewish People Policy Institute reported in 2010: “World Jewry today is at a historical zenith of absolute wealth creation.”

Forbes Israel, the Tel Aviv offshoot of the American business magazine, has a cover story on Jewish billionaires. The Israeli edition has made up a list, drawn from Forbes‘s overall ranking of the world’s 1,426 billionaires, of the 165 richest Jews in the world.

Overall, n/a states that 140 of the Forbes 400 rankings of richest Americans, or 35 percent, are Jewish.

Jews are usually said to make up about two percent of the US population and perhaps three percent of the older generation that dominates the Forbes 400. Therefore, Jews are roughly 17 times more likely per capita to make the Forbes 400 than is the rest of the American population.

This 35 percent Jewish figure has been fairly stable since n/a started his analyses in 2009. The first careful analysis of the Forbes 400 was performed by Nathaniel Weyl back in 1987, when he found 23 percent were Jewish. That suggests a sizable increase in Jewish representation among plutocrats over the last generation. Yet bear in mind that’s only one data point from the past. I’ve been casually following the Forbes 400 for 30 years, and membership shifts frequently due to various bubbles.

n/a has also done a quick and dirty look at Forbes‘s global list of 1,426 billionaires (#1, by the way, is Lebanese-Mexican Carlos Slim). Unlike Forbes Israel‘s estimate of 11 percent Jewish, n/a comes up with over 17 percent. Note that this is pretty much of a SWAG for Eastern Europe, where it’s harder for an Anglophone to look up biographical information. Still, this estimate would mean that per capita, Jews are a little over 100 times more likely to become billionaires than the rest of the human race.

Lists highlighting jewish power cause hyper-jew Jeffrey Goldberg, at Bloomberg, to cry, Stop With the Jew-Ranking Already! (the original title, evident in the URL, was dear-jewish-media-please-stop-making-lists-of-jews):

The Jerusalem Post has just published its annual ranking of the world’s 50 most influential Jews, and I’m sorry but also somewhat relieved to report that I don’t appear on it this year.

I’m sorry because one of my goals in life is to inhabit the fever dreams of neo-Nazis, and nothing gets a neo-Nazi going more than the specter of supernaturally powerful Jews. I’m relieved because, who really wants to be on a target list? At a certain point, the Post should just provide home addresses to make the roundup even easier.

Speaking of neo-Nazis: It isn’t entirely clear to me why the Jewish media (not the “Jewish-dominated media” of those aforementioned fever dreams, but the press that actually cover matters of interest to Jews) fetishizes list-making. The Forward, a national U.S. Jewish weekly, publishes a list of the top 50 American Jews

‘Jewish Power’

So the lists published by the Post and the Forward always leave me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Why are these publications aping a practice of non-Jews -- singling out Jews for their special prominence in society? . . . The phenomenon of disproportionate Jewish representation in many high-profile fields . . . combined with ancient and deeply embedded anti-Semitic ideas that are still prevalent in some parts of the world, suggests that they should resist the urge to quantify “Jewish power.”

As with hyper-jew Jonathan Chait, Goldberg makes no attempt to refute the facts. Instead they crack jokes. Nervously. Jews like this realize, and realize well, that jewish power is based on lies and fraud.

Typical Hyper-jew Behavior

Twitter / jonathanchait:

Age Of Treason -- "A pro-White perspective on jewish influence" -- calls me a "Hyper-jew." Seems overstated. http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2013/05/biden-on-jewish-influence.html

For the hyper-jew, nothing is ever too jewy. Especially not himself.

They do, however, fret that Biden's Praise For Jews Might Be Too Much.

Jews have power, but it is based on lies. The biggest lie is that jewish power doesn't exist. The hyper-jew laughs, nervously, because he knows, and worries.

Paul Weston and Liberty GB

Speaking in London on 3 Mar 2013, Paul Weston introduces his new British nationalist party, Liberty GB, and explains why he thinks it's necessary:

David Cameron’s Conservatives will not talk about the major issues, which to me are mass immigration – which now has got to such a point that it equates to population replacement – and they won’t talk about Islam. And of course Labour won’t, and of course the Lib Dems won’t.

The only party that will talk about it is the British National Party, but I don’t think they are going anywhere politically. They may very well be the biggest national[ist] party in the country, and there’s an awful lot, tens of thousands of people, who support the BNP but do not support a leader who is a holocaust denier and has the background that he has. So I can discount the BNP in terms of really gaining electoral success in the future, and the mainstream parties as I just said are absolutely useless when it comes to it.

So this is why we are starting this party, and we will talk about Islam, we will talk about population replacement, which as I said is literally genocidal.

