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.

19 thoughts on “Tolerance (the Berkeley-Popper Mix)”

  1. You’ve all got to watch this. It’s a little slow at first, but watch it all the way through.

    Tolerance indeed.

  2. Because this disturbed Jew is an avowed atheist, he sees theism as a threat to atheists. Because he is also an homosexual, he sees theism as a threat to homosexuals. Finally because he is a Jew, he sees theism as a threat to Jews. He rolls all in one in his rant against that Christian street activist, conveniently forgetting that the Christian God himself is of Jewish origin. And what does the Old Testament teach again about homosexuals? Yes, they should be stoned to death! (“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They should surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13).
    As for the connection of theism with genocide, the O.T. is full of it. Repeatedly the Israelites were ordered by their God Yahweh to commit genocide on the Canaanites in order to steal their land.
    In short, this Jew is an hypocrite, as Jews always are.

  3. Just find a video format that archives this “chimp-out” neutrally… jewtube has already started yanking it down, much like their typical treatment of more prototypical “chimp-outs”: anything to better toe the party line of boredom and blather. In other words, intrinsically the opposite of why an aggregator like youtube gets popular in the first place.

  4. OK, something went wrong with my post. Go to Youtube and search “WHEN ISRAEL IS MIGHTY.” Watch the video. It’s about 12 min. long. Sorry for the error.

  5. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

    What those in the business refer to as “social justice”.

  6. Franklin Ryckaert writes

    “”””In short, this Jew is an hypocrite, as Jews always are.”””

    There is an old joke. Two women, one Catholic, one Jew, go off to university and become radical feminists. One day at a meeting, the Catholic women stands up and delouses the Pope and the Catholic Church as being anti-women. The other women applaud. Next the Jewish women stands up and she too denounces the Pope and Catholic church for being anti-women and anti-Semitic. The other woman applaud. Later someone asks the Jewish woman why she did not delouse the Rabbis and Judaism as anti-Woman. The Jewish woman looks shocked and says, “But that would be anti-Semitic!!!.

  7. Franklin Ryckaert writes

    “”””In short, this Jew is an hypocrite, as Jews always are.”””

    There is an old joke. Two women, one Catholic, one Jew, go off to university and become radical feminists. One day at a meeting, the Catholic women stands up and denounces the Pope and the Catholic Church as being anti-women. The other women applaud. Next the Jewish women stands up and she too denounces the Pope and Catholic church for being anti-women and anti-Semitic. The other woman applaud. Later someone asks the Jewish woman why she did not denounce the Rabbis and Judaism as anti-Woman. The Jewish woman looks shocked and says, “But that would be anti-Semitic!!!.

    Oops, Corrected spelling version

  8. Later someone asks the Jewish woman why she did not delouse the Rabbis and Judaism

    I liked the first version better.

  9. Hi tanstaafl (I post this here, subjects fits in a bit; turns out I need to split in 2 parts) I would like to make a more general remark. With the subject homosexuality now in the focus, it is my notion that there is a divide in the standard of discussion. Positing that there is a WN “movement”, I can say that I agree pretty much entirely with the view on the Jewish Question and on the racial question. But the way that the subject homosexuality is treated, I don´t agree. There are a number of points that make no sense to me; I refer among others to an article by Alex Linder .

    -homosexual considered a “lifestyle”: so it´s a decison?
    -> please show me the hetero-males who go like: wow. Yes, I want fun: I turn gay.
    -they say that homosexuality is so much a problem: but they never have that kind of problem with female homosexuality: so it´s NOT about homosexuality
    -they say anal sex is a problem. So hetero anal sex is a problem? All hetero-males cheering: yeah wow: we
    hetero-WNers… we really hate anal sex with women?

    Other points that make no sense:
    -gays to be effeminate because penetrated: but… : isn´t there necessarily…: one who penetrates?
    -gays to create and spread diseases: how? Do they have sex with women, that heteros have then sex with?
    But more importantly: it´s pretty certain that AIDS is just another huge hoax.
    And venereal diseases can as well be spread by heteros: so if there was an issue to address, it would be promiscuity.

