← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 14446 | Posts: 57 | Started: 2004-07-05
2004-07-05 18:58 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue][B][SIZE=4]LADY BILL MACBETH[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR] by Thomas Fleming Thursday, July 01, 2004
The announcement that William F. Buckley, Jr., is ââ¬Ådivestingââ¬Â himself from National Review, the magazine created by his money and connections and by the brains of James Burnham, Willy Schlamm, and Wilmoore Kendall, would be welcome news were it not for the dismal knowledge that each generation of successors is inferior to the founders. Mr. Buckley, although an open (if anonymous) enemy of Chronicles, was a man of some principle and of considerable (though undisciplined) intelligence. He believed in political liberty and in a stable and hierarchical social order, and if he had retained the courage of his convictions, he might have done many good things. As it turned out, he ended up no better than a pawn of the Podhoretzes and their ilk.
Mr. Buckley was right about many things, though he was also often wrong about the same things. He could call for restrictions on immigration and then go on to damn Chronicles for making the same argument, before once again repeating his sensible statements on immigration. In the run-up to the conquest of Iraq, he and his magazine were bellicosity itself, and one of his house Podhoretzes, David Frum, was allowed to launch a thoroughly dishonest attack on critics of the war plans, beginning with the editor of Chronicles. (For those who have forgotten, click here.) But now, at his retirement, Mr. Buckley concedes: ââ¬ÅWith the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasnââ¬â¢t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.ââ¬Â
Mr. Buckley joins a growing list of ââ¬Åunpatriotic conservatives,ââ¬Â a list that includes not just hardened troublemakers like the editors of Chronicles and Patrick J. Buchanan, but also Tom Clancyââ¬âwho has never before heard of a war he would not backââ¬âand even the nicest of the neocons, David Brooks. David appears to be appalled by the facts of the war, which might be summed up in Bedford Forrestââ¬â¢s succinct sentence: ââ¬ÅWar means fighting, and fighting means killing.ââ¬Â
What were these bugle-boysââ¬âand the other turncoats in this neoconservative warââ¬âthinking about a year ago? Did Mr. Brooks really believe it when his friends assured him that Americans would achieve a virtually bloodless victory and would be given the greeting our G.I.ââ¬â¢s received in Paris? If so, then he is a bigger fool than I have thought him up to now. Did Mr. Buckley really believe that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weaponsââ¬âand the means of delivering them to American targets? If he did, then he is worse than a fool, and he should never presume to speak out on important public issues again.
I will never understand the logic and morals of people who get swept into wars and revolutions and then draw back in horror, the Lafayettes and Kerenskys. If a man does not enjoy breaking a few eggs, he should never plan on a career as an omelet chef. Or, as one great war criminal and mass murderer (with whom I share a birthday) remarked: ââ¬ÅBe sure you are right, then go ahead.ââ¬Â
On the other hand, I do understand why Wolfowitz and Perle, Kristol and Kagan, said the things they said. Wolfowitz, in fact, has declared candidly that the weapons argument was simply the most convenient propaganda tool they had: It was never the real issue. What was the issue, then? The senior senator from South Carolina, Fritz Hollings, thinks he knows. Hollings is retiring and can speak his mind with even greater candor than he usually permits himself.
In case you missed Hollingsââ¬â¢ ââ¬Åcontroversialââ¬Â (which, in America, now means ââ¬Åtrue but inconvenientââ¬Â) remarks in early May, here are a few paragraphs:
ââ¬ÅWith 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraqââ¬âand how to get out.
ââ¬ÅNow everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in ââ¬ÅAgainst All Enemies,ââ¬Â tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion. . . .
ââ¬ÅOf course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israelââ¬â¢s intelligence, Mossad, knows whatââ¬â¢s going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know.
ââ¬ÅIsraelââ¬â¢s survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bushââ¬â¢s policy to secure Israel.
ââ¬ÅLed by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israelââ¬â¢s security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: ââ¬ÅThe United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up.ââ¬Â And on another occasion: Iraq as ââ¬Åthe first Arab democracy ââ¬Â¦ would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world.ââ¬Â Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: ââ¬ÅA new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region.ââ¬Â
There were probably more objective for this war than protection of Israelââ¬â¢s security: revenge against Saddam who tried to have the Presidentsââ¬â¢ father assassinated, a desire to lay hands on Iraqi oil, the need to include a prestige-war in the reelection campaign. But Israel, as Ariel Sharon has boasted, tells the American media what to think and American administrations what to do. More power to them. Literally.
Sharon and his government have a legitimate interest in neutralizing hostile states, though I think in this instance they have made a grave mistake. They are also justified in their campaign to bribe and intimidate the American political class, which they have done very successfully. I admire their nerve, their effectiveness, and their patriotism, just as I despise the cowardice, incompetence, and treason of American politicians and journalists who serve the interests of a foreign power.