Paul Weston on the Woolwich Killing, Islam and the State of Modern Britain presents his views in more detail. At 1:38 he explains why "conservatives" behave as they do:

They have to admit, that if there is a problem with Islam, they have to do something about it. And if you want to do something about it, that automatically makes you a far-right, racist, xenophobic bigot. And they don't want to be labeled that. So they would rather betray their entire country than be labeled a racist. And this whole racism thing has got to stop. . . . And when they talk and label us as racists they're doing this because the left-liberals have declared a racial and cultural war on the indigenous people of this country. It's what they're doing. Everything they're doing right now is literally a racial and cultural war.

Genocide. Race war. Treason. Weston offers a remarkably articulate, unvarnished view of what's happening not only in Britain but across the West. It's quite a pleasure to see and hear someone so gifted stand up and give voice to these views, much in line with my own. Unfortunately, Weston suffers the same reticence he sees in "conservatives". He's afraid to associate with a "holocaust denier", much less be labeled one. He wants the whole "racism" thing to stop, but not the "anti-semitism" thing.

This hobbles Weston's analysis. He acknowledges the critical importance of race. He recognizes government-imposed immigration and multicultural policies as genocide. He calls it a racial war. Then, when when it comes to the who/whom and motives, he reverts to "conservative"-speak, mischaracterizing the enemy as "left-liberals".

"Left-liberal" was a favorite of fifth-columnist jew Lawrence Auster, though Weston's rhetoric is best understood as an outgrowth of a broader jew-first movement known as the counter-jihad. Norwegian ultra-nationalist Anders Breivik referred to this movement as "the Vienna school", alluding to Gates of Vienna, a nexus of sorts for a loose network of websites and forums hosted by self-professed pro-Westerners. Counter-jihadists can be understood as quasi- or even pseudo-nationalist dissimulators. Their opposition to muslims and islamization is ultimately predicated upon support for jews and judaization. Full-throated advocacy for jewish nationalism is de rigueur. White nationalism is regarded with skepticism. White racial identity is regarded with contempt.

Weston's emphasis on race, racial war and genocide pushes the counter-jihadist envelope, exposing the jew-first nature of the counter-jihadist worldview. Consider, for example, his exchange with anti-White jewess Sonia Gable, wife of anti-White jew Gerry Gable. He describes their attitude as:

Your past is evil. You deserve everything that you now get as a result of what your ancestors did a long, long time ago.

This is the jewish narrative in a nutshell. Such attitudes are so prevalent and easy to find because anti-Whiteness is at the heart of jewish identity and jews have power.

Weston understands the evil-White-oppression template but considers the holocaust version of it sacrosanct. He stares jews in the face and pretends he sees "communists". His passionate speech about genocide concludes with him feigning ignorance about the who and why of it all.

The article Weston wrote about his exchange with Gable, The Left — Mad, Bad, or Criminally Ignorant?, was reposted and commented on at Gates of Vienna. It's even more telling. The dissembling starts right in his introduction:

In the peculiar world view of communists, anyone who disagrees with them is a fascist

Weston engaged Gable because he understands "fascist" is code for anti-jew. He plays the same game by using "communist" instead of jew. For whatever reason, Weston will not see even the jews who attack him as enemies. He wonders if they might be mad or ignorant or even criminal, but even so he thinks they might still be convinced to join forces with him against the real enemy:

Sonia, as an organisation claiming to fight against racism and fascism, you would have my full support. I am viciously attacked by the real far-right, and they are deeply unpleasant people.

Spurned by Gable, Weston seems frustrated and confused:

I simply cannot understand what thought processes drive you to support the dilution and eventual extinction of a decent race of people and their culture, in favour of an emerging mono-cultural and supremacist majority which pays scant regard to the rights of women, Jews, and all those not of the Muslim faith. The parallels between Nazi ideology and fundamentalist Islamic ideology are pretty much identical.

And you support this, and attack people like me?

By playing the what's-good-for-the-jews card he gives the game away. Gable attacks him because she disagrees with him on this point. Weston concludes, once again, by acting as if he cannot understand. But I think it's clear enough.

In trying to explain "conservatives", Weston explained himself. If he were to admit that there's something wrong with the jews, that there's a connection between their victimology, their rabid anti-White thought processes, and the genocidal racial war he decries, then he'd have to do something about it. It seems he doesn't because he's more concerned about defending jews than he is about defending White Britons.

Foxman and Sacks Explain "Anti-Semitism"

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, on Why Anti-Semitism Endures.

