← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 13330 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2004-04-25
2004-04-25 05:21 | User Profile
Dennis Wheeler's rebuttal to "White Like Me"(Thomas Fleming)
[QUOTE]A Review of the Article
White Like Me
by Dennis Wheeler
[The article White Like Me was written by Dr. Thomas Fleming and first appeared in Chronicles magazine in November 1997.]
The central point of the article White Like Me is that white nationalism in America is not a legitimate perspective because it seeks to bind people to each other in too abstract of a manner as it does not take into account a shared language, a shared culture, a set of common heroes, a somewhat vague religious consensus, or a shared geographical area.
I agree with this premise and subscribe to the New Albany Declaration, which is very pointed in its designation of the people who comprise the Southern nation, our shared religion, our shared culture, and our love for the geographical locale known as Dixie. As I say in the introduction to the New Albany Declaration on my web page: "The main points of agreement among the conferees were (1) the Southern people is composed of Northern European peoples who have moved here and formed families and communities. The Southern people are dominated by those of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic ethnic lineage. (2) The Southern people are a Christian people. (3) The Southern way of life is an agrarian way of life, which was explained to me as meaning that we hold a love for the land of the South. And when we are in Dixie, we know we are home. I certainly hold strongly to all three points."
Having stated my agreement with Dr. Fleming's central premise, I would like to analyze some of the points he raised to reach his conclusion. He raises several excellent points. And after reading them I found that many times his explanation of these points was alternately poignant, lacking, or non-existent.
He began well by stating: "Race is the American religion...." I don't think this is a new phenomenon. Our forefathers wrote into the Constitution exclusions of the voting franchise and citizenship for many non-white groups. In the time of the Civil War, the "states rights" issue was somewhat of a euphemism that Southerners used to maintain the relationship they held to the blacks at the time. The Civil Rights Act and the Kennedy Immigration bill of 1965 didn't show that race had now become a larger issue in America, but that a new philosophy and policy was being instituted that was in contradiction to the philosophies and policies America had previously employed.
To finish his first sentence, Dr. Fleming wrote: "... which is why no one can talk about it." He then qualified that remark: "I do not mean that no one speaks his mind on the subject. Well-indoctrinated liberals can talk all day on why race does not matter, why the whole concept means nothing, and racialists can talk even longer on why it means everything, why loyalty to race transcends patriotism and friendship."
I don't think that the reason "no one can talk about it" is that race is the American religion. I think that's the wrong framing of the issue. For as long as you speak favorably of integration and the equality of the races, you may speak without interference. Where you run into trouble is if you disagree with integration or the equality of the races. That causes consternation in polite company and could even lead to legal trouble for the speaker.
Now the reason that people can't speak properly or correctly about race is that they are either blind, cowardly, or confused about the subject. As people come to understand the truth about race, they are able to talk about it truthfully. I do it all the time.
Dr. Fleming made an offhand comment about our society being one "in which all privileges belong to designated minorities." This is a great point. And the reason for this is that the religion of Equalitarianism, which gained the upper hand in America with the Union victory in the Civil War, demands that the state and society make these minorities equal to the white Americans in every facet of life. Earning power, intelligence, test scores, culture, life span, and every other part of life must demonstrate equality or be considered immoral. And woe be it to the person who insinuates that the reason such great attempts must be made to produce equality among the peoples, is that no equality exists in and of itself.
Next, Dr. Fleming correctly demonstrated that skin color is not the real dividing line between peoples: ".... as if there were not thousands of physiological and psychological characteristics defining racial groups. Skin colors -- white, black, brown, yellow -- are only convenient labels on a large package of distinctive traits."
I find this to be very true. My skin color is much different than it was last summer when I was out in the sun a lot. But it hasn't changed what I really am one iota. Southerners have always held that blacks are not just sun-burned white men but that there are great divisions between us both psychologically and physically.