Mr. Buckley long ago traded in his principles for the good opinion of New York intellectuals, and he has spent the past 20 years vilifying every conservative who got in the way of the Podhoretzes and such faithful servants as Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus. He and his colleagues at National Review and his friends at The Weekly Standard all demanded this war. They are covered in the blood of (at this count) nearly 900 dead U.S. servicemen and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi noncombatants. They will go to Hell with this blood on their heads, and any campaign to evade responsibility will meet with as much success as Lady Macbethââ¬â¢s attempt to wash her hands.
[url]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/hardright.cgi/2004/07/01/LADY_BILL_MACBETH[/url]
2004-07-05 19:02 | User Profile
A stalwart friend of the Jews and anti-racist like Thomas Fleming has no credibility on this issue, and his condemnations of WFB are like the pot calling the kettle black.
2004-07-05 23:20 | User Profile
Valley Forge,
I have attacked Thomas Fleming a good number of times, but I do have to say this is a pretty good article.
2004-07-05 23:50 | User Profile
I respectfully disagree.
He doesn't say a damn thing the "racists" he despises and Joe Sobran haven't already said a million times.
Fleming is a loser.
[QUOTE=Faust]Valley Forge,
I have attacked Thomas Fleming a good number of times, but I do have to say this is a pretty good article.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-06 00:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]He doesn't say a damn thing the "racists" he despises and Joe Sobran haven't already said a million times.[/QUOTE]
So what? Would you rather that he not say those things or perhaps take an opposing position?
Fleming is a loser.
That depends on exactly what it is one wants to win or lose. If it is practical political gain, then I can't understand how having a wide array of men from different ideological camps drawing and subsequently publicizing the same conclusions as one's own, whether it be a Fleming or Nader, is in any way, shape or form a bad thing. Much less worthy of the kind of harsh, denouncing rhetoric you post here.
2004-07-06 01:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So what? Would you rather that he not say those things or perhaps take an opposing position?
I have always regarded this response as a rather weak rebuttal to criticism of Fleming.
David Horowitz -- to name just one example of a person who is an obvious detriment from our persepctive -- takes many positions that are helpful to our side.
That doesn't mean his ideas when considered as a whole aren't anathema to the cause of Western preservation and survival.
So the argument that a person should not be condemed if the person says things that are helpful to our side is a complete failure in my opinion, because many people can say things that are helpful for our side without actually being on our side.
That depends on exactly what it is one wants to win or lose. If it is practical political gain, then I can't understand how having a wide array of men from different ideological camps drawing and subsequently publicizing the same conclusions as one's own, whether it be a Fleming or Nader, is in any way, shape or form a bad thing. Much less worthy of the kind of harsh, denouncing rhetoric you post here.[/QUOTE]
Well, again, what about David Horowitz? Would you say the same thing about him?
He comes to the same conclusions we do regarding affirmative action and quotas. He also comes to many of the same conclusions we do regarding multiculturalism (while of courses steering his readers away from the reasons why multicultural thinking took hold in the USA in the first place).
What about William F. Buckley himself? I understand he is against the Iraq war now. Perhaps we should all temper our criticism of him too (on the grounds that he his providing publicity for the anti-war position).
After all, if the way to achieve "practical political gain" is to have "a wide array of men from different ideological camps" drawing the same conclusions and putting forth the same valuable ideas into the public square, it seems there is no reason not to -- or at least there no reason you have given that would explain why it's OK to denounce WFB on the one hand but not OK to denouce Thomas Fleming on the other.
This article by Fleming is some ways a joke.
It makes no point that Joe Sobran and the racialists he despises haven't been making for years.
Now, if he had perhaps written something to the effect of "people on the right that I usually disagree with have been making this point for years, and I am now finally realizing they are right about at this one issue," I'd give the man some respect.
But does he say that? No, of course he doesn't. That's one of the things that makes him a loser -- he fails to give proper credit to the people who have been writing on this topic for years. (Out of curiosity, would you care to speculate on why that is?)
Now, all of this is probably something reasonable people can disagree over.
You apparently don't think Fleming's work warrants such a strong denunciation. Fine. That's OK with me. I happen to have a different opinion.
My opinion at this time is that the man is the William F. Buckley, Jr. of the paleo wing of American conservatism. And I really don't see what the big deal is about that.
2004-07-06 18:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge][COLOR=Blue][B][SIZE=4]LADY BILL MACBETH[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR] by Thomas Fleming Thursday, July 01, 2004
The announcement that William F. Buckley, Jr., is ââ¬Ådivestingââ¬Â himself from National Review, the magazine created by his money and connections and by the brains of [COLOR=Red][I]James Burnham, Willy Schlamm, and Wilmoore Kendall[/I][/COLOR], would be welcome news were it not for the dismal knowledge that each generation of successors is inferior to the founders. Mr. Buckley, although an open (if anonymous) enemy of Chronicles, was a man of some principle and of considerable (though undisciplined) intelligence. He believed in political liberty and in a stable and hierarchical social order, and if he had retained the courage of his convictions, he might have done many good things. As it turned out, he ended up no better than a pawn of the Podhoretzes and their ilk...
bin/hardright.cgi/2004/07/01/LADY_BILL_MACBETH[/url][/QUOTE]Was the name of Russell Kirk listed and then dropped in copying the article? If not, then Fleming is not only a poor judge of character although right about Buckley, but a poorer judge of real intellectual and moral integrity.