What is "anti-semitism"? Foxman says it's jealousy, scapegoating, a "disease of the Christian world". Take your pick. As a shyster performing the same schtick for decades, his explanation is remarkably incoherent. He doesn't address why "anti-semitism" endures, nor why it follows the jews wherever they go.

Here's Foxman again, on The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism.

Foxman estimates just how many Americans are "seriously infected with anti-semitism"; notes various aggressive measures jews use to promote their interests (litigatation, legislation, education); argues that "the greatest challenge is the internet", "the dark underbelly", "superhighway for bigotry"; claims the ADL "broke the back" of the KKK by promoting anti-mask laws in Georgia in the 1950s.

A transcript of the interview is at Big Think Interview With Abraham Foxman.

Though Foxman is the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in the US, and perhaps the world, he doesn't come across as exceptionally intelligent or well-spoken. This is especially evident when he is contrasted with the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in Britain, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth.

In The "Fourth Mutation of Anti-Semitism" Sacks, like Foxman, paints "anti-semitism" in pathological/psychological/biological terms. Sacks provides a typical example of the jewish narrative - a one-sided version of European history, entirely sympathetic to jews and antipathetic to Europeans.

Sacks doesn't just invert the jewish problem, he abridges it. He begins with the Greeks by excusing them, along with the Romans. He says "anti-semitism" stage one "got personal with the birth of Christianity" and characterizes it as "a hatred of jews, not of people in general".

Stage two starts around 1096, having to do "with the massacre of jewish communities in Northern Europe during the First Crusade". This is "when jews became a demonic force", "the infidels, the anti-Christ". He cites "the blood libel" as "demonic anti-judaism".

As an aside, Sacks use of the term demonic is similar to Foxman's use of the term bigot. In both cases it is blatantly hypocritical - professional bigot Foxman accusing jewry's enemies of bigotry against jewry, and professional rabbi Sacks demonizing jewry's enemies for supposedly demonizing jewry. "The blood libel", to which both of these two professional jews refer, is in fact a defamation of Europeans.

Sacks dates "mutation three" to the coining of the term "anti-semitism" in 1879, which was "not religious hostility to judaism, but racial hostility to jews". He claims with this understanding of jews, "all you could do was work for the extermination of the jews" and that "the holocaust was already implicit in that word itself".

Jews regard anyone who recognizes jews as a potential threat, and ultimately as exterminationist. It is projection - a window into their own parasitic minds. Jews see themselves as separate even while they sniff out and pathologize any sign of awareness in their host. Such aggressive inversion confuses fair-minded people who, in the end, find it easier to swallow the mealy-mouthed platitudes jews offer than comprehend the relentlessly dishonest jew-centricity of jewish minds.

Sacks describes the "fourth mutation" as "demonic anti-zionism", "focused not on jews as individuals but jews as a nation in their own sovereign state", "poisoning the world peace", "responsible for every kind of distress in the universe".

A stereotypical jewish strawman argument. Jews are responsible for having their own sovereign state, of by and for themselves. They are also responsible for self-righteously organizing and lobbying to have every other sovereign state serve jewish interests as well. Jews, including Foxman and Sacks, do this and brag about it, as if it's good and right. Objecting to it is what they characterize as "anti-semitism".

Sacks asserts that "jews must never fight 'anti-semitism' alone", that "the fight against 'anti-semitism' is led by non-jews" and is in fact "a government-led activity". He cites "international conferences of parlimentarians" actively discussing ways to promote the best interests of jews.

The sad fact is that jews are effective in getting others to serve them, even to fight and die for them. The concern of jews like Sacks, however, is Why the Jewish Voice Isn't More Self-Confident.

Sacks says it's because jews are paranoid and define themselves as "the people who dwell alone", "nature's victims", who everyone hates. Sacks says he disagrees with this self-image, though as mentioned above it is the same image reflected in the jewish narrative he recites.

"Why has being a jew become a burden?" Sacks explains, "that is the residue of "anti-semitism". He defines judaism as "the voice of hope in the conversation of humankind". His final assertion:

There's nothing threatening about judaism because we don't try to convert anyone. We say look, guys, this is how we see things. If it makes sense to you please have it, and if it doesn't, that's okay.

The reality is that jews argue and organize in order to tell others how to see things - what is right and wrong, what can or can't be said or done. If this doesn't make sense to you, and you argue or organize for your own benefit, then you will find that the jews have governments on their side.

Here is the Big Think page for the Sacks interview. The whole interview, including the two bits linked above, runs 14:35.

Some highlights: Sacks expresses his pride in building day schools for jews in Britain, says jews "have an influence out of all proportion to our numbers", and sees "no model" for a Chief Rabbi in the US overlooking the pontiff-like, moralizing role played by Foxman.