Saturday, April 23, 2005

The Son of Frankenstein: The Merging of the Right and Left

It's Like Al Fraken and Ann Coulter Having a Baby Together, Only Far Less Creepy

Is it just me, or are the far left and far right starting to seem very similar these days?

Don't follow me? Here's an example -- one which relates to the subjects to which I am frequently addressing these days.

Many members of the right wing fall into the racist far right, much of which is anti-Semitic. These groups claim that (if they will even admit that it actually occured) Jews had the Holocaust coming to them -- they claim it is a preventative measure meant to stop Jews from establishing a dominant and arguably repressive global order.

Now tell me what you think of these statements (paraphrased, of course): "The Holocaust was partially justified because Jews were keeping their wealth within their own families and communities. If Jews had shared their wealth and power with others, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened because they wouldn't have been a convenient scapegoat."

Who made these statements? If you answered that it was a neo-Nazi or a member of the Aryan Nation, you'd be wrong. This came from a local home-grown ultra-leftie... the kind of person one might call a "peace fag" if one was completely retarded.

What, you may ask, am I trying to infer by drawing this comparison? I shall answer you, but only because you asked so nicely... well, that, and I just stole your wallet and I kind of feel guilty about it. Although I must admit that I was rather disappointed by the lack of cash and credit cards. Really, you are one impoverished bastard, and I would ask that if you are going to make stealing from you so goddamned tempting, you could at least make it more profitable. I mean, FUCK!

Uh, where was I?

...Right. I am going to write briefly on the subject of "principle". Because it seems that organizing certain initiatives on "principle" these days is a common theme between the radical left and radical right, and unfortunately, these propositions fly in the face of a little thing called "logic". Let me take you through it.

Some radical righties suggest that anyone caught selling any amount of dope (be it pot, coke, or progressive metal) be sentenced to death. No appeals, no nothing. Guilty. Bang. Done. See ya in the next life.

Some radical lefties suggest that all combustion vehicles be outlawed because they pollute the environment. Motherfuckers need to walk more any way.

Never mind that a better way of dealing with the drug problem is to attack the supply lines and distribution networks rather than arresting petty dealers, or that cars trucks and fugly SUVs could be designed to be much more environmentally friendly (possibly electrically powered, or perhaps even driven by cheaply-acquired Chinese immigrants on treadmills). Nope. Outlaw cars and make petty dealers deceased. Problem solved, right?

Of course, fuck no.

One would have to wonder about how people will get around (given that a eutopian bus society is a nice idea, but a nightmare in conceptualization) without any semblence of personal transportation, or why drugs will continue to be bought and sold even as record numbers of blacks and hispanics are executed... many of which will be convicted solely due to racial profiling.

Nope. Each believes we must do these things, because it's the principle that counts. This is a similar approach taken to some of the blatant bias in the media right now. Many so-called pundits have concocted their arguments around a calculated core of lies, and justify this with "principles". It doesn't matter than I'm attempting to influence people's attitudes and opinions with lies, because I'm lying for my principles.

Can you say "give me a fucking break?" Because I can!

I find it remarkable how much far lefties and far righties hate each other, considering that they believe in essentially the same thing: a ruthless reconceptualization of society based entirely upon their own whims and beliefs, regardless of the consequences, and in complete ignorance of any other possible solutions.

The role of information is even being challenged. While many far lefties claim that the media and history books are blatantly biased and designed to suit the political needs of the far right -- a task which was undertaken, of course, by a right-wing conspiracy designed to obscure the truth -- many far righties are claiming that the media and history books are blatantly biased and designed to suit the political needs of the far left -- a task which was undertaken, of course, by a left-wing conspiracy designed to obscure the truth.

Is it just me, or are these idiots essentially saying the same fucking thing? By jove, they are!

Of course, conspiracy theorizing is much easier than actual theorizing, especially when you've taken all the steps you possibly can to shield yourself from any information or ideas that might lead you to reconsider your beliefs. Furthermore, conspiracy theorizing requires a lot less effort: everything is a conspiracy, and fascist pigfuckers are running the world. Whew. I just summed up all the world's problems in time for lunch. Let's eat.

