Quisling's Quest


The Holocaust is Fake!

Today, January 27, is Holocaust Remembrance Day.  It is a day that honors the survivors and those who lost their lives through what has become known as the Holocaust. 

I don't believe it is fake.  I do believe it is sometimes exagerated, and sometimes people make money off of it, or gain fame and power from it.  In other words, I believe it is sometimes abused as a concept.  I do believe that many, many Jewish people were killed during World War II.  Many were civilians.  Many were massacred in a most brutal manner. 

But I also believe that I have the right to question the historical veracity of the Holocaust.  I believe that I have the right to speak my mind, even if I am wrong, even if I offend someone by doing so.

That's why I support the right of the French Magazine Charlie to post pictures of Mohammed. That's why I support the right for the French Magazine Charlie to be disrespectful to Muslim faith.  I don't agree that it is the most civil or moral thing to do. But I do give them that right. 

But to be consistent, we must also have a right to be disrespectful to other groups, Catholics, Hindus, Atheists, or even Jews.  The Holocaust is their most sensitive area.  They take it as seriously, as sensitively, as the Muslims take their prophet.  So why is it okay to mock a prophet and not mock a historical or semi-historical event?   In Germany, France, England, Canada, and many other countries Holocaust denial will send you to prison.  It is a hate crime.  I am just saying that what is good for the gander is also good for the goose.  Otherwise it is pure hypocrisy. 

At about the same time as Charlie was being honored for its brave free speech, a French Algerian comic, whose name I am forgetting was arrested in France for honoring the terrorists who shot up Charlie. He made a joke that was politically insensitive. Ah, it was a hate crime.  And of course he was punished. 

So the Powers that Be, allow only certain speech that creates discomfort. Other speech is off limits.  And I find that most hypocritical.   

So I end this post with the provocative point that the Holocaust is fake.  Am I doing a hate crime that needs to be punished or am I just being provocative?  You decide. 

All free speech is equal, but some is more equal than others.



An Alliance of the Tribes


Here is a copy of Keith Preston's original article on the City State idea.


Here is my response.

This is exactly my idea as well. The city state system is a way to bring localists across the spectrum with radically different ideas together in alliance. I am not a Black Muslim and I would fight such a group if they were trying to impose their ideology on me. But I could support their right to control their own local community as long as they leave my community alone. Imagine for a minute a new type of Federal Government whose key purpose was to protect the sovereignty of each local community. Each community could be as diverse or as homogenous as they chose. Most would have their own cultural slant on reality. This sort of society would be based on the post modern idea that there are many realities out there and it is a form of tyranny to impose ones view of reality on everyone else. Let a thousand communities bloom and in this experimentation and true diversity, we might actually find a few absolute answers.

Keith responds. 

And I continue rambling.


We have to reach out to localists and tribalists of all stripes and all all flavors and somehow convince them that we have a common interest. We are more than fellow travelers that use each other and then discard our alliance. We envision a world where we could indeed live side by side in peace, with economic and cultural exchange and yet hold on to our very different views in all their purity. But we are only a force to be reckoned with if our weak individual parts bond together in a very unusual alliance.




After a Hiatus, a Refreshing Gathering

I haven't posted for over a year.  But I have just recently attendied a conference where someone mentioned my blog, and a sense of guilt arose as to my negligance to its maitenance.  So I will try to post thoughts and ideas once again and make it a bit less desolate. 

    The meeting I attended is on the spectrum of the disident right.  By disident right I mean that segment of the right that is less about fighting wars for Israel overseas, and more about dealing with unpopular issues at home such as illegal immigration, affirmative action, identity politics, and the dogma of political correctness. 

    Because we take on the fierce monstrosity of political correctness, we take on the role of heretics. We are the ones who challenge the civil religion of modern politics.  Both Democrats and Republicans, both MSNBC and Fox, both the Left and the Right, see us as the morally unclean. 

    And why are we considered so unacceptable?  It is because we talk about what Eric Holder has asked us to talk about.  We talk about race.  We aren't covered with white sheets or German insignia.  We aren't fascist or authoritarian in our thinking.  We aren't dogmatic.  We just realize that race and ethnicity, IQ and culture, heritage and family are important concepts in creating a just and workable society.  And we gather to discuss those undiscussable issues that others say we shouldn't even mention. 

     It is refreshing to be around people with siimilar ideas, who also are intelligent and well read. The experience strenghens my resolve that although many of my ideas are unpopular they are not wrong. That blind dogmatism which accepts our civil religion is indeed very flawed and needs to be questioned and challenged.

   I am not anti anyone.  I enjoy people, intelligent people, from every group. I just think that race, religion, ethnicity and culture are important concepts and that most people want to self segregate with others similar to themselves.  This isn't hate. This is human nature. 

   So I return to my home this weekend, strengthened in my convictions, and so very pleased with the people with whom I stand.  They are good people, and they represent a path rejected by many, but taken up by both the brave and the wise. 


Zimbabwe Elections

I had the opportunity this afternoon to go to the viewing of a movie at the Heritage Foundation in D.C. It was a film written and produced by Lorie Conway. It was about a human rights lawyer in Zimbabwe named Beatrice Mtetwa.  It was a fascinating film and showed very clearly the oppression and violence against both Blacks and Whites committed by its president and dictator Robert Mugabe.  He has been in power since 1987, and has appropriated the farmland from the white folk and allowed war veterens to take it over.  In the meantime the economy and well being of the nation has plummeted.  Where Rhodesia once was the breadbasket of Africa, Zimbabwe is now the basket case of Africa.  What I didn't know was that Zimbabwe is having an election in two days, on July 31.  It will probably be rigged and the corrupt Zanu party will retain power.  But one can always hope.  The lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa is one of a handful of very brave people, who have stood up to Mugabe and tried to protect those who were being harassed, discriminated against, and tortured.  It is a fascinating film that demonstrates the resiliance of the human spirit under very oppressive circumstances.  If you have an opportunity, I'd recommend you seeing it. 





After the Trayvon Martin decision, there has been a lot more discussion in the mainstream media about race, discrimination, prejudice, and justice.  The cry has gone out once again from some of the Black elite that we need to have a conversation about race.  I agree. But this will only occur and be helpful if it is a true conversation.  I use an alias on this website. I do that because I say things at times that are not politically correct. Some of my opinions may be unacceptable to those who cry out for dialogue.  But how can we have true conversation if only one point of view is allowed? There are millions of people, White, Caucasian, European-heritage folk, who cannot speak their mind in fear of being lambasted as racist. This is a very serious charge to levy in this Orwellian world we presently live in.   So, Mr. Holder, Mr. Obama, and most everyone on MSNBC, I ask once again, how can we have a conversation when only one point of view is allowed?  It is a quandary, a conundrum. It is bit like the glorious days of the Stalin era, when the Soviet judiciary would have show trials for the sole purpose of demonstrating how guilty those on trial were. There was no dialogue, no conversation. It was a show trial. That is how I see the present political climate when it comes to race. There are many different points of view out there. But only one, the multicultural one, is acceptable.  And dialogue quickly deteriorates to monologue.