July 12, 2007
By Patrick Grimm
In 1965 neo-Marxist and Jewish Communist Gentile-hater Herbert Marcuse of the anti-white, anti-Gentile Frankfurt School wrote in an essay entitled “Repressive Tolerance” that “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: ‘fire’. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.” 
Marcuse goes on to further ‘tease out’ the ideas of “repressive tolerance” in the Prologue to “Repressive Tolerance”. Everything he swills forth matches the current climate of censorship and an almost totalitarian atmosphere of censure which has seized America at the heart of its culture and institutions. Marcuse dares to assert, with no tongue-in-cheek and no apparent sense of being ironical:
“Given this situation, I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for ‘the other side’, I maintain that there are issues where either there is no ‘other side’ in any more than a formalistic sense, or where ‘the other side’ is demonstrably ‘regressive’ and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.”
These quotations and skewed pronouncements are all taken from a Marcuse fan site for enthusiasts of his political viewpoints, therefore any cries of protest, complaints of his quotes not being cited correctly, etc. become moot and void.
Herbert Marcuse, the author of One-Dimensional Man, a sixties primer for fresh-faced leftists jazzed about changing the institutions and often resorting to street violence, was a totalitarian. He was a totalitarian leftist for the very reason that his ideas can only be implemented in a police state or in an intellectual climate resembling our Jewish-run Ivy League universities, where the Right has been declared DOD and the Left has been dished out a nice dose of ‘carte blanche’ to control the appointments, the tenure process, the multicultural circle jerks stirring up grievances against Western Civ and white people, and the sheer unabashed entitlement zeitgeist that reigns supreme.
Political ideas and speech from the Right have been curtailed and often silenced altogether, not only because many rightist critiques of radical egalitarianism and “post-modernism” cannot be disputed and debunked, but also for the white disenfranchisement that is the inevitable fallout of such wholesale exclusion of the opposition, or what Marcuse would probably signify as the “Establishment” with a capital E. But he has it totally backward, or at least he would in the year 2007. The Left, the Frankfurt-tinged, reactionary neo-Marxist Left is the Establishment. They are capable now of shouting down, intimidating and even launching violent physical attacks on any unfortunate conservative or traditionalist soul who dares to grace the lectern at almost any university. This Stalinist environment forces many conservatives, even moderate conservatives, to fear for their safety and often their lives when traversing onto these indoctrination mill campuses which are supposed places of “higher learning.” Some conservative speakers have even taken to hiring bodyguards when stepping onto the grounds of these leftist schools.
Unencumbered black Marxists, often criminals like Angela Davis, are given a platform and sometimes a professorship to launch hate against the white race and against the United States of America. A soft-spoken and reasonable thinker like David Duke or Paul Fromm would be banned from ever speaking in any place but Eastern Europe, despite the fact that these two men have never advocated or been involved in violence against anyone and only wish to preserve white European culture and traditions. Black racists are “tolerated” while white preservationists are “repressed.” It’s the Jewish Marxist way of doing business, after all.
We see much the same in the media, especially when the subject turns to Jews, Israel or black racial conflagrations. A smug leftist, usually goateed and Jewish, gives a condescending smile and it is quite clear whose side the moderator is on in the whole back-and-forth. A “liberal smirk” ensues and the conversation is rapidly over.
Anti-Zionist Christians too face the same quagmire. Ted Pike is labeled an “anti-Semite” on the numerous “Christian” radio shows he appears on, simply for lovingly wanting to protect rank-and-file Jews from their vile and poisonous Talmudic leadership. Reverend Pike is “repressed” or slandered right out of the box, with no apology, no legitimate answer addressed to his arguments and no quarter given to the fact that he may even be coming from a position of “good will.” No, this is never considered.
Pro-Zionist Christians on the other hand are celebrated, given prime broadcasting spots on Jewish television stations and they are often transformed into media celebrities. Ministers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, while ridiculed as windbags by liberal Jewry, are still assigned a place of prominence in the TV world, their statements quoted by the media. They are, or were in the case of Falwell, featured on CNN and their opinions are sought by Zionist commentators. They are “tolerated” rather than “repressed” as Ted Pike, or for that matter, Texe Marrs, another brave anti-Zionist Christian would be. The Reverend Falwell may have been bludgeoned for his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual views, but the ADL and other Jewish criminals could always count on the rotund and good-natured preacher to agitate for Zionism and more American monies being drained from the US economy into the Jewish one in the Middle East.
This is the way “repressive tolerance” works, ladies and gentlemen. It’s not about free speech. It’s about “selective speech” chosen by the arbiters of American “freedom”, in other words, the Jews and their chattel Goyim working under the heavy heel of “speech editing” and the “selective consciousness” of “reality” rationed out meagerly to the reliably uninformed of this nation.
Spare me one more example. An “anti-Semite” is now one who declares that Jews control the media and the economy. A “philo-Semite” is one who declares that Jews are smart and hard-working and dedicated people who have a bigger influence on America than their numbers would seem to merit. Both statements essentially say the same thing, but only one is “anti-Semitic” and thus “repressed”, simply because one tells the whole story and the other is incomplete and partially dishonest, not to mention complimentary.
Rest assured, the ideologies of the Frankfurt School are not going anywhere anytime soon. Neo-Marxism never rests and it never ceases to punish the truth. No good or noble deed ever goes unpunished in this “country on life support” because we are no longer free, and haven’t been for many, many decades. Marcuse and his minions have turned us all into Judaized dullards, and only now a few of us are waking up from our Orwellian hypnosis, the totalitarian spell sprinkled over us like a kosher hallucinogen.