Tag Archives: video

jewish_experts_on_tolerance

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.

paul_weston

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_sacks

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.

battleground

Battleground: WWII Anti-”Racist” Propaganda

Battleground (1949), IMDb:

A squad of the 101st Airborne Division copes with being trapped in the besieged city of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.

The moral of the story – a justification for the war in Europe – is delivered by a preacher. It is a brief scene whose tone and tenor stands conspicuously apart from the rest. In fact the bulk of the film, the action and interpersonal drama, can be seen as a mere delivery mechanism for this poisonous payload:

Was this trip necessary? Well, let’s look at the facts.

Nobody wanted this war but the nazis. A great many people tried to deal with them and alot of em are dead. Millions have died for no other reason except that the nazis wanted em dead. So in the final showdown there was nothing left to do except fight.

There’s a great lesson in this, and those of us who have learned it the hard way aren’t gonna forget it. We must never again let any force dedicated to a super race, or super idea, or super anything become strong enough to impose itself upon a free world. We must be smart enough and tough enough in the beginning, to put out the fire before it starts spreading.

So my answer to the sixty-four dollar question is: yes, this trip was necessary. As the years go by alot of people are gonna forget, but you won’t. And don’t ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker to fight in the war against fascism.

“Let’s look at the facts.” The authoritative voice in The Brotherhood of Man (discussed here) used the same lie to introduce his anti-”racist” fraud.

The fraud here is, “Let’s you and him fight. And don’t ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker, sucker.”

The fact is that the White race – the people of European descent in every country on this planet – lost that war. The jews won.

The film was written by Robert Pirosh:

His most notable success was garnering the Academy Award for his screenplay of Battleground (1949), a motion picture based on the Second World War Battle of the Bulge in which he had himself participated as a Master Sergeant with the 35th Division.

His name is in the list of Jewish Recipients of the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.

Charles Lindbergh Speaks on a United European Race

Charles Lindbergh Speaks on a United European Race

Charles Lindbergh, 13 Oct 1939:

Our bond with Europe is a bond of race and not of political ideology. It is the European race we must preserve, political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital, politics a luxury. If the White race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.

hittin_da_boozeye

Puttin da Muhfugging Bullit Throo da Muhfugging Boozeye

Women Ready For SHTF

Youtube hosts a broad selection of gun-related videos. The titilating sub-genre sandwiched in the middle of the video above is probably among the more popular. In fact, the gun video genre as a whole represents just the tip of an enormously popular and vibrant American gun subculture. The Constitution-reading, law-abiding portion of this subculture is also overwhelmingly White. Even so, it’s hard to find videos like this on YouTube. This video doesn’t just titilate. It expresses a pro-White political position.

The black man is alarmed because he sees that, when the Schumer Hits The Fan, Whites will not only be well armed but better prepared. The contrasting sights and sounds – vulgar threat, bonny poise – stir deep, primal emotions. The women shooters don’t have to say a word. Any White man with a properly functioning limbic system gets this message. As disgust and tingle pass, there is anger. White women shouldn’t need to take up arms. Something is wrong in a society where they see such a need. Racial pride wells up, however, with the recognition that we do prepare well to face challenges, in whatever form they come.

Where we are weak is identity, which compounds our difficulty in properly identifying threats to us. Whites don’t have a problem hitting the bullseye. Whites have a problem deciding which bullseye to hit. Ultimately, this is because Whites have a problem thinking clearly about who “we” is.

The 1960s-era Wally Butterworth voice-over at the end adds historic context. What has gone wrong started going wrong a long time ago. The Butterworth commentary is a reminder that for decades now the struggle for cultural and political power in the US, for it’s identity, hasn’t primarily been with blacks, but with jews. Neither he nor Rockwell tried to fool themselves or others into thinking that someday blacks would run America. Like George Lincoln Rockwell, Butterworth rightly made a point of calling upon Christian Whites to defend the country they had built. Today it is only more obvious that the assault is on White interests as a race, not constrained by borders or creed.

Matthew Heimbach on RT

‘Caucasians under attack!’ – student organizes white defense group

A brief interview with Matthew Heimbach, founder of the Towson White Student Union, a topic I discussed as part of two tWn podcasts in September – Guilt and Pride and especially Discrimination and Exclusion.

Heimbach is intelligent and articulate. He provides reasonable, sensible answers to the kinds of questions most often posed by disingenuous anti-Whites:

What’s a White interest?

What qualifies as a White person?

Who’s allowed in your group?

You don’t consider jewish people White?

How have you personally been discriminated against?

Do you consider yourself to be a White nationalist?

The judaized media – owned, operated and policed as it is by jews and useful idiot others whose overriding concern is what’s best for jews – doesn’t usually ask such probing questions of non-Whites advocating what they believe is best for their people’s particularist interests. They also don’t usually provide any opportunity for Whites to answer such questions.

The most important issue broached in the interview – rarely if ever addressed in the judaized media – is the confusion whether jews are White. As Heimbach quite correctly notes, they aren’t. While I don’t think Heimbach’s answer was wrong, it could have been made more directly.

The difference between Whites and jews is most obvious exactly in how we’re regarded when attempting to discuss and organize in pursuit of our interests. The current political and academic environment is characterized by a deeply dishonest but ever more obvious racial double-standard. Here are frequent, emotional expressions of concern for the best interests of non-Whites, first and foremost jews, coupled with a relentless pathologization and demonization of Whites, past and present, in parts and as a whole. The foundation of this anti-White regime is a long-standing jewish narrative damning Whites as congenital oppressors while sanctifying jews (and, more recently, various other “minorities”) as our eternal and entirely blameless victims.

In other words, even in terms of judeo-liberal identity politics itself, jews aren’t White. According to the jewish narrative Whites are the people who aren’t supposed to notice this disparity, aren’t suppposed to have an identity, and aren’t supposed to organize to pursue the interests we aren’t supposed to have.