Jews, Hypocrites, & Tolerance
This post from Jan Diechmohle illustrates that when a Jew calls for "tolerance", he intends to demand censorship of anyone who disagrees with him, and will stoop to using racial and religious slurs like "neo-nazi", "anti-semite", and "hateful" to get his way.
The only thing more intolerant than a jew like this is a "liberal" who believes he has the right to impose miscegenation on OTHER races, nations, and peoples in the name of "tolerance". If such "liberals" really want to promote "tolerance", then TOLERATE that we have the RIGHT, and the God given DUTY, and the constitutional right, to OPPOSE you with every fibre of our bodies, with the historical record of your miserable failure as proof of your amorality.
Since you marched on Selma, Alabama, and forced Whites there to "integrate" with niggers, the purchasing power of the nigger family plunged two thirds, the percent of nigger children who grow up fatherless skyrocketed from 12% to 78%, and the percent of nigger males who're imprisoned prior to age 33 skyrocketed from 15% to 80%. Where's the pony in all that bs?
The 86% of this country who are Christians say to the 1.9% of this country who are Jews like Jan: "NO!". Not only "no!", but "hel. no!"
If anybody or anything is to be censored, and we aren't calling for censorship, the FIRST to be censored will be the Talmud, which will be burned, just as it was burned by popes and kings and Christians numerous times before in history.
We don't "hate" you, Jan, even though you are a confirmed LIAR. We can't be "anti-semitic" because we are semites and you Jews are not. We are not "neo-nazis" because we are exactly the opposite: we vigorously oppose the strong central government which is a trait of the fascism which Nazis supported.
If you want "tolerance", Jan, then tolerate this:
This is a Christian nation, based on Christian principles, with a population which is 86% Christians, which the 1.9% which is Jews is not going to upset our founding Christian principles one iota.
From: Jan Deichmohle email@example.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 3:13 AM
Subject: [Patriarchy] Neo-nazi John Knight attacking Patriarchy Group
For a few days I couldnt respond quickly because I was busy off-list
opposing a neo-nazi slinging mud - bashed innocent minorities are referred
to by vomit and excrement and theyre doing the most mad smear campaign
Ive ever seen. Theyve lost touch to reality and facts completely. As they
started attacking us, our list archives were closed for the public and are
accessible to members only.
Anybody currently subscribed to the egalitarian - equality feminist - board
backslash I ask to vote for banning the neo-nazis and to send posts
requesting their members to do the same.
In the meantime we had some unneeded controversy. Wed better settle it and
cool down. We need to join our efforts opposing feminism and promoting
Lets remember that Patriarchy is based on mutual love, on human love, love
between the sexes, on high values, on complementing of the sexes.
Lets uphold the good values of Patriarchy and resist feminist, femi-nazi
and neo-nazi hatred.
Lets do this good work together without alienation by unneeded
All the best and much success,
Tolerance doesn't mean that we can't oppose a fallacy or an opinion.
Walter has been telling facts opposing an opinion which seems to have
been based on a little outdated statistical numbers.
Tolerance doesn't mean that everybody is allowed to act as moderator.
For attacking first members and now me you've chosen the very moment
when I was busy with other troubles so I couldn't respond immediately.
You are using huge bold and black letters to impress in visual terms
instead of using arguments, and continue to do so. Is this fair?
You were so kind to highlight visually - nobody else uses this method
- that irrational bashing of any other group isn't allowed. Exactly
true. Therefore we expose the irrational bashing of opponents - the
irrational bashing feminists do, their bashing of men, Patriarchy,
good wives and natural women, anything male, anything in equilibrance,
any working culture, and even of children. It's indeed an important
work of our group to expose such bashings contradicting list policy.
Walter, Art, Tom, Rhianwen and many others are doing it nicely and
they are among those members you have been attacking, Joe.
The attitudes of people using derogatory, hateful words is indeed
irrational, embarrassing and contradicting list policy. Telling such
facts by their name is perfectly fine and according to our agenda and
the spirit of our policy - as long as it's done in a good way. Telling
facts isn't irrational.
>> "We need a good atmosphere so that people from very different
>> backgrounds can work comfortably together. Disturbing this
>> cooperation isn't welcome."
Thanks, Joe, for quoting this. You must have had a foreboding that I'm
going to need it. We've indeed people from very different backgrounds
and got along very well before you started creating rifts between us.
> "Let's continue in our good work and good cooperation.
> May the seed of controversy and alienation not sprout among us
Thanks again, Joe. You're doing me a favour offering me so much help.
May the seed of controversy not been sown, Joe. Currently you're
sowing it between Walter and me and between Walter and Mike.
Previously Art and Tom had the honour of being attacked by you.
Rhianwen had the favour of being misquoted by you with a text even
though most of it was authored by Peggy.
> Does tolerance mean - not replying to a differing opinion
> with lectures?