As Dr. Fleming began to develop his argument, he wrote: "Race is a far more pressing concern today than it was in 1860, when people -- Abolitionists included -- took racial differences for granted and assumed that the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant race in America constituted the greatest nation in the history of the world. But that WASP nation was divided into North and South, East and West, and in every region there were subsections and states that claimed a man's loyalty. Few Americans were generically Protestant, unless their neighborhood was being overrun by a horde of Irish Catholic immigrants, and even Calvinists were divided into sects that reflected ethnic origin and half-forgotten theological squabbles back in Scotland or Germany."
Now there's a mouthful. And I'm sad to say, I can't agree with very much of it. First, the issue of race was very important in 1860 as you can't legitimately separate the Civil War from its racial aspects, which were of primary importance. What happened, and Dr. Fleming alludes to this later in his article, was that a vast number of people in the North began accepting the Equalitarian religion, called Unitarianism. This set them at odds with the Trinitarian, or Christian, South. And while Northern whites did not really believe in the intellectual and cultural equality of the blacks with the whites, their new religion mandated that they must believe it. So they acted on their theology instead of their experience. Nothing new in that.
It is much the same today in the South. The Reconstructed Southerner doesn't truly believe in the intellectual and cultural equality of the blacks with the whites, but his mind has been reconstructed to accept the Equalitarianism of the Unitarians. And he can't find any theological grounds for opposing Equalitarianism, even though his experience tells him it's not true. And so he goes along with it. And he even vehemently opposes other Southerners who still operate from a Christian, Trinitarian paradigm, and will not accept Equalitarianism.
Second, as Dr. Fleming detailed the differences existing between the American people, he showed the dilemma that all peoples face when deciding on nationhood. Although we had different Protestant denominations, we were a Protestant country. We all spoke the English language, though various dialects. We held some common heroes. And we were "one-people" enough to voluntarily form a national government. But then the Yankee "broke faith" by turning from Trinitarianism unto Unitarianism. This forced him to demand we abolish slavery. Our people fell back on the "states' rights" defense as a euphemism for the underlying problems of religion, ethnicity, and culture. Dabney pointed out that this was a problem for Southern polemicists, that they would not argue from first principles, but instead argued from euphemisms. This is still a problem for Southern polemicists, 135 years later.
Third, I definitely can't agree that: "Few Americans were generically Protestant, unless their neighborhood was being overrun by a horde of Irish Catholic immigrants." Do you truly believe that? The first Pilgrims came here to seek religious freedom and to spread the Christian religion to the heathen living in this land. The Protestant roots of America are unassailable. This people was a God-fearing people. The Anglo-Saxon common law, hammered out during centuries of Christian rule in England, was the law of our land. Our people were one people; we spoke one language; we worshiped one God. Christianity was not imposed upon America from the top downward. It sprang from the roots upward.
Dr. Fleming continued: "In those days, a man's primary loyalty was to his kin, his friends, his church, and -- if he had sufficiently large views -- to his state. Race hardly entered into the question." I think what's missing here is the integral tie between kin and race. When we speak of a race, what are we speaking of except a group of people from the same ancestry? The family, the clan, the kinsmen, the people, etc. are just building blocks of the race. How can you say then that loyalty was primarily to one's kin, race hardly mattered? That's a head-scratcher. Perhaps Dr. Fleming will be kind enough to explain that distinction in the future.
Dr. Fleming continued: "In the 20th century, most of these ancient loyalties were undermined and eroded by a ruling class that imported millions of aliens..." I not only agree with this, but see it as a major problem in the United States at large. The "people" here now hardly resembles the "people" that originally founded the country. There are huge cultural differences, huge linguistic differences, huge ethnic differences, and many other huge differences. The only qualifier I would give to his statement is that I don't see this as a problem that has been foisted on us by a ruling class, it is the logical outworking of the new religion that gained the upper hand in the country with the Union victory in the Civil War. Alien immigration is a religious exercise. It is a testing and proving of Equalitarianism. It carries with it a moral."ought" to those who accept the new religion. Most people are opposed to it since their experience tells them it's bad for the society. But since they have no theological grounds to oppose it, they allow it.
