Quisling's Quest
Navigation


Tuesday
Feb222011

Post Modern Tribalism

I am reading Michael O'Meara's New Culture, New Right and I find him talking about exactly what I discussed in Ode to Diverstiy.  He calls it Post Modern Tribalism, which is a name I could accept.  He is critical of it, I am not. I don't see the validity of his conclusions. Let me quote from page 24:

"characterizing post modern tribalism as part of a process by which the existing macro structures are metamorphisized into numerable particles (bearing) within them all the stigmata of (existing) networks and circuits, each one reviving for itself, in its micro universe, the now uselessly totalitarianism of the whole. For once postmodernity collapses the universal into the particular, the global into the local, the objective into the subjective, the narsissitic idenities and idiosyncratic communities (tribes) cannot but assume the stature of modernities fixed and monolithic ones." 

    I disagree with this last conclusion.  If there is a State above the local tribes, just as there was a Federal Government above the early states of our nation,  that protected the integrity of each City State,  then each tribal unit would have soverienty and yet the diversity of the City-States would be protected.  Imagine a country whose sole purpose to was protect the soverienty of each community.  A City State (or foreign nation) could not attack another City State, but within each community, a culture was allowed to develop. If one could not abide the culture of one's own City State, he could go in exile, in search of a more appropriate place to live.  The Federal State would play the role of the Federation in Star Trek. It would protect each City State from non-interference from without.  A Federal Military could be maintained just for that purpose.  But beyond that, each City-State has all power to develop in the way it sees fit.  I think Post Modern Tribalism is an appropriate name for this system based on the Polis as the key sociological and governmental unit. 

Q.

Monday
Feb212011

Ode for Diversity

I am for diversity.  True diversity.  An opportunity for different groups with different ethics and different cultures to try their approach to life. I am for different paths coexisting side by side. Not melding into a soupy mesh where no one is authentically experiencing their path.  But a patchwork approach, separate and distinct. 

I believe mankind is tribal. We have been tribal for over a hundred thousand years.  We were meant to follow our tribes way and perfect it.  The tribe existed most effectively on a small, community sized scale.  A city-state, a Polis.

When the Founding Fathers created the U.S. Constitution, they attempted to give much power to the individual (rather than Federal) state.  Perhaps they did this because they too understood there was something tribal in man, something that existed more fuly at the community level than at the large, national level.

As I look at the world today, which is getting smaller every year, due to technology, I see a very diverse world, full of many, many tribes. Some are ethnic, some are religious, some are ethical. But each tribe has a different view on how we should live, how we should seek the good life.  

Today more than ever, we need a return to the tribal, City-State system, where each community can find its own way.  There can be a liberal, multicultural community that sets its laws down in perfect politically correct format.  But that is just one approach. It should not be superimposed on the White Nationalist, the Black Nationalist, the Muslim Fundamentalist, the Jewish Fundamentailst, the Pagan, the Hippie, the Gay, the Christian Identity, the atheist.  Each of these tribes, can and should have their own community where they can seek their own way. Anything else is tyrrany.  We currently have a rule of tyranny in  the Poltically Correct Despot.  Anyone who  dares to seriously disagree with it, feels the wrath of that Despot.  They are crushed by the media, the politicians, and sometimes the law. This is not diversity. This is...a form of state fascism. A form of extreme intolerance.  It is an unfair system.

So I put forth my political conviction, that community is tribal, and that if government, culture, education, religion, life were done on a tribal basis rather than a state basis, we then would have true diversity and true freedom.  We would be free to be authentic, and to discover who we really are.  

Q.

Saturday
Feb052011

Luke...Remember the Mantra

Sunday
Jan232011

New Right in the United States

By New Right, I do not mean the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson kind of New Right.  Rather, I mean the Nouvelle Droite/ArcheoFuturism kind of New Right.  We don't have it yet in the United States.  But we do have the Third Position and people like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald.  The Third Position movement could very well be the seeds for a New Right in our country.

I am currently reading Guillaume Faye's ArcheoFuturism.  It is a fascinating book.  I am only a quarter of the way through it, but it truly makes you think.  I won't go into a synopsis of the book. But if you are interested in a rational racial perspective for the future, I do recommend it.  

I have many disagreements with Harold Covington and some of his ideas for the Northwest Republic. The violence in his books against innocent people really bothers me. (I know it is fiction but it is fiction with a purpose).  Yet the Constitution he is proposing for the Northwest Republic is fascinating and very radical in so many ways.  It can be found here: Constitution.   Once again, many of his ideas in this constitution embody a very profound view for the future.  Both the ArcheoFuturism concept and the Covington ideas are exciting, and they go far beyond simple racialism, simple prejudice. 

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next twenty or so years with the racialist movement and the Third Position.  I encourage people to study, read, and contribute to the dialogue that may very well become the basis for a new society. 

 

Q.

Monday
Jan172011

Martin Luther King Day

My main problem with this day is not the foibles of King. The big three criticisms of King by conservatives are sexual impropriety, plagiarism, and communist sympathies. As for his sexual exploits, it is his own business. Great men and lesser ones across the centuries have had voracious appetites and illicit affairs. I judge no one on this weakness. Let them contend with their own values. As for having left leaning folk or flaming Communists around him, remember this was the sixties. Revolution was in the air, the culture, the music, the zeitgeist. The plagiarism personally bothers me the most and shows the left's hypocrisy most dramatically. Plagarism from any other individual would most assuredly bring him down. King's icon status is untouched.
No, what bothers me most about honoring King is that he was wrong in the direction he took our country. If we would have revamped Jim Crow and made it truly separate but equal. If we would have allowed diversity to develop as a patchwork quilt rather than a melting pot, we would have far less problems today. Race and ethnicity is the main source of conflict in this twent-first century. And it isn't going to get any easier to deal with until we rethink King's solution and find something that really works for everyone. King's Day is an opportunity for the nation (or should I say nations) to think about race and seek a workable and fair solution to the current problems facing us. Happy Martin Luther King Day!

Q.