2004-07-06 19:24 | User Profile
Valley Forge,
Yes I agree with you on Fleming. A note many members of this forum did not like my attacks on Justin Raimondo. Yes Fleming has no credibility but a stoped clock is right twice a day.
[QUOTE] *The announcement that William F. Buckley, Jr., is ââ¬Ådivestingââ¬Â himself from National Review, the magazine created by his money and connections and by the brains of James Burnham, Willy Schlamm, and Wilmoore Kendall, would be welcome news were it not for the dismal knowledge that each generation of successors is inferior to the founders. *
Was the name of Russell Kirk listed and then dropped in copying the article? If not, then Fleming is not only a poor judge of character although right about Buckley, but a poorer judge of real intellectual and moral integrity.-edward gibbon [/QUOTE]
I will also note that Revilo P. Oliver name was also left out.
And what of Joe Sobran, Jared Taylor, Ernest van den Haag, or Peter Brimelow and others?
More from Sam Francis: [url]http://www.vdare.com/francis/unpatriotic_conservative.htm[/url]
2004-07-06 20:14 | User Profile
[B]Sam Francis[/B] wrote: [QUOTE][COLOR=Red][I]James Burnham, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Willmore Kendall, Whittaker Chambers and others[/I][/COLOR]. [/QUOTE]I am flogging myself for forgetting Richard Weaver, who wrote 3 great books that I have read. I recommend Weaver and his beautiful writing to anybody who loves the English language.
2004-07-06 23:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Was the name of Russell Kirk listed and then dropped in copying the article?[/QUOTE]
That would be a no Edward.
Fleming did not list Kirk, let alone Sobran, Brimelow, and the others Faust mentioned.
It's just more evidence Fleming is a second-rater.
2004-07-07 01:58 | User Profile
Valley Forge,
Why don't you go on the Chronicles weblog and express your discontent about Fleming there?
Frankly, I'd like to see his response.
2004-07-07 02:23 | User Profile
Where the heck would I post it?
It looks like the Chronicles blog deals with every topic under the sun -- except race and Jews of course.
I think that says more about Fleming's agenda than I ever could.
* Africa (2)
* Coalition (6)
* Ethnic Cleansing (2)
* Europe (4)
o French Quarter (3)
* Homefront (56)
o Homeland Security (13)
+ PATRIOT Act (5)
+ PATRIOT II (2)
o Patriotic Conservatives (27)
o Pro-War Correctness (3)
o The Economy (2)
* Iran (2)
* Iraq (47)
o Baghdad (18)
o Basra (5)
o Mosul (1)
o Najaf (1)
o Nasiriya (2)
o Umm Qasr (1)
* Islam (17)
o Jihad Watch (4)
* Israel (16)
* Just War Theory (8)
* Making Money (2)
* Media (14)
* Protests (3)
* Rhetoric (6)
* Saudi Arabia (2)
* Strategy (64)
* Syria (2)
* Terrorism (4)
* The Fallen (7)
* The Lighter Side (3)
* The Occupation (14)
* United Nations (1)
* WOMD (19)
* World Opinion
[url]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Blog/WB.html[/url]
2004-07-07 02:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Where the heck would I post it?
It looks like the Chronicles blog deals with every topic under the sun -- except race and Jews of course.
I think that says more about Fleming's agenda than I ever could.[/QUOTE] Go to the Lady McBeth article. At the bottom, click on the "writebacks" link and post your opinion, which you've expressed here, about it there.
2004-07-07 03:42 | User Profile
I just posted the following comment on the Chronicles blog:
"Perhaps someone can help me out, because I fail to see what's so interesting about this article. Dr. Fleming doesn't break any new ground here; he only echos what Joe Sobran and White Nationalists like the late Dr. William Pierce have been saying for years now: Bill Buckley did the dance, while Jews called the tune. That's hardly breaking news. "
It will be interesting to see whether Dr. Fleming responds.
2004-07-07 04:17 | User Profile
It is certainly interesting to see Fleming echo the late Dr. Pierce, if that's what's going on. All in all, very interesting stuff. Maybe not novel, but interesting.
2004-07-07 04:20 | User Profile
random,
Last time you and I exchanged words, you didn't seem familiar with Kevin MacDonald's works.
To understand why Fleming is a phony, you need a certain base of knowledge.
So do yourself a favor: Read Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald and My Awakening by David Duke.
If you do, you'll probably never look at Fleming's work the same way again -- because it will be apparent to you the extent to which Fleming deliberately deceives his readers by ducking the real issue: Jewish Supremacist power.
[QUOTE=random]Valley Forge,
Why don't you go on the Chronicles weblog and express your discontent about Fleming there?
Frankly, I'd like to see his response.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 04:29 | User Profile
I don't think Fleming would admit he's echoing Dr. Pierce, even though that's exactly what he's doing in this article.
White Nationalists understood what was happening with this war from the beginning, but "conservatives" like Fleming would rather die than admit the racial nationalists were right about something.