    So: for me, the way the subject of homosexuality is treated by the WN movement, actually does accord with the worst fears that mainstreamers can have about the right: it´s plain mindless, makes no sense at all, is resentment driven, is brutal, is arbitrary, is an expression of intellectual incapacity, in short: is stupid crazy evil. All that applies to the rightwing view of homosexuality. If such argumentation is used: so who´s the next to be subjected to such arbitrary argumentation? And a mainstreamer will conclude: NEVER let such people have power over me.
    So who do they run to? To the jewish-led liberal coalition: if only someone protects them from those nuts.

    The racial cause is linked to the right, and the right presents itself in this way. It´s a PR-disaster writ large.

  10. IMO, the reason why the racial cause, the case for our racial persistance which is plain obviously just, does not gain track is mainly because the representants of that case sport these positions in the other societal fields.
    If there is a white person that feels repelled by the anti-white hate of the system tries to find a political home: he´s homeless! The right will not be his home because, except for the racial question, rightist positions may not appeal to whites, or even be plain inacceptable.

    There is no connection between the race question and other questions: role of women, workers´ rights, evolution vs. creationism… or what have you: the leftist agenda got connected to the racial question in a purely artificial way.

    I subscribe to Greg Johnon´s position: there can be a white society with all the issues that exist today: just that it´s an only-whites society.
    The jews made that link between the race question and the rest of the liberal agenda in a clever move of misdirection:

    if your heart goes out to this minority or oppressed group (females, gays, workers…): then you have to include….: our
    beloved ethnic minorities, too and THAT is the central misconception: the ethnic issue does NOT belong to the catalogue of liberal items. But people are misled to believe it.

    I very much estimate your podcasts. They come across as supremely clear and logical.
    I wonder if you not agree that the same level of logic is not given in the treatment of the subject of homosexuality by the right.

    Greg Johnson coined the term “west coast WN”. A WN that minds the racial question, and with the rest, it´s quite liberal. It seems to me that such a position should be able to garner substantial majorities. IMO, for the sake of our race, it should be tried to follow such an approach.

  11. Peter,

    That’s a lot of words to say that faggots aren’t disgusting. I offer a dissenting opinion: faggots are disgusting.

  12. Phalluster,
    it´s not what it says (please don´t let me refer too much to the point “expression of intellectual incapacity”).

    So when I concede to you expressively that faggottery is disgusting for a hetero man: does that then enable a rational debate on how to deal with the phenomenon?

    E.g.: should homosexuality be criminalized? Is it that what WN wants? And what other sexual behavior should be criminalized? Heterosexual anal intercourse? Because it “spreads diseases”? Some positions, or practices, that are by some considered “disgusting”? And while at it… what else should be criminalized? Certain music? Thoughts? Atheism? Lack of praying? We are so weak and our white community is fragil, it probably should outlaw a lot of undesired behavior? Any behavior can jeopardize the community, isn´t it. Also the evil eye is a danger. And magic spells.
    Will such views be as much shared by fellow-whites as the views on the race-question?

    With the “disgusting”-point out of the way, you now have the chance to refer to various arguments that I made in my posting.

  13. One for you to consider Peter:

    “Congratulations, you’re having a lesbian.”

    Any sensible, rational, person let alone WN can see that the homosexualist agenda, for an agneda it is, is anti-human, and definitely anti-White.

    Homos should do what Oscar Wilde should have done: keep it to yourself.

    If you wanna bring it out in public and make us all bend to your perverted proclivities then, yes, criminalise it or eradicate it. After all, if fags and lesbos are born and not a choice then they can be selected out of the gene pool. You’re not against abortion are you?

    The homosexualist agenda is part and parcel of the jewish agenda, i.e. to destroy our way of life and thus us. So, of course any sensible WN would oppose public expression of homosexuality.

  14. Hm… well, I´m sensing something like a consensus view that one of the most desired aspects WRT homosexuality is that it not be displayed in public.I think that´s fairly simple to be agreed upon. Yet… I don´t really agree upon “the jewish agenda, i.e. to destroy our way of life and thus us”: the one and only thing that destroys me is the destruction of my race. Anything else is, compared to that… noise. It´s so secondary to me.

    Also… while I appreciate you answering my case… I think you´re beating up strawmen. My point wasn´t if WN has issues with public display of homosexuality, my point is various irrational witch hunt attitudes that, well, in me, cause panic: what if such people have power over me… and then it occurs to them that I´m the next witch. And I posit that it´s this very concern that drives many whites away from WN.

