Quisling's Quest
Navigation


Thursday
Jul192012

Marked for Death

I am currently reading Geert Wilders book "Marked for Death". It is an interesting book with much useful information in it. I find it most interesting because some of his points I agree with and some I strongly oppose. In my way of defining points of view I would label Mr. Wilders as a PreModern nationalist. I would fall into the category of a PostModern nationalist. Let me explain.
I agree with much that Wilder says. If his were the main anti immigration party in the Netherlands I would be part of it. What I agree most with is the importance of controlling immigration so that the Netherlands (or Europe) does not become a Muslim Republic. If this were to happen the values, laws, and system would entirely change in an unfree direction. This must not happen. The freedom and values of the west must be preserved. This is a priority I agree with one hundred percent.
Where I disagree with Mr. Wilders is on his view of Islam and some of the tactics he would use. He is very clear and adamant in his view that Islam is not a religion but rather a totalitarian political movement and therefore should be treated as such. I see this as an incorrect and dangerous position to take. I agree that Islam is all inclusive and can intrude in every aspect of a person's life. But this does not prevent it from being a legitimate religion. I know Evangelical Christians who stress that every aspect of their lives are under the Lordship of Christ. Hasidic Jews have rules and regulations that define even the most mundane of activities. Even a secular humanist of the atheist persuasion could argue that every aspect of his life is directed by the empirical method. Beliefs and religion are all consuming and we should not fault a person or faith for being such.
A second point of disagreement stems from this view of Islam as a totalitarian ideology. Wilders seems to think that just as communism faded away when the west stood up to it, that the same will happen with Islam. This is a foolish perspective to have. Where as communism was a corrupt and tyrannical system that mainly had the allegiance of the elites who benefited from it, Islam has the devotion and following of billions of common folk who have deeply integrated its teachings into their lives. To call the belief system evil and to launch a new cold war against it will be destructive to everyone involved. It will only strengthen the resolve of the Islamic faithful (umma).
Finally, Wilders talks about outlawing the Koran just as Mein Kampf has been banned in the Netherlands and rewriting the constitution denying freedom of religion to Muslims. This once again is foolish and will only create a strong desire of the people for that forbidden knowledge. The ADL/SPLC attack on free speech and free opinions has done much to move me to the right over the past few years. Censorship and enforced political correctness are counterproductive as is prohibition.
Wilders is a PreModern Nationalist that sees the world clearly as good vs evil. He of course is on the good side. I am a PostModern Nationalist who doesn't see things quite as simply, but does agree on the pragmatic necessity of keeping the West from becoming Islamic.
My view is to each in their place. The traditionally Islamic parts of the world can remain under Islamic hegemony. The West must remain western in culture. It is a clash of civilizations, but it is a clash that can be peaceful and have ground rules. A detente with muscle and with mutual respect is the direction our two civilizations need to move in.

Tuesday
Jul172012

Panism

I am an independent politically. I believe in less government on the national level and more local control at a city state community level. I believe in diversity and that small government should reflect the community that lives within it. Because of all this, I see segregation, political, ethnic, religious, racial, and cultural, as a very good thing. Each community or city state should draw from different demographics. And then that local government, in its laws, traditions and education, can reflect that unique community. This would solve so many of our cultural conflicts. It would allow for true diversity of communities. My views need not be seen as racist even though I advocate segregation. I also believe that a community can chose to be multicultural and totally secular if they chose that route. My libertarian, city state vision would be an interesting experiment in freedom. Which communities would thrive? Which would deteriorate? Institutional racism would no longer be a problem because people of color could have their own communities, to design in their own fashion. I call my vision, postmodern anarchical nationalism. I am a PANist. It is post modern because it doesn't build on one paradigm or one single view of reality. It allows for each community to find its own reality and build on it. The only fundamental rule is to respect the sovereignty of all other city states and not infringe or conquer them. If there is a federal or national government, its sole purpose would be to protect the freedom of the city state. So that's Panism. Would it work? I think ultimately some form of it will have to. There is no other way to accommodate the diversity we find on this small planet.

Q.