[QUOTE=darkstar]It is certainly interesting to see Fleming echo the late Dr. Pierce, if that's what's going on. All in all, very interesting stuff. Maybe not novel, but interesting.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 05:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I just posted the following comment on the Chronicles blog:
"Perhaps someone can help me out, because I fail to see what's so interesting about this article. Dr. Fleming doesn't break any new ground here; he only echos what Joe Sobran and White Nationalists like the late Dr. William Pierce have been saying for years now: Bill Buckley did the dance, while Jews called the tune. That's hardly breaking news. "
It will be interesting to see whether Dr. Fleming responds.[/QUOTE]Brilliant way of attacking Paleoconservatism. You attack Fleming as being a wimp on the neo's, and at the same time say he's a plagiarizer of Nazi's, which his neo critics ought to love .
It isn't hard to see why Fleming prefers to keep his distance from hardcore WN's, admit it - you are impossible to please.
2004-07-07 10:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Brilliant way of attacking Paleoconservatism. You attack Fleming as being a wimp on the neo's, and at the same time say he's a plagiarizer of Nazi's, which his neo critics ought to love .
It isn't hard to see why Fleming prefers to keep his distance from hardcore WN's, admit it - you are impossible to please.[/QUOTE]
Why perceive an attack on Fleming as an attack on Paleoconservatism itself? What's paleo about Fleming that you can't get from Sam Francis (who's called for a White Man's Party and attends CofCC and AmRen conferences) or Joe Sobran (who's named the Jew and attended IHR revisionist conferences, leaving aside his anarchist tendencies)? Francis and Sobran are what paleoconservatism needs more of. Fleming isn't bold like they are--he paints in watercolors and his pulse is weak and thready. We need more writers like F/S.
2004-07-07 11:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]random,
Last time you and I exchanged words, you didn't seem familiar with Kevin MacDonald's works.
To understand why Fleming is a phony, you need a certain base of knowledge.
So do yourself a favor: Read Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald and My Awakening by David Duke.
If you do, you'll probably never look at Fleming's work the same way again -- because it will be apparent to you the extent to which Fleming deliberately deceives his readers by ducking the real issue: Jewish Supremacist power.[/QUOTE] Yes, I intend to read MacDonald's book. But I've got a stack I'm still going through... I'm quite behind.
I'm not a white nationalist. I found this board via a link posted on the Chronicles weblog. I'm perferctly content to live among Jews and other minorities in my country, so long as I have the right and choice to live in communities without them if I so desire.
Also, I want not only the right but the respect to criticize entire races or ethnicities any way I please without being denounced and blacklisted.
But, I'm not a white nationalist.
2004-07-07 12:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Francis and Sobran are what paleoconservatism needs more of. Fleming isn't bold like they are--he paints in watercolors and his pulse is weak and thready. We need more writers like F/S.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with having all three? I agree that Francis and Sobran are much more 'in-your-face,' but Fleming writes some excellent pieces and addresses some important issues. Fleming's focus seems to be preservation of Christian traditions and Western Civilization, and I don't have a problem with him focusing on that. His magazine does provide an outlet for Francis after all, and he gives Francis a reasonably long leash, I think.
2004-07-07 15:59 | User Profile
Of course. Fleming attacks the white nationalists, and he attacks the libertarians. Why? Both groups are too dynamic, and involve elements who (like myself) are willing to embrace new bio-technologies and cultural arrangments in pursuit of advancing white culture.
America is defined in good measure by such dynamism. We have always been a land of inventors and innovators. We have NOT always been a land of Roman Catholics. Is there a connection? As S. Huntington points out in his new book: of course. America survives on a Protestant core that Catholics adapt to, just as French Catholics adapted to the Protestant work ethic.
Fleming is of pre-adapted school of Catholicism. What he conserves is fundementally foreign and anti-American. Sobran might be accussed of something similar, were he not a convert whose focus in on foreign policy and policy decisions. PB very much has these problems, although he has is far more of an adapated Catholic than is Fleming. Francis, a good Protestant, doesn't have these problems at all (but he is still a little too tied to conservation of that which is long dead and not essential for white flourishing).
[QUOTE=Valley Forge] White Nationalists understood what was happening with this war from the beginning, but "conservatives" like Fleming would rather die than admit the racial nationalists were right about something.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 17:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Brilliant way of attacking Paleoconservatism.
I'm not attacking paleoconservatism; I'm critiqueing one article by one man.
You attack Fleming as being a wimp on the neo's,
He's not a wimp on the neos; he's a wimp when it comes to explaining what the neoconservative movement represents (Jewish subversion of old school consevatism).
For example, over on that Chronicles "Lady Macbeth" writeback blog, I noticed several posts by young conservatives who formerly supported the war that have now become disaffected and aliented from the "conservative/GOP" mainstream represented by the NR/NR Online/Buckley/Frum axis. A few of these youngsters indicated they discovered Chronicles/Sobran/PJB after reading Frum's attack on the paleocons who opposed the war.
And in my opinion, it's a shame that Fleming isn't telling these young conservatives the truth about the neos and their objectives. That's why his writings heed to be critiqued. These kids have no idea they've exchanged one pied piper for another (WFB for TF).
and at the same time say he's a plagiarizer of Nazi's, which his neo critics ought to love.