    Re your argument homosexuality, gen-pool, abortion… sorry mate… I´m stunned: it´s plain mindless. Do I really have to spell it out?: homosexuals don´t procreate. Not going deeper into the argument to spare you embarrassment (and BTW, yes, I´m not against abortion. Another plain mindless point ridden by the right).

    In my attempt to do something constructive for the rescue of my race, I have this rationale which should allow for forming a white majority for WN and not drive whites away from the cause:

    the jewish strategy to mingle “race” into the public discourse goes like this:
    gee, they went after the witches; they went after the homosexuals. Watch-out, anybody can be the next to be subjected to arbitrary persecution. So: that kind of thinking flies with whites. Call them crazy but it does

    -> so all potential victims of arbitrary witch-hunts get allied in the jewish leftist coalition: but the jews, having a racial agenda: include racial minorities into that alliance. And the gullible whites fall for it… panicked as they are in horror of the witch-hunts.

    So the thing to do is
    1)make clear that alien races don´t belong into any catalogue of social issues in a white society (i.e. of-course because alien races aren´t part of whites societies in the first place)
    2)accept self-determined life-styles that whites choose without starting mindless witch-hunts
    (please note that Matt Parrott strikes up a similar tune in his recent article at CC “Island of Misfit Goys”: “we must learn to come together as a phalanx”).

    That way, a majority of whites would join the white racial cause and we win back our racial sovereignty.and we win back our racial sovereignty.

  15. Peter, I will reply at some stage in the future.

    Maybe you’re for real, maybe you’re not.

    You’re reply is so gay it must be for real.

    This isn’t a reply it’s just me being drunk and acknowledging that you said something, and I will reply, for whatever worth it is.

    (Really? That’s your argument?)

  16. Let me share an odd observation: maybe people have two different mindsets: one that thinks in terms of group… always implying: hm, is this good for the group? I call it the “volonté générale”-mindset, or “groupish”-mindset.
    The other mindset is the “individual”-mindset. That may cover various personal interests that are not widely recognized; they are hence: minority-like. Certain music; being a Trekkie; sexual preferences (and wasn´t it the core of the American identity: mind your own business and leave others alone with whatever they like, who´s to judge?). Now… if everybody only gives weight to his individual, minority interests, the community collapses.

    So the two mindsets are in conflict.
    I think what you call gay is the “individual”-mindset. Because it doesn´t go for posturing. For a group in order to be strong, the participants have to sport a clear set of qualities: one must do the macho posturing.
    But inside you…. there is a lot of other stuff.
    So here the news: that stuff isn´t gay. It´s just the individual”-mindset as opposed to the “volonté générale”-mindset. The only thing that is “gay” about it is it´s lack of macho-posturing. But that mindset doesn´t need the macho-posturing that is necessary to make for a strong group. But the “individual”-mindset is also legitimate.

    The question that we have to answer is how to combine the different requirements. The group has requirements. But: these requirements do not oblige you to a life of macho-posturing. I say it´s no problem to combine the two, it´s not a question of “if” but of “to what degree”. When we can afford to pursue a lot of individual interests…: nothing wrong with that. In times of war, like today… we´d rather emphasize the group-aspects (but that is something different than delegitimizing the “individual”-mindset altogether).

    So you can drop the gay-calling. It´s fun to do the macho-posturing, and provoking the buddies, Nancy-boy, ladies etc. But… there is the other side when you are not in the group. That side lives and wants respect. That´s why many fellow-whites go for a lot of liberal stuff.
    Note: not the liberal stuff is the problem: but the fact that it gets instrumentalized by the Jews in their grasp for power (right BECAUSE it works, because the liberal stuff is attractive in it´s understanding of the individual interests, people want it. So the Jews, respecting the wishes of the people like good populists should, win the power).

    I want these whites on board. I want these whites to stop supporting the witch-hunt for WNers because they themselves feel legitimately threatened by those very WNers. So please let´s stop pissing these whites off the case for no reason but lack of understanding or mere spite.

  17. More jewish entitlement: That’s no cop…That’s a rabbi!

    Rabbi Alfredo Borodowski has been arrested in one case and is being investigated in at least two more in which authorities say the apparent reason for trying to pull people over was to rage at them for cutting him off or driving too slowly.

    Correction: jews and rabbis *are* the cops. If you disagree…you’re an anti-semite!

Comments are closed.