All posts by Tanstaafl

Blog

Mandela and Friends

12 Comments

Government Denies Mandela Is “Vegetative”, AP/ABC News:

Nelson Mandela is in critical but stable condition, the South African government said Friday, while a close friend said the anti-apartheid leader was conscious and responsive earlier this week.

BBC News was a bit more forthcoming about the “close friend”, Denis Goldberg, identifying him as “a fellow anti-apartheid campaigner who was imprisoned for 22 years”.

More on Goldberg from Wikipedia:

Denis Theodore Goldberg grew up in Cape Town and studied for a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Cape Town. As member of the South African Communist Party, an organisation which was suppressed by the apartheid regime which came to power in 1948, he joined other leading white members in forming the Congress of Democrats, of which he became leader. This in turn allied itself with the African National Congress and other ‘non-racial’ congresses in the Congress Alliance. He was detained in 1960 and spent four months in prison without trial.

When the underground armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe was founded in 1961, Goldberg became a technical officer. In 1963 he was arrested at the Rivonia headquarters of their army. He was sentenced in 1964 at the end of the famous Rivonia Trial to four terms of life imprisonment. He was the only white member of Umkhonto we Sizwe to be arrested and sentenced in the Rivonia Trial to life imprisonment.

Goldberg described the issue of being white and involved with the armed struggle as follows: “Being black and involved (in the struggle) meant you had support of many people and it meant you got to be part of a community. Being white and involved meant being isolated.”

More on Goldberg from South African History Online:

A Leading member of Congress of Democrats and political activist who was sentenced with Mandela and others to life imprisonment at the Rivonia Treason Trial. After his release he went into exile in London and returned to SA in 2002 to become a Member of Parliament, Special Adviser to Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry 2002-2006.

Denis Theodore Goldberg, an engineer by training, was born on 11 April 1933 in Cape Town, Cape Province (now Western Cape). He married Esme Bodenstein, who was born in Johannesburg, on 9 April 1954.

Bodenstein was also a political activist. She was subjected to solitary confinement under the 90 Day Detention Law in 1963 after Goldberg had been arrested and had escaped and been recaptured.

Goldberg was tried from June 1963 to October 1964 in the Pretoria Supreme Court along with Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and others in the Rivonia Trial. Goldberg was charged under the Sabotage and Suppression of Communism Acts for ‘campaigning to overthrow the Government by violent revolution and for assisting an armed invasion of the country by foreign troops’. The charge sheet contained 193 acts of sabotage allegedly carried out by persons recruited by the accused in their capacity as members of the High Command of uMkhonto we Sizwe.

When Mandela dies there will be more violence. As with past violence, it will be justified and excused by an extension of the jewish narrative, which paints Whites as stupid, crazy, evil oppressors, while painting non-Whites as noble victims and heroes. Guess whose side the jews are on?

Rob Eshman, writing at Jewish Journal, describes the jewish perspective in Nelson Mandela/Moses:

Mandela learned Afrikaans. The reason, he told biographer Anthony Sampson, was so he could convert his captors, his torturers, his oppressors, to his cause — the cause of freedom.

Think of Moses living among the Egyptians, eventually being able to speak to Pharaoh.

In fact, Mandela was as close to the biblical Moses as we’ll see in our lifetime.

It is a well-known and well-promoted fact that this Moses carried on his struggle side-by-side with Jews. The e-mails zinging about trumpeting Mandela’s Jewish connections are as ubiquitous and self-congratulatory as those listing Jewish Nobel Prize winners. But the facts speak for themselves. It was a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who took an interest in a young Mandela, gave him his first job as a law clerk and, in Mandela’s words, became his “first white friend.”

Anti-apartheid activist Arthur Goldreich pretended to own the farm near Johannesburg where the fugitive Mandela hid. Nadine Gordimer helped write Mandela’s speech at his Rivonia Trial, at which Mandela’s co-defendant, Denis Goldberg, was also sentenced to life in prison. Mandela’s defense attorneys were Jewish (then again, so was the state prosecutor). The list goes on.

“I found Jews to be more broadminded than most whites on issues of race and politics,” Mandela once wrote, “perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.”

In other words, the Jews who supported Mandela fought out of the same sense of empathy that animated him. Because you were slaves in Egypt turns out not to be just a line we say at Passover.

Was it more impressive that Jews, who could have lives of white privilege in apartheid South Africa, aligned themselves with Mandela, or that Mandela, who suffered deeply at the hands of the Afrikaners, sought to empathize with them? Either way, the same powerful force was at work.

Mandela as Moses – the role of the jewish narrative in justifying violence against Whites couldn’t be more explicit.

Note the importance of the dual nature of jewish identity, passing simultaneously as “white” and “victims”. The cognitive dissonance created by such a pose serves to mask, somewhat, the reality of jews seeing themselves as having common cause with non-Whites, joining with them to do violence against Whites, and celebrating the results.

Blog

Joe Sobran on Force

2 Comments

I stumbled across an intriguing quote while searching for an image of Joe Sobran to attach to my latest podcast, The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3. The quote comes from the conclusion of Sobran’s essay, Anarchy without Fear, dated 17 Oct 2002:

The measure of the state’s success is that the word anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not.

The body of the essay concerns the interplay of rule, legitimacy, morality and force:

The first great American anarchist was Lysander Spooner, who died more than a century ago. His argument was simple. There is a natural and unchangeable moral law, which forbids slavery. No man has the right to force others to do his will. The state not only claims such a right, but claims a monopoly of force — the right to force its subjects to accept its laws as morally binding, no matter how arbitrary and unjust those laws may be.

. . .

There is no getting away from it: at bottom, the state is nothing but organized force. Its only abiding rule is this: “Obey, or we will hurt you.”

What is force? Simone Weil defined force as that which turns a person into a thing — a corpse or a slave — with no will of its own. Of course even a slave exercises his own will to some degree, but only by sufferance of his master. The state itself has to allow its slaves some latitude, but its permissions aren’t genuine rights.

. . .

Most men today can hardly imagine living without the parasitic force-systems we call states. However bad the state may be, they assume that anarchy would be somehow even worse, even after a century of world war, mass murder, and general waste and destruction claiming hundreds of millions of lives and creating poverty where there might have been plenty.

By now, if men learned from experience, they would talk about the state in the same tones in which Jews talk about Nazis.

“Obey, or we will hurt you” echoes the title jew Joey Kurtzman gave to Derbyshire’s odious acquiescence to jewish power, Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You.

When it comes to jewish power, men have learned from experience. Thus most talk about Nazis in the same tones as jews because they don’t wish to be hurt or crushed.

To paraphrase Sobran, the measure of the jews’ success is that the word Nazi frightens people, while the word jew does not.

Blog

Tolerance (the Berkeley-Popper Mix)

19 Comments

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.

Blog

John Derbyshire and The Suicide Thing

44 Comments

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.

Blog

The Nature of Jewish Power

2 Comments

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.