Dr. Fleming continued: "So here we are, 260 million well-fed savages prowling through the ruins, scavenging bits of civilization from museums and bookstores like street people browsing through the garbage cans." This is an excellent piece of literary prose. I wish I could write like that. And while this may be true of the average American, it is certainly not true of the Southerner. We still have our civilization; we still have our language; we still have our heroes; we still have our land. It is the purpose and duty of the Southern movement to educate our people, reacquaint them with our nation, promote our national awareness, and move us forward socially, politically, morally, economically, by all honorable means.
The aliens among us are a big problem. But not one that can't be overcome in time. The government in Washington is a big problem for us. But it will wither away in due course. We, as the Southern people, need to be ready when the opportunity presents itself to us the way it did to the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and others earlier this decade.
The next point Dr. Fleming made was: "Our great-grandparents were part of a civilization, a culture.... We, their descendants, are more likely to identify ourselves with the brand of instant coffee we heat up in the microwave, the Seattle espresso bar chain we patronize, the label on our designer jeans." To whatever extent this is true of us today, we need to be working to change it. The Southerner is part of something great, the Southern people. This needs to be stated over and over again until every Southerner both understands it and the ramifications of it. That is Job #1 for organizations and people in the Southern movement today.
Speaking of blacks and browns, Dr. Fleming wrote: "Some of them may even realize that the welfare state that takes care of them was designed by frightened whites who wanted to keep the coloreds quiet." Again, I think this is missing the religious component of the welfare state. Equalitarianism demands welfare to those who don't have as much as others. It is an economic socialism that seeks to level or equalize society.
The fact that it has proved a disaster and that instead of gaining loyalty from the recipients, it has shown them they hold the upper hand and that more largesse can be gained through violence and threats of violence, only points out how greatly should be our opposition to it. I don't think the purpose of welfare was originally to keep the coloreds quiet. No, it was a religious crusade to equalize everyone. Today, blacks and browns see that they can extort largesse from a society too timid and cowed to oppose their solidarity. This is truly a problem.
Next, Dr. Fleming turned his attention to Abraham Lincoln: "I once had the misfortune to find myself sitting with a neo-conservative philosopher-turned-racial-theorist and with a leading Holocaust revisionist. Instead of turning on each other, they attacked me for my views of Lincoln. I suppose that if they had been candid, their argument would have been that Lincoln was a progressive racist building a white nation in North America. If, in his quest for union, he destroyed both Unitarian New England and the Trinitarian South, that was of no concern to ideologues who confess to no loyalty or creed but race."
Here's another mouthful and we're getting to the crux of his position. While it's true that Lincoln wanted to repatriate the freed slaves to Africa, this was because he had not worked out all the logical consequences of his Abolitionism. (This is quite common among politicians who have many different interests to appease at once.) Lincoln was an inconsistent Abolitionist. And he was not a good guy because he wanted to build a white America. I agree with Dr. Fleming on this point.
But the logical consequences of his actions have led to the Equalitarian America we live in today. Dabney told this would happen in 1867, in the book The Defense of Virginia and the South. Dabney's argument was that if the master could not retain the God-given authority over the slave, then the husband could not retain the God-given authority over his wife, and the parents could not retain the God-given authority over their children, for all had to be equal. The fact that the Equalitarian must import millions of aliens to prove that Equalitarianism works, is just the next logical step in the process.
Next Dr. Fleming made a statement that turned the whole tenor of the article: "I prefer the company of any African-American who loves his kids and goes to church. Politically, he may vote for anti-white programs that discriminate against my children and drain my pocket; morally, at least, he does not turn my stomach by making a tactical alliance with his declared enemies in the Klan."
I think he is creating a false dichotomy here between politics and morality. The way one votes is a part of his morality. To vote to steal is immoral -- the eighth commandment states: "Thou shalt not steal." It seems Dr. Fleming's position here is that a thief is better than a hypocrite, which ostensibly the black man would be if he made a tactical alliance with the KKK. But there's not much to choose between in my book.
