by I. Bismuth

Introduction

When historians yet unborn tell how the ultimate triumph of Anti-Racism came about, what will be their primary sources in that yearned-for future in which the ground has closed over the last woman of Whiteness, her rainbow children giving her a clenched fist salute at the graveside, and in which no man will ever again have to look in the bathroom mirror in the morning and ask himself what he can do today to atone for his pale face?

To the primary sources for the broad political arc of history must be added other primary sources that offer telling details of the daily lives of the long marchers though the institutions who made the politics possible. The future must know that the strugglers against evil were not all superhuman readers of teleprompters and that some of us had to fit in our struggling with our digesting and our re-carpeting, our loving and our laundry. They must know that the life of the race replacer was not all glamour.

As a professor who has presided for twelve years over the Department of Sensitivity Studies at the University of Sunlit Uplands, and as a digesting and a loving person (though not, I confess, much of a re-carpeter or a launderer) I can supply these humanizing little touches. That is why I intend to keep a diary. My contribution to the projects of those historians who are not yet even gleams in their grandfathers’ eyes is to become a primary source myself.

Let me say a few words about my family.

READ MORE...

From Time magazine’s 1975 book review of Jean Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints”:

Poor White Trash

...The Camp of the Saints shrewdly exploits a dilemma that the world may well face: the moment when the burgeoning Third World rises from misery and forces the West to share more of its resources…

The time is the not so distant future, when nearly 1 million hungry refugees from the Ganges commandeer 100 rusty ships—heavily freighted with symbolism and exiles—and set sail for the promised land of Europe. The white Christian world is a flaccid parody of its once dominant self, sapped by guilt, ecumenical dilutions of religion and “all that brotherhood crap.” When it becomes clear that the passive invaders will run aground off the Côte d’Azur, the French are so “mucked up with brotherly love” that they turn their country over with scarcely a whimper.

The notion of France undone by its own benevolence is a grand comic conceit. But Raspail is not joking… “The tidal wave fleeing the south has paused briefly to catch its collective breath in the soft underbelly of the nation.”

This bilious tirade would not be worth a moment’s thought if it had come off a mimeograph machine in some dank cellar.  Instead, The Camp of the Saints arrives… with the imprint of a respected U.S. publisher and a teasing pre-publication ad campaign (“The end of the white world is near”).

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...