Thanks Joe, for your lecture. I will do as you say. From now on, I'll
let Liz post to Patriarchy and will refrain from giving her lectures
as this would be against list policy as you've explained to me, Joe. I
just didn't know before. ;-)
Tolerance means that people should respect each other. Ad hominem
attacks or bashing people and especially ethnics or religions are
That doesn't mean that we can't debate facts and theories.
Is it intolerant discussing and opposing Newton's physics - obsolete
since Einstein? If yes, we can go back up the trees and swing on the
Is it intolerant to debate the fallacies of feminist ideologies of our
and previous times? If yes, welcome to the World Without Men, Joe. (By
the way, that was a quote from a post on a 19th century feminist
Is it intolerant to debate the fallacies of communism? If yes, welcome
to the Soviet Republic.
Is it intolerant to tell facts about the hatred and intolerance of
neo-nazis? If yes, you tell the same as some neo-nazi filth
campaigners who currently tell that some ethnics and religions have no
place in the country - I wonder what they want to do with them - and
at the same time consider it intolerant to criticize their hatred and
intolerance. Even Orwell in his wildest nightmares may not have
described such a twisting of facts and sense.
Whoever considers it intolerant to oppose neo-nazi ardent hatred and
intolerance must be blinded and already be one (him/her/it)self.
By the way, femi-nazis twist words as much.
Is it intolerant to oppose hate language? If yes, than our list policy
is intolerant and should be removed. Send a welcome to rants and
Obviously such views don't work and are contradictive. Debating and
opposing ideologies and intolerance is perfectly compatible with - if
not requested by - tolerance.
Join Patriarchy at http://www.egroups.com/group/patriarchy/
http://www.gabnet.com/lit/demoh10.htm Domain Critique of Feminism
http://www.gabnet.com/lit/demoh15e.htm Anti-Feminist Network
Activists please get a web-only-membership at our low-traffic-version:
Please send a copy of commented articles, calls for action and essays
on theory to patriarchy@t... and
firstname.lastname@example.org. Other posts send to email@example.com
only. Thank you.
Note: The original trying to impress with huge black letters you find
at this URL: http://www.egroups.com/message/patriarchy/6488
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Joe Greene jdg111@h... wrote:
> Jan, are these your quotes below? - seems they are.
> Are these statements defining tolerance of differing opinons on
> Does tolerance mean - not replying to a differing opinion with
> Jan, do you believe in fair and equitable application of your
> And, do they apply to the exchange below?
> "Whether your view is based on science, experience, differences of
> sexes, culture,
> holy books as Bible, Koran .., we look forward to welcome you on
> list. "
> "All our members are requested to share their knowledge and to
> friends to Patriarchy."
> "We need a good atmosphere so that people from very different
> backgrounds can work comfortably together. Disturbing this
> isn't welcome."
> "Let's continue in our good work and good cooperation. May the seed
> controversy and alienation not sprout among us as we've been doing
> nicely and need to do much more in a good way."
> "Not patriarchal and forbidden are hate talk and irrational bashing
> any other group or religion."
> Beginning of exchange:
> "Walter H. Schneider" wrote:
> > At 16:20 2000 06 26 -0700, Mike wrote:
> > Art Lemasters wrote:
> > Oops. ...forgot to repost the URL.
> > http://www.fred.net/turtle/kids/kidrants.shtml
> > Pardon me but I just checked out this site and what I found was a
> > group of people who have chosen not to have children for various
> > reasons emotionally supporting >each other in what must be a
> > decision. I didn't find any evidence of a "feminist" or
> > agenda.
> > There are plenty of legitimate opponents to the rights of men and
> > fathers but I don't think this particular group is one of them.
> > seem to be, on the surface >anyway, advocating responsible choice
> > order to avoid further populating the world with unwanted
> > would say that last matter would be something we
> > have in common with them.
> > Let's not undermine our credibility by attacking our allies or
> > potential allies.
> > Mike Klein
> > San Jose, CA, USA
> > Mike, patriarchy is about improving civilization, not killing it
> > Refusing to procreate is very much like committing suicide.
> > Someone who refuses to procreate is no more an ally of patriarchy
> > someone who commits suicide. Both are the ultimate opposition to
> > patriarchy.
> > Neither the person who commits suicide nor the individual who
> > to procreate can ever become productive members of the patriarchy.
> > Whether suicide victims or anti-procreationists are members of an
> > organized death cult or not, if their beliefs were to become
> > universal, they would bring about the end of humanity within a
> > generation.
> > What in the world can possibly be good about that? If you
> > the consequences of their action, to permanently remove themselves
> > from the human gene pool, even if only by excluding their genes,
> > such people are no less the enemies of the patriarchy and humanity
> > than are mass murderers.
> > Any action that becomes permissible can also easily become
> > Just because you say that someone makes a reasoned and conscious
> > choice doesn't make that choice a good one, most definitely not if
> > choice could potentially mean the end of all human life.
> > Anti-procreationists are the ultimate egotists. The comforts of
> > age for such people will be provided for through reliance on the
> > sacrifices made by other people to do what they themselves are
> > unwilling to do, to raise children.
> > --Walter