Of course, what we really need to do is force feed some these fascist pigfuckers their own bullshit and make them swallow it before they mindlessly spawn the next generation of mindless fascist pigfuckers.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Freedom of Speech vs. Holocaust Denial

Freedom of Speech Doesn't Excuse Ignorance of Speech

Recently, I wrote an article for The Gateway about the Canadian government's expulsion of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. Zundel -- who had previously been convicted for hate speech and spreading false teachings about the Holocaust -- had been held for two years under the CSIS security certificate program.

Although a number of people consider this to be an unjust act and a contravention of Zundel's rights, I still vehemently argue that few -- if any -- of Zundel's rights were violated. Those few violations of his rights were, in my view, entirely acceptable due to Zundel's activities in support of and complicity with violent neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. These groups are domestic terrorist cells, and must be treated the same as any Al Qaida cell.

One of the rights that some have argued that have been violated is Zundel's right to freedom of speech. They are wrong.

Some argue that due to freedom of speech sometimes we have to listen to things that we don't want to hear, on account of those saying them have the right to say it. Often, this is true.

However, in Canada, we have a number of laws that (under the authority of the Notwithstanding clause of the consitution) place certain limits on freedom of speech within Canada. These are reasonable limits. These laws cover topics such as libel, slander, and that most magical of speech crimes... hate speech. These laws extend necessary protections to both individuals and society as a whole. These laws protect us from having our characters defamed, or racial hatred encouraged against ethnic groups.

Recently, this article has become a topic of discussion on, which, since examining the site's content a little closer, is obviously a bastion for far/Christian/racist rightists, which has spurned me to address the issue of Holocaust denial.

History has many dark chapters, of which the Holocaust is only one. Apartheid in South Africa is a fairly dark chapter, as is the more recent events in the Sudan. Tienanmen Square is a fairly nasty bit of historical business, as is 9/11. What do all of these events have in common? These are events of enormous atrocity commited in the spirit of evil.

Pascal wrote "Evil is infinite, and has many forms". Forgetting the memories of past evil is all that is necessary for evil to rise again.

Which brings us specifically to the subject of Holocaust denial. I am now reminded of the tale of Red Deer College professor Jim Keegstra, who eventually lost his job because he assigned a Holocaust denial book for reading, and (allegedly) taught hatred of Jews in his history class.

Holocaust denial represents not only a challenge to the ideals under which freedom of speech were established, but also a challenge to history. The Holocaust occurred. This is a fact, and the protest of even a billion neo-Nazis could never change this.

Yet, there is a portion of society that wants to erase the chapter of the Holocaust from the history books. Many of these people also want to destroy what they decry as "the Jewish base of power" from which they control the "Zionist Occupied Government". Their goal, according to these people, is to (in the name of Satan, of course) destroy the white race. Which is actually pretty funny, because a significant portion of Jews have white skin. Which only demonstrates something I have suspected about this people for years: they are a bunch of retarded fucknuts.

Regardless, paranoid/hateful/ludicrous beliefs aside, there is a reason why these people want to erase the Holocaust from the history books: so they can fucking do it again.

Sadly, freedom of speech has given these people a weapon by which they can fight their cause. The founding fathers of the United States who wrote the American constitution which was instrumental in establishing freedom of speech as a worldwide principle of just democratic governance probably never saw this coming. It is a challenge to the ideal of freedom of speech in that it allows those who lack the ability, desire, or will to use their freedom of speech responsibly to harm others.

Freedom of speech, as with all freedoms, is a power. And, as the great Stan Lee wrote: "with great power comes great responsiblity". Those, such as Ernnst Zundel or Jim Keegstra, who are unable to use their freedom of speech responsibly, must always be held accountable for what they say. And when they violate the sanctity of speech by using it to spew hatred, they must be punished.

This has been done. Jim Keegstra has justly faced the end of his teaching career. Ernst Zundel faces the next five years in a German prison, and he will likely serve that time. However, this is only part of this battle.

The punishment of those who use speech to promote the hatred of anyone, anywhere, must continue. We must not allow those who would do this to use freedom of speech as a shield behind which they can hide their acts of cowardice.

Call me a Zionist conspirator if you will. If fighting to preserve the memory of what may be history's single greatest injustice is collusion, then I am proudly a conspirator.