Monday
Jul022012

Twenty-first Century Heretic

I had the opportunity a couple weeks ago to attend a conference in Seattle sponsored by the National Policy Institute and Washington Summit Publications. It was one of the more impressive weekends I've had in a long time. It was a mixture of very well known academics, well known bloggers, and unknown seekers of truth like myself. The crowd included Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Richard Spencer, and many others. I am sure there is no problem in naming these names, for these individuals have already been outed by the politically correct as the most evil of evil folk. They are the heretics in our present society where almost anything goes except when one questions the dogma of the multicultural society. This is not allowed and people like Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire have paid heavy prices for their non conformity. I have a zillion notes and many fond memories from this five day conference. We even took a tour of downtown Seattle and ate in one of the finest restaurants I've ever stepped foot in. (Did you know that people eat goose liver and it is actually good?). All of this gave me a chance, not only to learn much, but also to get to know some of the personalities that are at the forefront of the Alternative Right? And I found them totally unpretentious, down to earth, and extremely insightful. John Derbyshire in particular has a wonderful sense of humor. I mention all of this, just to remind you, that sometimes those marked by the towers that be, as heretics, political sinners, and doers of evil and mischief are anything but. And sometimes it is only by stepping into that den of intellectual iniquity that one finds a glimmer of truth that alters one's perspective, permanently. Over the past year, through reading much and meeting many of our nation's heretics, I have indeed had my world view transformed in radical ways. I see the world differently from the way those in power would have us see it. And I am grateful to those people who publish books, write in blogs, and speak at conferences for guiding me in this less conventional direction. I too can proudly call myself a twenty first century heretic.

 

Q. 

Thursday
Jun142012

Willis Carto and the American Far Right

I just finished a book called Willis Carto and the American Far Right.  It was written by George Michael and is about as fair as a mainstream writer could possibly be.  It was much more even handed than I expected. As a regular reader of The Barnes Review and American Free Press, I am a fan of Carto. His political position is one that separates him from both traditional left and right, from both Republican and Democrat.  It puts both him and me in a politically limbonic position where a vote for Romney is as distasteful as a vote for Obama. It is a position that leads me to use a nome de plume, because my views are unacceptable to the Powers that Be. And those Powers can be most destructive. And yet, Carto has been on the forefront on this independent movement for over half a century.  He has made mistakes and he has made many enemies, but he has been consistent and energetic in his stand.

    The conclusion that the book makes, and Carto agrees with the assessment to some extent, is that his failiure has been in not bringing together the various tribes, flavors, and movements that make up the diverse Far Right.  The author then goes a step further and suggests that the reason for this failiure is that the Far Right has no unifying ideology that will bring together these different groups.  Some focus on immigration, some on race. Some focus on social issues, while others look to international problems.  There is no one common core that would bring together these different groups.  Carto himself suggests that what is needed is a strong, charismatic leader that would motivate the different groups to unify.  The author additionally suggests that one problem is all the dysfunctional personalities in the movement that put their perspective ahead of everything else.  I don't have any easy answers.  My guess is that the Far Right will most probably not come together in any cohesive manner, until external circumstance, external disaster forces them to. And at that point a leader or numerous leaders might rise up, put their petty issues aside and join together for the good of the Folk.  Only time will tell.  But credit must be given to people like Willis Carto and his diligence over so many years to the Cause.

 

Q.

Monday
Mar262012

I Hate Facebook

I truly do hate Facebook.   If you read a number of my essays on this site, you will find that although I am clearly politically incorrect, I am not a hate filled, cross burning Klansman who attacks people for their differences.  In fact, I like differences. The world would be an extremely boring place if everyone were alike.  What I don't like is a poltically correct straight jacket that keeps one from discussing ideas and having unconventional opinions.

But Facebook is politically correct to the extreme.  And if one has an opinion that is not part of the multicultural gospel you are kicked out.  The concept of Facebook is a wonderful one. It isn't just a social network, but it is a forum to learn new ideas, meet new people, and develop new concepts.  But the totalitarian Central Bureau of Facebook doesn't allow a whole spectrum of opinions.  And mine is part of that spectrum. 

What people like Facebook and the ADL and the SPLC don't understand, is their censorship is radicalizing many of us.  People, like me, who enjoy different ideas, and enjoy the exchange of those ideas in the intellectual market place, when we are ostracized and demonized because we have hertical concepts, that only makes us more heretical. 

I am not sure who Facebook thinks they are protecting from my "dangerous" ideas.  But one thing I can say for sure, you are moving me farther and farther to the right and away from the mainstream. And if this can happen to me, it can and will happen to many people out there.

By calling a point of few demonic, you might very well create that demon. 

 

Q.