Wherein a 1987 book is quoted as presenting a Hindu counter point to Alexander Dugin’s Subject Without Confines.

PS: “Subject without confines” is essentially anti-life since prior to the organism, the aboriginal creative consciousness had not confined itself.  There was but one “subject” within time, space and mass-energy-in-violence.  This interpretation of “subject without confines” is consistent with the original concept of “blowing out the candle”—most likely originating with the Aryans whose bio-nihilism resulted from losing the meaning of life within the Dravidian culture.  In this respect, it may be that the derivative Hindu concept of “nirvana”, as being merely the refinement of the organism’s consciousness until it is a clear transmission of the aboriginal creative consciousness, is an attempt to back track from the bio-nihilism of the Aryan “nirvana”.

READ MORE...

Before anyone asks, yes I will interview Jonathan when I have the time and space to do the (for me, quite alien but necessary) background research.  There is no point in missing the man, so to speak, and surprisingly little of quality and depth is available about him and his worldview, even in much of his own talks and writings, which so tend to be given to water-carrying.

I see that a little - a very little, actually - is said in the first of this new series of videos featuring, this time, a speech to the LNR about Baron Julius Evola.

My thanks to Anarcho Anglo who drew our attention to them.

Part 1

READ MORE...

Geert Wilders, having emerged fresh from his triumphs at last month’s Dutch general election, in which the people appear to have succeeded in replacing this mainstream politician:

... with this one:

... so, er yes, Geert is going global:

Controversial anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders has pledged to form an international ‘freedom alliance’ to spread his gospel of Muslim intolerance across western nations - including the UK.

Wilders, whose Freedom Party made big gains in the Netherlands general election in June, says Britain along with Canada, the U.S., France and Germany are the core states he wants to target.

The politician made a speech outlining his plans today in The Hague.

... He says he has chosen the five western nations to spread his message based on the fact that all have high levels of Muslim immigrants, liberal democratic processes and all face Islamic terror threats.

It is interesting that he chose Britain, USA and Canada to launch Brand Wilders.  None of them suffer from the same concentrations of Moslem immigration as his continental European neighbours.  But what can he say in Flanders, Denmark or Sweden that he can’t in France or Germany?

He is an attention-seeker.  But he is obviously very good at it.  He creates waves and I suppose he might be a nett positive for the nationalist movement on that basis alone.  What do you think?  (Apart from the fact that he doesn’t look like the other two gentlemen.)

The following is the opening only of a mammoth riposte to Jewish hate speech activism, originally published by Balder at Balder-org.  Read the whole post there.

“It’s a great privilege to introduce Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy, who really is one of the most forthright, and one of the bravest ehm, spokesman for freedom of speech, here or anywhere, and eh, he will close this with a few minutes of, closing statement.”

With these words, the editor of the American newspaper ‘The New Yorker’, David Remnick, introduced a closing speech by the French/Jewish philosopher, which ended a, at this point, one hour and 20 minutes long debate at Columbia University about freedom of speech, among a panel consisting of 5 people and a studio audience.

Bernard-Henri Lévy - Deniers of the ‘olocost must be punished “all over the world.”
He thinks words can kill.

The discussion was hosted on January 26, 2010 by the Columbia-Paris Alliance Program and SIPA, in collaboration with the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism.  Panel members were: David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker (Jewish - moderator), Bernard-Henri Lévy, Author and French/Jewish Philosopher, Philippe Schmidt, Chairman of INACH and Vice-President of LICRA (Jewish), Professor Kent Greenawalt, Columbia Law School, Peter Awn, Director of Columbia’s Middle East Institute.

Contents (roughly - if you want to skip some of my rants):

Transscript of statements by Henri-Bernard Lévi
Transscript of short statement by Professor Kent Greenawald
Other participants
Go to the bottom of Balder’s original post for the full video, split into 23 segments

THE ‘OLOCAUST (& other genocides)

Before he delivered his expected grand finale, Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy the famous French/Jewish philosopher, dedicated much of several his long-winded drawn out speeches, defending why some phenomenon he chose to call ‘holocaust-denial’, should be the only exception to freedom of speech. He quickly included “other genocides”.