Why would they; his neo critics were probably overjoyed when Fleming attacked, mocked, and drummed WNs out of his wing of the conservative movement.
Fleming actually has a lot in common with the neos; both he and the neos hate so-called "Nazis" (defined as anyone who thinks race should be an organizing principle in the political/social sphere of human life).
It isn't hard to see why Fleming prefers to keep his distance from hardcore WN's,
He and others may have some legitmate grounds for keeping his distance; I don't disagree with that.
However, I don't believe that the "hardcore WN" position on the neocons is something that a person should keep his distance from -- if that person claims to cares about the future of the West.
admit it - you are impossible to please.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I am regularly pleased by Sam Francis and Joe Sobran.
2004-07-07 17:44 | User Profile
It may be that a whole new generation of GOP voters and mainstream conservatives are discovering paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism thanks to the Iraq war. It's too bad the opportunity to expose neoconservatism for what it really represents is being sqandered.
2004-07-07 17:47 | User Profile
You might as well join the WNs. Because given your first statement, you already are one as far as the other side is concerned.
[QUOTE=random] Also, I want not only the right but the respect to criticize entire races or ethnicities any way I please without being denounced and blacklisted.
But, I'm not a white nationalist.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 17:48 | User Profile
Firstly, so as not to make a false start, I am NEITHER as erudite as Fleming, NOR am I as erudite, as many of the posters here, like Valley Forge.
I suspect, Fleming does not acknowledge THE SUPREMACY OF JEWISH POWER, as does Valley Forge, because it's ephemeral, fleeting...false, if it in fact exists to the suggested extent of being flat out SUPREMACY? Not likely.
Why do I posit "not likely?" Well, in this world absolute balance is not possible, but approxmiate balance is required or requisite. Sure within degrees imbalances get too much in one direction or the other, and Must re-balance, approximately. And when, for a while, not in one's own direction, we must be sensitive about our own survival, endurance, etc. It's natural, it's normal. That is even an opportunity. Who actually BELIEVES we would be having this debate, and literally advancing ourselves as a result right now as we speak, if this were not the case today. It seems to be the dynamic of the world itself.
As for Jews themselves, they are, and will always have to be, because of their precarious position in the world, since marginal in their numbers, taking measure always of their surroundings... like prudent pilot fish, round about the WHALE of reality, which is today the United States. They went for the ride on the political reality of oil being king while it lasted...and it still does last. Probably will, until the last drop is sucked out of the earth. I dare say to Valley Forge, or MacDonald, would you, or he even be considering some of the things that occur to us now? What's wrong with that?
If there were no jews...it would be the same reality today, approximately, without the alleged problematic of their presence in either Israel, or anywhere else. But what is that problem, really? How would things otherwise be significantly different? Things would not be significantly different, in this writer's opinion.
OF COURSE in the present, since they themselves do well (some do), they have enemies here or anywhere, as anyone does. And those enemies or adversaries have the right to GET IN THEIR FACES, just as JEWS do the same to their adversaries, when attempting to win objectives they perceive as their own.
I've read Feming for years, stopped a while ago, just because I'm too lazy to keep up, and my sense of him is that naturally he is in favor of his own, in any adversarial realtionship with others, of course be they jews or not. While, at the same time in the larger picture, where's this alleged Huge problem? It's like six of one, half-dozen of another? What is the actual Issue? Plus he supports Francis/Sobran as one of this own. His style is not so mealy-mouthed, as more laid back. Who among them, of those three, do I prefer?
I like Francis best, Fleming second, Sobran third... it's just my own tastes. So I agree with Quantrill. And I don't mean to be rude to any other poster mentioned. Of course IF the Saudis and Jews are now really fighting it out in America...if that's what happened to the Twin Towers-?-then that too has to be put in the light. But, I'm not sure that's the case per se. It's still about oil, and the dollar being tied To Oil. And it will be tied to oil for the forseeable future, or there would be havoc in the U.S. Without the 10% surcharge we get because oil is traded in dollars, we would NOT be able to support the deficits we run as a nation...and it would also wreck for a while the world economy because we would not be able to afford imported goods. Am I wrong about that? If not, how would anything be significantly different, otherwise? I do not know, that's my question.
Quantrill... too Joycey?or did I get closer to the succinct. Thanks, for your advice...really. Personally I wish we had all listened to Rothbard, ten plus years ago when he suggested the dollar be tied to gold. He was a Jew. I doubt we could have done it then either though? Could we have-?-without another "Valley Forge"?
2004-07-07 17:57 | User Profile
While I'm not sure I agree that Fleming's Catholicism is a major factor, I think you're on to something here. One of the biggest problems with thinkers like Fleming is that they're don't seem to recognize the need to consider and embrace at least some new cultural arrangements.
The palecons have been routed -- absolutely decimated -- and have lost every important cultural and political battle for the last 60 years. You would think that a person who holds political ideas that resulted in complete failure on that scale would be open to new proposals and suggestions.