Also, Dr. Fleming is coming perilously close to accepting the Equalitarian morality here as opposed to Christian morality. Equalitarian morality says that the worst sins are those that exclude and discriminate, whereas in the Christian moral system, violation of the ten commandments is the worst thing a person can do. His paragraph is vaguely written and even more vaguely explained, so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But he is very close to the line on this one.
Dr. Fleming then went into the distinction between race and nation: "The great mistake made by black and white nationalists -- the mistake that ensures their failure -- is to confuse the categories of race and nation. A race is more or less a sub-species, a set of genetically determined characteristics. Even though it may be true that no pure races exist on the planet, the basic types and subtypes are still distinguishable. A nation on the other hand, is defined by language, culture, and shared experience. A man will fight and die for a nation ... but for a race, the most he will do is to subscribe to a newsletter that makes him feel less like a loser."
I certainly appreciate his efforts at distinguishing between these two concepts. Let me make a few observations: First, to define man in terms of race is to consider him an animal and part of the animal kingdom. This is contrary to Christian theology in which man is a separate created being from the animals, made in the image of God unlike the animals, and indeed was the one to whom the task of naming and classifying of the animals was given. Perhaps Dr. Fleming believes this and just didn't take the time to discuss it. Hopefully, that is the case.
His definition of nation, while good, lacks one integral component -- blood kin. Nations are groups of physical descendants that have formed an identifiable language, culture, and hold shared experience. A nation is not a collection of unrelated people who happen to speak the same language and share the same culture. The fact that millions of aliens have been imported into this country and have learned to speak English and have shared experiences with us the past 50 years, does not necessarily make them part of our nation, the Southern nation.
The League of the South position paper on race and culture states: "The League seeks to protect the historic Anglo-Celtic core culture of the South because the Scots, Irish, Welsh, and English have given Dixie its unique institutions and civilisation. Should the Christian, Anglo-Celtic core be displaced, then the South would cease to be recognisable to us and our progeny. We must maintain this all-important link to our European heritage from which we have drawn our inspiration. Anglo-Celtic Southerners and their European cousins have a duty to protect that which our ancestors bequeathed us. If we will not promote our own interests, no one will do it for us."
These groups of people, which the New Albany Declaration refers to as "assimilable peoples," are the foundation of our nation. To my way of thinking, about the only way an outsider can join the nation is to marry into it. Dr. Fleming's definition of a nation leaves out this all-important component of blood relationship.
A man will die for his nation, because that is his people, his kith and kin, his blood, his family.
Dr. Fleming continued: ".... there is no black nation, no Latino nation, no Indian nation.... With one or two exceptions, our own [white] racial nationalists show little interest in territory. Some Mexican nationalists, it is true, speak of creating the nation of Aztlan out of the Southwest, and the Nation of Islam has a utopian plan for taking over several Southern states."
His point is true insofar as the blacks in America come from many different backgrounds and have never held a government or territory of their own. The Latinos also, while sharing Catholicism and the Spanish language, come from many different countries that have much different histories, heroes, and allegiances. And there are many different Indian nations living within the United States. As for white nationalists, I have seen them come forth with a variety of plans for an ethnically divided North America. David Duke had such a plan. A speaker at the American Rennaisance meeting I attended had a separate plan. And while recently giving a speech on Southern nationalism to a small group in Argentina, the moderator told me that last year a speaker had presented a plan for an ethnically divided America. So, I'm not sure that the perspective that white nationalists have little interest in territory is accurate.
Dr. Fleming continued: "The Nation of Islam is on the right track, although not in its territorial aspirations. By latching onto a sect that is historically antagonistic to European Christianity, the Black Muslims have added a religious dimension to their racial identity. However, as long as the welfare state keeps black Americans in a state of dependency, there are few incentives for accepting the military discipline imposed by Minister Farrakhan."
