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.

by Alexander Baron

One afternoon in July 1976, I swallowed four packets of over the counter painkillers in my Ladbroke Grove bedsit flat, and lay down to die. If I hadn’t washed down each packet with a pint mug of orange juice, I wouldn’t be writing these words now. At the time I was disgusted with myself, but in retrospect, waking up covered in vomit was better than not waking up at all.

A shade over seven years later, on August 26, 1983 to be precise, I stood on Richmond Bridge in South-West London, and tossed a coin. How I got there from Ladbroke Grove, via Manchester, Leeds, Bradford and - the day before – Margate, is a long, convoluted, and for me, painful, story. As the coin neared the ground I called audibly “Heads”. Fortunately for me it landed tails, and I didn’t jump in the river, which in view of the shin length steel toe-capped boots I was wearing would have meant certain death, even if I had been able to swim.

At the time of my first suicide attempt, I was just shy of my twentieth birthday; next month I will be fifty-four years old. Though not a great age, it is one I had never expected to see. Like most people of my age, I have regrets, more than most. One of my biggest regrets is that my genes will die with me. I didn’t have to die childless, I had my chance, a big chance, and like so many of my other chances, I blew it. In the first half of my life I achieved nothing. Well, as a junior I did win a county chess championship, although even that was only because all the really good players were playing in the national championships at Eastbourne.

Although my personal life – such as it is – has continued to be empty and lonely, I’ve grown used to solitude. I can’t really call my researching and writing my professional life because I’ve made precious little money out of it over the space of more than twenty years, but I can say without reservation that it is something of which I am immensely proud, because I have done many things others haven’t. Due to the current political situation and more particularly the stranglehold our enemies have over the Western mind, I have received little in the way of recognition, but fifty or a hundred years from now – if Man still exists - I will be judged far more kindly than by the creeps and liars who currently control our media.

READ MORE...

by PF

This is the first part of a primer on PFian perspectivism and theory of mind. Thanks to Rod who provided the impetus to clarify these ideas.

Modality is a fancy word for mood, and it aims to describe the emotional constellation that is attached to specific things. A verb can have different modalities: ‘could’ and ‘should’ and ‘would’ each represent a different mood-relation of the actor to the action. Not limited entirely to emotion, modality also bleeds over into probabilistic concepts: how likely is something? For us, modalities can be seen as representing states of the human nervous system as it reasons - minds frozen in a moment of time. Was he contemplating the future and what is possible? Then he ‘could’ dance the flamenco. Was he contemplating his duties and obligations to others? Then he ‘should’ dance the flamenco. etc. etc. Incidentally modality is also a musical term, and the different scales it refers to also bring forth or convey different moods.

Man’s intellectual efforts are roughly divisible into three ‘modalities’: ‘is’, ‘am’ and ‘should’. These correspond to the state of his mind as he completes whatever mental task he is working at. Most importantly they describe the mood-relation (emotional tenor?), probabilistic aspect, and the method of verification which the process is subject to. The probabilistic aspect is how much imaginative conjecture is required by the thought process.

There are two methods of verification which human beings have access to, and the modalities divide among them. What has become the default position is social verification. This is the verification which takes place in our minds when our symbol system appreciates a consonance between its read-out and observed reality, thus ‘verifying’ the truth content of whatever symbol set is being looked at. At first glance it seems surprising to call this verification method ‘social verification’, but not when one considers that the mind evolved essentially as a social phenomenon and remains that way in spite of its internalization within the individual. In other words, the thought process as it first evolved, was naturally a ‘distributed system’, in terms of control theory. People learned things, and verbally became able to compare notes. The man who is able to synthesize perspectives inside his own mind, and thus carry out this process internally, is performing in his own mind what would have heretofore been the work of all our ancestors sitting together around a fire.

READ MORE...

by I. Bismuth

I had delivered a triumphantly prolix lecture to the International Coven of Sensitivity Consultants, so it was late on a winter’s evening that I returned to the railway station in a nameless provincial city.

My nocturnal walk trainwards took me along a street suddenly silent apart from my own footsteps. Do not imagine that this made me fearful of an encounter with those who are vulnerable to entering the criminal justice system. Fear in that place and at that time would have been crass racism.

But I confess to having been startled by a sudden, dull thud and the squeal of brakes. The sound came from around the corner I was about to turn. As I did so a few seconds later the air was filled with laughter and shouting - a most vibrant sound, a Cushitic tongue I would say, possibly Somalic. There followed a hysterical glissando of first gear getaway. Then I was walking along a street silent once again but for the echo of my own footsteps and the addition of a low moaning a little way ahead of me. It came from a body lying in the middle of the road.

I approached it and saw it was a man in his late twenties with as much blood on display as you would expect in the circumstances.

“Can you move?” I asked.

“I think my legs are broken.”

“This is terrible. What on earth happened?”

“A car came at me.”

My antennae twitched.

READ MORE...