But no; Fleming (and people who agree with him) just keep chugging along and proposing patently stupid ideas that often deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule in my opinion. A good example of such an idea would be Fleming's claim that Southern whites have more in common with Asians and Mestizos that live in the south than they do with Whites who live in the north or the west.
It's amazing the intellectual contortions some people will go through to deny racialist ideas have merit.
[QUOTE=darkstar]Of course. Fleming attacks the white nationalists, and he attacks the libertarians. Why? Both groups are too dynamic, and involve elements who (like myself) are willing to embrace new bio-technologies and cultural arrangments in pursuit of advancing white culture.
America is defined in good measure by such dynamism. We have always been a land of inventors and innovators. We have NOT always been a land of Roman Catholics. Is there a connection? As S. Huntington points out in his new book: of course. America survives on a Protestant core that Catholics adapt to, just as French Catholics adapted to the Protestant work ethic.
Fleming is of pre-adapted school of Catholicism. What he conserves is fundementally foreign and anti-American. Sobran might be accussed of something similar, were he not a convert whose focus in on foreign policy and policy decisions. PB very much has these problems, although he has is far more of an adapated Catholic than is Fleming. Francis, a good Protestant, doesn't have these problems at all (but he is still a little too tied to conservation of that which is long dead and not essential for white flourishing).[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 18:13 | User Profile
The Mezito example is a good one. Of course, I'm sure the fact that the Latinos here are mostly Catholic has nothing to do with Fleming's analysis....
You can indeed offer a critique based on pointing out how political conservatives time and again conserve the wrong things, while leaving out mention of the Catholic factor. However--what would be an example of an American, Protestant political-conservative whose major error is this one?
In any case: I am sure Fleming would be the first to note that his extremely theologically-conservative Catholicism is the central factor in all he does and writes.
2004-07-07 22:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]You might as well join the WNs. Because given your first statement, you already are one as far as the other side is concerned.[/QUOTE] White nationalism implies that you subscribe to an ideology that only benefits whites, and one that wishes to exclude all others.
While I might lament the decreasing proportion of whites in this country, I certainly wouldn't advocate policies that are either a) anti-Constitutional, b) anti-republican or c) specifically aimed to harm other races or ethnicities.
I'm a hard right conservative that appreciates an open exchange of ideas. No idea or opinion is unworthy of discussion, in my view.
I don't think this makes me a white nationalist.
2004-07-07 23:05 | User Profile
I will let VF be the one to answer some of your other points. I'd just like to not that white nationalism is an ambigous term, which may mean looking centrally after the interests of whites (although this may include having an ideology that benefits non-whites), or which may championing the interests of whites specifically through territorial exclusion of non-whites.
Personally, I prefer the term 'white racialist.' This means that I champion the interests of the white race, whether we are grouped into our own nation-states, or otherwise. It does not mean I advocate policies that are any of 'a,' 'b', or 'c' below.
[QUOTE=random]White nationalism implies that you subscribe to an ideology that only benefits whites, and one that wishes to exclude all others.
While I might lament the decreasing proportion of whites in this country, I certainly wouldn't advocate policies that are either a) anti-Constitutional, b) anti-republican or c) specifically aimed to harm other races or ethnicities.
I'm a hard right conservative that appreciates an open exchange of ideas. No idea or opinion is unworthy of discussion, in my view.
I don't think this makes me a white nationalist.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-08 00:15 | User Profile
From Little Geneva:
From the Wall Street Urinal: "Before Bill Buckley and NR, American conservatism was a loose assortment of isolationists, protectionists, traditionalists, anti-Semites, Southern Agrarians and just plain cranks." Hey, I resemble that remark! While these hijackers were changing the meaning of the word conservatism, true conservatives like Russell Kirk moved to Chronicles magazine. Kirk was a contributing editor at Chronicles until two years before his death. Just after he left, he became General Chairman of Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992.
"Not seldom has it seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." ~ Russell Kirk
One complaint I have about Chronicles is their singular focus on Muslims as the enemies of Christendom. They seem to think the ADL is way out there, but your run-of-the-mill Jew is conservative and worships the God of the Bible. Don Feder is one whose reputation fits this mold, and Chronicles printed this excrement from him: "If Christians and Jews do not unite in the face of this international jihad - and make common cause with Hindus and Buddhists as well - we are all lost." This sentence should invite nothing but derision from Christians.
2004-07-08 02:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]The Mezito example is a good one. Of course, I'm sure the fact that the Latinos here are mostly Catholic has nothing to do with Fleming's analysis...[/QUOTE]
A point well taken.
2004-07-08 03:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=random]While I might lament the decreasing proportion of whites in this country, I certainly wouldn't advocate policies that are either a) anti-Constitutional, b) anti-republican or c) specifically aimed to harm other races or ethnicities.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what B means above (perhaps you have a certain definition in mind), but as far as A goes, the current configuration of the government is not offensive to me because it is "unconstitutional" (and it is unconstitutional and has been such for a long time), but because I perceive that the current government does not serve my constellation of interests as a White American English-speaking middle-class male. I wouldn't care if the government were "Constitutional" or not if it were actually a government "for us and by us."
