Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Thursday, 31 January 2013

With malice toward none

Speaking in a purely personal capacity, I should like to put on record my good wishes to each and every nationalist party, even "inappropriate" ones, whose leadership contains Holocaust deniers (and/or former Holocaust deniers), for example.

Such deluded individuals are more to be pitied than scorned. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). They are entitled to exercise their right of free speech, regardless of the damage they do (or have done) to the nationalist cause. At least, they are so entitled under English, Scottish and Northern Irish law. The law of some of our so-called European partners is a horse of a different colour.

Not that the general public pays much attention to people who deny the Holocaust. They tend to be more focused upon their own present and future than upon the rapidly receding past. Nevertheless, there surely can be few who, upon mature reflection, would feel confident in electing someone whose finger might one day hover over the nuclear red button, if they knew that individual had once publicly denied the Holocaust.

The crucial question is: can one trust the judgement of such a person in other, more important, matters?


  1. Your post consists entirely of opinion. If you are privy to indisputable historical evidence to support that opinion, I would ask that you share it to enlighten your readers.

    Despite there being no rational reason for us to accept guilt for events we had no responsibility for, it would seem that no genuine Nationalist movement can reach mainstream while the mass of the population remains under the mind control of Holocaust guilt. Therefore we must overcome the past to secure our future.

    I fail to see the relation between disagreement over historical events and the 'nuclear red button'. Numerous past leaders with that responsibility have made poor judgments on behalf of our country. It would be better if the red button decision was governed by predefined retaliation-only protocol. Nuclear weapons are about the least effective means of delivering justice to guilty individuals, and make our nation a target for others.

    Nationalists ought to realise the wider view that their enemies are not other specific nations, but individuals from any nation, who seek to harm us or deny our freedom & independence as a race and nation. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant to that conflict.

  2. @TolerateThis

    The historical evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and conclusive. It is not indisputable, because there will always be those who will dispute any conclusion, from motives ranging from personal vanity to misguided political calculation. And such individuals should be free to continue their tilting at windmills, however counterproductive such pronunciamentos are to the cause of saving our country. That freedom to say that the earth is flat or that the Apollo moon landings were faked, in short the right of free speech, is a precious birthright of our people and must at all costs be defended.

    I agree that too much is made of the Holocaust relative to the much greater death-toll resulting from Stalin's system of forced labour camps and Mao-Tse-Tung's oppressive regime. But you will never overcome the spurious "mind control of Holocaust guilt" (spurious on several grounds, not the least of which being that our people helped to put an end to the Holocaust) by wrongly claiming that the Holocaust never happened, or has been exaggerated.

    As for the nuclear red button: there is a world of difference between having a leader in charge of that button who has made "poor judgements on behalf of our country" and having someone in charge of it who has demonstrated only a tenuous grasp of reality. The latter description fits anyone who has publicly denied the Holocaust. It also fits a certain historical individual on the anniversary of whose birthday you have chosen to post your comment. A coincidence?

    Nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented and historically they have played a significant part in preventing conventional war between those states possessing them. They remain the ultimate deterrent to any would-be conqueror (or 'liberator') of our country.

  3. I appreciate your response, but I remain unconvinced.

    "The historical evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and conclusive"

    Have you studied the subject in depth? On what information sources do you base your opinion?

    "there is a world of difference between having a leader in charge of that button who has made 'poor judgments on behalf of our country' and having someone in charge of it who has demonstrated only a tenuous grasp of reality."

    Poor judgment is often as a result of poor information. Obtaining good information is a process of continuously eliminating falsehoods until what remains stands alone as truth. Any leader who has a "grasp on reality" must support this process, and reserve judgment until it is done.

    I consider myself an outsider to any debate on the Holocaust, but if some researchers are working to eliminate falsehoods rather than preserve or introduce them, they are on the side of truth and should not be attacked as 'deniers'.

    I am highly suspicious of those who engage in ad-hominem attacks against such individuals, and lobby governments to introduce laws that make revealing truth a crime. Given that several assumptions by historians of this event have been shown to be wrong, I question again what is the solid evidence on which you base your opinion?

    "It also fits a certain historical individual on the anniversary of whose birthday you have chosen to post your comment. A coincidence?"

    This was unintended.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. @TolerateThis

    You remain unconvinced about what exactly?

    I have studied the Holocaust in sufficient depth to know that it actually happened and that the orthodox account of it is not exaggerated.

    However, I seek neither to convince you, nor anyone, of the truth of the Holocaust. If you prefer delusion to the truth, then that is a matter for you and no concern of mine.

    Judgements invariably need to be made in the absence of perfect information. Information is information and judgement is judgement. These two things are quite distinct. Good judgements may be made in the absence of good information and bad judgements may be made in the presence of good information.

    Your argument that judgement should be reserved until all the facts are known is not one that anyone practises in everyday matters. Once a threshold of probability has been crossed then we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that something is essentially true. But then the doubts of Holocaust deniers/revisionists are not reasonable doubts but rather unreasonable ones.

    I do not 'attack' Holocaust deniers, on the contrary, though I disagree with what they say, I defend their right to say it. I simply point out their unsuitability for leadership of any party that wishes to be taken seriously by the electorate as a potential governing party.

    The historical individual, on the anniversary of whose birthday you posted your comment, never denied the Holocaust. Perhaps some of those who claim to admire the man should take a leaf out of his book, in this respect at least, if in no other.