While these groups of peoples may not possess the ingredients necessary to form their own nations, it should be obvious to us that they are not part of our people and nation. They are totally unable to form a community with us and become a part of us. That is the unstated key.
Dr. Fleming's next point is probably the one which created the biggest stir: "Overt white nationalism is a phenomenon very much on the fringe, so long as whites remain nominally Christian (or Jewish) and dimly aware of their ethnic heritages. White racists would like to undermine both Christianity (which they regard as a stumbling block to genocide) and the national traditions that keep white peoples divided. Most of them particularly dislike Southern nationalism -- which is both historic and Christian -- and denounce groups like the League of the South for accepting black members and for opposing the creation of a great white union."
While it is true that at least some white nationalists favor genocide, I don't believe this is the consensus among them. (And we must admit that there are certain Southerners who favor genocide, but they certainly do not direct the agenda of Southern organizations.)
Also, there are certainly traditions which keep white peoples divided, as Dr. Fleming stated. However, as the above-quoted statement from the League of the South showed, the Southern people itself has incorporated into it more than one ethnic group. The key to untangling the line is "assimilability." Some groups are more assimilable than others. The Northern European peoples have more in common with the Southern people than Africans do. And within the Northern European peoples, certain of them have more in common with the Southern people than do others.
Point #19 of the New Albany Declaration states: "That kindred folk who marry into Southern families and adopt Southern ideals and traditions may become naturalized Southerners. We welcome kindred folk who, without benefit of family ties, adopt the Southern way of life; conversely, Southern nativity alone does not confer Southern nationality."
This statement properly addresses the issue.
As for the League of the South and other Southern nationalist organizations allowing blacks into it, that is almost a throwaway line. I've never attended a League of the South meeting in which black members were present. I would be interested to know what percentage of the membership is black. Probably not enough to pay the postage for the monthly mailing of one local chapter. And of what benefit is it to us or to them for a black to be a member of a nationalist organization for the Southern people? That too is a real head-scratcher.
Dr. Fleming's next point was: "A healthy people cannot exist without loyalty, and if there is no American nation to command their loyalties, they will turn inevitably to something else." No doubt this is true and many of us who have turned to Southern nationalism, have done so because the America we grew up in exists no more.
And what has killed it? The Equalitarian religion which mandated that tens of millions of aliens be imported into our land. We are becoming aliens ourselves. Southern nationalists share their opposition to this religion and to its policies with white nationalists, although we understand the problem differently and seek different answers. But in politics, we sometimes find ourselves working with allies instead of blood brothers. Rather than slamming these people as Dr. Fleming has done in this article, I think we should hold out the hand of friendship and try to show them what we believe is a better way to both conceive the issues and to address them.
White nationalists have been willing to go to the podium and address the failure of our enemies, and for that they should be commended. We're not going to allow genocide, if that becomes an issue. But we should be allies in the war for the South. And I haven't found that white nationalists particularly dislike Southern nationalism. That may be Dr. Fleming's experience, but it certainly isn't mine.
Dr. Fleming's next point was: "Black Americans have a perfect right to hate the original Klan, but they should understand that those postwar conflicts were part of a conquered people's struggle to defend itself. It was only accidentally a struggle between races." He made this statement directly after saying: "The original Klan was a national liberation army made up of ex-Confederates and their younger brothers who refused to accept their status as a subjugated people."
Until it's explained better, this statement seems to show more dislike for Southern nationalism than anything I've heard from the white nationalists. Here were our people, our Confederate soldiers and their brothers, struggling to preserve themselves from the new order as best they could, and now Dr. Fleming is saying the blacks have a right to hate them for it. What gives?
Actually, the original Klan won an important victory, although the full imposition of the Confederate ideology and the restoration of the original America did not ever come to fruition. But the original Klan ran the Union troops out of the South by 1877. This allowed the Southern states to regain control of their internal affairs. And what was their reaction to this newfound freedom? They instituted Jim Crow and saved America from the implementation of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act for nearly 90 years.