As far as C goes, for some reason unknown to me, there's this unspoken perception floating around out there that White Nationalists are out to somehow kill or injure non-whites. That's not the case. There's no specific White Nationalist goal that requires physical violence or bodily harm inflicted on anyone. That being said, keep in mind I define "harm" as in physical harm. Some people no doubt would consider stripping non-whites of the right to vote as a "harm."
A few generations back in America, our European-descended ancestors did not consider this "harm," but a natural and fitting political arrangement. Same with physical segregation or deportation of non-whites--this is not a "harm," since populations can be moved or contained without necessarily physically injuring anyone.
Even if one were to say that some non-whites would resist having all the supposed "gains" they made politically over the years suddenly removed, there are still ways to manage the impact of this. Let's say White Nationalists were elected and riots erupted in the "inner cities" in response to the news--there are non-lethal crowd control technologies and such.
From a more realistic point of view, I can say that I do not support the use of violence not because I believe in fictions such as "human rights" or anything like that, but because I think it's actually a waste of time and resources to go out of one's way to build an apparatus whose only purpose is to "do harm."
At the same time, I think from a historical point of view modern American White Nationalists are extremely generous, and almost bordering on soft and squeamish. Keep in mind that not too long ago, our ancestors dealt with the Indians in ways that would have had Amnesty International screaming. Somewhere along the way between then and now, Whites have lost that sense of firmness, and they even feel the need to wring their hands over how they'll treat illegal aliens. Right now, there are Whites out there in the desert near the Mexican border setting up water stations because they worry about illegal aliens dehydrating and dying in the desert. Whites today may consider themselves more "refined" and "moral" than in past generations, but what has that halo hanging over their head got them? How has our race made "progress" in the world now that it is "nicer?" The results I see are more miscegenation, more Third Worlders swamping the country, and a declining population. That's a recipe for extinction.
2004-07-08 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I'm not attacking paleoconservatism; I'm critiqueing one article by one man.
Hmm. See your next post underneath. Sounds like a lot more than one article by one man.
[quote=Valley Forge]The palecons have been routed -- absolutely decimated -- and have lost every important cultural and political battle for the last 60 years. You would think that a person who holds political ideas that resulted in complete failure on that scale would be open to new proposals and suggestions.
But no; Fleming (and people who agree with him) just keep chugging along and proposing patently stupid ideas that often deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule in my opinion.
[quote=Valley Forge]He's not a wimp on the neos; he's a wimp when it comes to explaining what the neoconservative movement represents (Jewish subversion of old school consevatism). OK, I know so he doesn't "name the jew" to your's, Franco's, and Linder's satisfaction. And if you don't like the comparison, I think it certainly has more basis than your equivication of Buckley with Fleming, which is not a whole lot fairer than the old "Francis=Foxman" formula.
[quote=Valley Forge] Why would they; his neo critics were probably overjoyed when Fleming attacked, mocked, and drummed WNs out of his wing of the conservative movement.
Fleming actually has a lot in common with the neos; both he and the neos hate so-called "Nazis" (defined as anyone who thinks race should be an organizing principle in the political/social sphere of human life).
He and others may have some legitmate grounds for keeping his distance; I don't disagree with that. [/QUOTE] I never can follow you, first you equate him with Buckley, Goldberg, and Kristol for keeping their distance from WN, then you turn around and say - maybe they have legitimate reasons for doing so.
2004-07-08 03:16 | User Profile
I certainly wouldn't advocate policies that are either a) anti-Constitutional, b) anti-republican or c) specifically aimed to harm other races or ethnicities.
No White Nationalist advocates C. That's a distortion peddled by Jews. (I would say it's a distortion peddled by leftists, liberals, and neocons, but as you'll soon find out when you read MacDonald, Jews are disproportionately represented in all three of those groups).
And WN doesn't necessarily imply A or B either. If you look at the historical record, what you'll see is that historically Nationalist nations have used many forms of government. For example, there have been Nationalist nations with monarchies (Russia), dictatorships (Germany), and democracies (Japan).
In theory, there is absolutely no reason why a WN nation would have to be anti-democratic.
That's a lie peddled by the usual suspects.
White Nationalism is also completely reconcilable with the American system (as that system was understood prior to the 1950s). Why? Because private propety rights and the right to free association include the derivative rights to "segregate" and "discrimate." There isn't anything wrong with exclusion; on the contrary, from the natural rights perspective (the perspective of the Declaration of Indepedence) exclusion is moral; we have a right to do it (just as we have the right to keep and bear arms).
In any event, ultimately what the White Nationalist movement is really about is just wanting to be left alone. And even though I have been very critical of Jared Taylor for his failure to confront Jewish power, I think he really captured the true spirit of this movement when he wrote this:
[B][FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=3]what is our movement? What are we fighting for? I think the simplest way of putting it is that we just want to be left alone. We are the heirs to the magnificent culture and traditions of Europe, we are a biologically distinct group known as white people, we want to be left alone to carry forward our traditions and to pursue our own destiny. It is as simple as that. We wish other groups well, but we cannot welcome them in our midst because they are not us. We have a deep, healthy loyalty to our own kind, and we know populations are not replaceable or interchangeable. We have the right to be us, and only we can be us.[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
That's all most WNs want, in a nutshell. As you can see, there's nothing in there about harming other groups. If it ever becomes necessary for the White man to go to war with other groups, it will be because those groups refuse to leave us alone.