The reason he gave, was in my view, more an expression of chutzpah, pilpul, or Jewish double speak, than a confirmation of the popular myth that Jews, and especially “French/Jewish philosophers”, are endowed with a greater than average intelligence.

...

by PF

Reality, it turns out, is multi-dimensional. For now that term should be understood loosely, without regard to the precise delineation or number of these ‘dimensions’. As quickly as we can generate tools, thinking, and mental hardware to analyze reality, its observable facets and ‘dimensions’ appear to multiply in front of us: with each newly ground lens we discover that there is more to be discovered.

As human beings, we used to be quite content with the assembling of historical narratives which described a progression of facts: (1) Caesar crossed the Rubicon, (2) this initiated a civil war, (3) in which Caesar was ultimately victorious, until (4) he was assassinated. In creating these narratives it was possible, utilizing a method of ratiocination which Thucydides elucidated, to arrive at a physical description of facts which had incontestably happened. This is still possible.

However as we refine the lens through which we view our lives, more dimensions of experience emerge into view, for which it is not nearly so easy to arrive at any kind of overarching consensus. These include the emotional and probabilistic aspects of reality, which are in some sense even more important to the internal experience of reality than observable facts, yet which we cannot reach a discursive consensus on because our description of these areas cannot approximate the complexity of the things we wish to describe.

READ MORE...

The coalition government, in its search for economies, is in the process of deciding to scrap the Office for National Statistics’ ten-yearly household census.  It favours a piecemeal approach based on public and private databases.

... critics raised concerns that the new methods will fail to provide the same detailed picture of the nation’s population, religion and social habits and described the decision as regrettable and a terrible mistake.

... Geoffrey Robertson QC, a constitutional barrister, said the news was ‘regrettable’ because since some sort of count had been carried out by the monarch or government of Britain for more than 1,000 years.

‘Future historians will be less able to interpret Britain as a result of this decision — maybe that is the reason for it.’

David Green, a director of the Civitas think tank, called the decision ‘a terrible mistake’.

‘It is a question of whether the alternatives are reliable. The census is expensive but I think it is worth the money for the historic continuity.’

Next year’s national Census cannot be stopped, but will be subject to unspecified economies.  The implications for the content of the questionnaire, which currently allows “whites” to specify their ethnicity, the first box in this section being “English - Welsh - Scottish - Northern Irish - British”, and for the resultant database, due to be available from the middle of 2012, is now uncertain.  Thereafter, it is difficult to see how information on ethnicity can be extracted from other databases.  Country of birth, yes, but racial origin, no.  The process of replacement cannot be accurately measured without that information, and that does not help us at all.

Not much going on here by way of new posts.  So I thought I might as well put up links to a couple of fun threads at the British Democracy Forum.  You know the BDF.  It’s the place where everybody spits on the wilton when someone mistakenly mentions the leader’s name.  But they don’t spit as much as the good folk of Nationalists Online.  Now, they know how to spit, I can tell you.  They do practically nothing else all day, from what I can judge.  They are swimming in it.  At least, I think that’s what it is.

Anyway, this scurrilous person Henry Palfrey has, in the most unwelcome and improper way, been introducing the JQ to pure-hearted British nationalists on the BDF who, to be honest, do not need dynosaur thinking of that ilk.  Obviously.  One of the threads is titled BNP need to be more like National Front.  It’s fifteen pages long at this point, so I suggest a quick skim and nothing more.  You may come across Soren on it somewhere.  The other thread is new and is titled Michael Savage: Now It’s A Crime To Be White?  Except the person who posted it belongs to a people who are not absolutely unequivocally white themselves.