By 1927, the President of the United States led a procession of several hundred thousand robed Klansmen down Pennsylvania Boulevard which showed how that white America had buried the hatchet from the Civil War and were committed to maintain their control over this country. But the North "broke faith" again after WWII by allowing Asians rights of citizenship and then imposing Civil Rights legislation on the South to the detriment of the entire country and Western civilization.
It took nearly 100 years for the Equalitarian religion to work its way into the American law books and policies. But once done, it has produced devastating effects for all concerned.
I would say that blacks have no right to hate the original Klan, but should thank them for their work in saving the blacks from themselves.
One final statement by Dr. Fleming: "White racism is something far more sinister. White people per se have no territory, no faith, no history to fight for; they are united only in their hatred of members of the enemy race who wear their label on their face."
Sorry, but I find this comment to be quite unfair. First, Dr. Fleming showed earlier that difference in race is much, much more than skin color. But here he falls back on that crutch to score debating points. That won't wash. Second, although white nationalists see the problem different than Southern nationalists, I don't think it has been shown their motivations are any different from ours in many respects. They have been dispossessed from their own country and society. I don't think political opposition constitutes hatred. If so, then wouldn't all Southern nationalists be liable to the same label?
In this statement, Dr. Fleming is once again coming perilously close to adopting the Equalitarian morality of "hate." That's one of their favorite words. It means opposition to multiculturalism, which is a positive position to hold as well as a fair assessment of white nationalism. But I don't see any need to adopt the morality of our enemies to berate those who should be our political allies. That's bad politics, at best.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I agree with Dr. Fleming's central point, that there are substantial differences between white nationalism and Southern nationalism. But whereas he sees them as a group to be separated from, I see them as our most natural allies in the political battles that lie ahead.
While it is true that the white peoples in general is too abstract of a group to identify with, it is also true that we hold more identity with them than we do non-white peoples. And it is also true that ideology does not constitute nationalism, blood and soil do. Nations are kith and kin, groups of people into whom God Himself has divided the human race around the time of the Tower of Babel.
Also, culture and language are products of a particular people, not the arbitrary criteria around which people of like ideology unite. That is putting the cart before the horse.
Further, there is some overlap between the two groups in terms of membership. Dr. Fleming did not specify who exactly he was talking about. But there are people within the Southern movement who I would consider white nationalists as described by Dr. Fleming. There are also those at the other end of the spectrum who would like to promote the myth of the black Confederate and invite blacks and other non-Southerners into the League of the South and other Southern organizations. As with any political movement, there are always differences of opinion within it. Not everyone sees the same issue identically.
Until the board of directors of some of these Southern organizations begin defining themselves in terms that would exclude one end of the spectrum or another, we're all in this together with the freedom and ability to work to promote our perspective and policies.
I think the best policy is to work toward getting white nationalists to see that, as Dr. Fleming says, white peoples in general is too broad of a concept for people to unite with and rally around. Then try to bring them into our struggle for a separate Southern nation.
[url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/white.htm[/url] [/QUOTE]
Mr. Jared Taylor also responded briefly to Dr. Fleming's article.
[QUOTE]A Response to
White Like Me
by Jared Taylor
It is odd that Thomas Fleming should write so contemptuously in the November issue of people he calls "racial nationalists." A strong racial consciousness was part of the intellectual equipment of virtually every eminent American until the mid-20th century: Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln wanted to free the slaves and expel them "beyond the reach of mixture." Teddy Roosevelt cursed his Southern ancestors for bringing blacks to America. Woodrow Wilson was a firm segregationist, and Harry Truman wondered in his private papers why blacks couldn't just stay in Africa and Asians in Asia.
Every President through Eisenhower was a "racial nationalist." Why is it wrong to be faithful to the tradition of Madison, Clay, Monroe, Calhoun and Taney, whose enduring wisdom is borne out by the failure of every liberal racial policy of the last 50 years?
It is likewise curious that Dr. Fleming, who endorses independence for Northern Italy and the American South, should find racial loyalty incomprehensible. When Northern and Southern white children go to the same schools do they spontaneously segregate in the lunchroom and on the playground? At university do they join separate clubs and live in exclusive dormitories? Are their parents so different that "Monday Night Football" is the only common item on their lists of 20 favorite television programs? Does every American city have different churches for Northerners and Southerners?
Does one group have a violent crime rate ten times higher than the other or a syphilis rate 50 times higher? Do both groups somehow manage to seek each other out and live in different neighborhoods in every city in every state?
No. Race matters vastly more than region in virtually every aspect of American life.
In an article that shows little understanding of his subject, Dr. Fleming is correct only when he states the obvious: that race and nation are not identical. However, to build a nation -- be it a new Confederacy or a Northern Italy -- the first ingredient is race. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee would have been dumbfounded at the idea of an Afro-Hispanic-Celtic Confederacy. But after all, they were benighted, hate-filled "racial nationalists."
Jared Taylor
[url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/jt.htm[/url] [/QUOTE]
2004-04-25 05:43 | User Profile
Flemming is one of those Irish Catholics who mistake religious ethnicity for political ideology. The man is not without insight, but is brand of conservatism is, as they say, 'un-compromising.' In other words, Flemming is the type who never really got over the steam engine or electricity -- much less the Reformation. Basically, a loser -- albeit one of the more productive types.
After hearing him link white nationalism to genocide in this way--as if most white nationalists favor this, or as if genocide were some uniquely white affair--I will be sure to let me subscription to Chronicles expire. I rather sick of its pansy-assed attempts to define proper 'masculinity,' anyway, and more than a tad tired of religious fundementalists who are basically irrational, igorant ingrates whose only saving grace is that they happened to be innoculated among some the more pernicious secular ideas of 20th (leftist) secularism.
2004-04-26 17:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Flemming is one of those Irish Catholics who mistake religious ethnicity for political ideology. The man is not without insight, but is brand of conservatism is, as they say, 'un-compromising.' In other words, Flemming is the type who never really got over the steam engine or electricity -- much less the Reformation. Basically, a loser -- albeit one of the more productive types.
After hearing him link white nationalism to genocide in this way--as if most white nationalists favor this, or as if genocide were some uniquely white affair--I will be sure to let me subscription to Chronicles expire. I rather sick of its pansy-assed attempts to define proper 'masculinity,' anyway, and more than a tad tired of religious fundementalists who are basically irrational, igorant ingrates whose only saving grace is that they happened to be innoculated among some the more pernicious secular ideas of 20th (leftist) secularism.[/QUOTE]I believe Fleming is a Roman Catholic convert. Like so many of his kind he professes moral superiority while having no courage or real principle. His magazine has had a drastic drop in number of subxcribers and deservedly so.
2004-04-26 18:20 | User Profile
I must admit I don't "get" Fleming. There's a whole "I'm gonna pick up my toys and go home" attitude about it. If he can't turn back the clock to 1250 AD, then we're all a bunch of nincapoops for trying other solutions. Anything short of a return to universal papacy and monarchy is morally illegitimate in his mind.
As Yggdrasil has pointed out, "white" is now a valid nationality, really for the first time. Americans in general are Heinz 57 mutts of various European nationalities. Myself, well I'm Welsh, Irish, English, French, German, and Spanish. I am a southerner, but I identify much more strongly as a "white guy" than anything else. It ain't much, but it's a start and enough IMO to build a civilization.
Fleming, on the other hand, is in a fantasy land, somewhere circa 1066 before Sir Arthur Keith's process of tribal amalgation began; you can't unmix the white race back into its ethnic components. And despite his howls about the Enlightenment, I DO have a problem with Europeans killing each other over theology. That was the delusion the enlightenment corrected; our next task is to correct the overreaches of the Enlightenment, most specifically the confusion of equality among Europeans for equality among all subspecies of men.
Sam Francis is where I get my money's worth in Chronicles, though I do enjoy reading Fleming because of his literary talent.