If you have time, this is a good article dealing with this issue (if you haven't already seen it).
[url]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/wn/wn-06.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=random]White nationalism implies that you subscribe to an ideology that only benefits whites, and one that wishes to exclude all others.
While I might lament the decreasing proportion of whites in this country, I certainly wouldn't advocate policies that are either a) anti-Constitutional, b) anti-republican or c) specifically aimed to harm other races or ethnicities.
I'm a hard right conservative that appreciates an open exchange of ideas. No idea or opinion is unworthy of discussion, in my view.
I don't think this makes me a white nationalist.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-08 03:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]While I'm not sure I agree that Fleming's Catholicism is a major factor, I think you're on to something here. One of the biggest problems with thinkers like Fleming is that they're don't seem to recognize the need to consider and embrace at least some new cultural arrangements.
The palecons have been routed -- absolutely decimated -- and have lost every important cultural and political battle for the last 60 years. You would think that a person who holds political ideas that resulted in complete failure on that scale would be open to new proposals and suggestions.
VF, you keep repeating this principle theme/mantra of Trisk, "the failure of paleoconservatism" over and over again, despite the fact that you obviously don't understand it hardly at all.
Firstly, paleoconservatism, as the books on the subject we have discussed here at OD indicate, paleoconservatism is hardly a fraction of sixty years old. Its leaders generally ascribe its foundation to the early 80's
Now perhaps you could be talking about conservative movement in general. After this is an article about WFB. Even here however WFB said originally conservatism in America was moribond, and he faced enormous odds in ressurrecting it. And then they say to everyone's surprise, they succeeded emmensely.
Implicitely here it is you and the other WN critics of paleoconservatism that is buying into the neoconservative critique. Neo's however being more logical and practical, will tell you that paleoconservatism is a failure because it has been contaminated by WN, not your rather absurb contention that it loses because it is not nationalistic enough.
And neo's, unlike you, have good arguments they can present. After all, the parts of conservatism not associated wit WN, the belief in the natural goodness and supremacy of markets, freedom, and free movement of goods and people, are what seem triumphant today. It is the obstinant (to the neo) paleo contention for remaining cultural, religious, and ethnic (even if not as much as you like) particularism that dooms it to failure and life on "the lunatic fringe".
They at least are real people making real arguments under their real names. Say what you like about paleo's they don't specialize in making neo's look good, as WN like Linder and Franco and "Vibeke" always seem to do.
But no; Fleming (and people who agree with him) just keep chugging along and proposing patently stupid ideas that often deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule in my opinion. A good example of such an idea would be Fleming's claim that Southern whites have more in common with Asians and Mestizos that live in the south than they do with Whites who live in the north or the west.
2004-07-08 03:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]As far as C goes, for some reason unknown to me, there's this unspoken perception floating around out there that White Nationalists are out to somehow kill or injure non-whites. That's not the case. There's no specific White Nationalist goal that requires physical violence or bodily harm inflicted on anyone. That being said, keep in mind I define "harm" as in physical harm. Some people no doubt would consider stripping non-whites of the right to vote as a "harm." [/QUOTE] Uhh - you aren't really telling the whole story here, or maybe your just confusing WN with how you like it with WN as it really is. From Pierce's "Day of the Rope" to the remarks you see even by our good ex ODer friends who are now over at the Phora about Raina finding her place "six feet under" violence has always been endemic to WN, as even many sober WN people who recognize the harm it does point out.
And if it doesn't necessarily serve WN's goals, students of the movement find, just listening to the partipants themselves, that it certainly seems to serve some psychlogical one - which seems to be why it is so hard to root out.
2004-07-08 03:57 | User Profile
OK, I know so he doesn't "name the jew" to your's, Franco's, and Linder's satisfaction.
That is not the issue.
The issue is that Jews have power.
They have more power than any other group.
That's why confronting Jewish influence is important.
Linder and Franco have nothing to do with anything, so it's not clear why you brought them up.
And if you don't like the comparison, I think it certainly has more basis than your equivication of Buckley with Fleming, which is not a whole lot fairer than the old "Francis=Foxman" formula.
Whoever said Francis equals Foxman was an idiot that was probably trolling for a reaction from you.
I never can follow you, first you equate him with Buckley, Goldberg, and Kristol for keeping their distance from WN, then you turn around and say - maybe they have legitimate reasons for doing so.[/QUOTE]
Well, I thought the point was clear, but let me try again.
White Nationalism is not monolithic, just like conservatism is not monolithic. There are different strains and flavors of WN. There also are different groups and different sectors.
Now, Fleming may have legitimate reasons for keeping his distance from some WN elements, specifically, the ones that are aggresively nihilistic, neo-pagan, and/or anti-Christian (or all three).
But, that isn't the only thing Fleming is doing. He is also keeping his distance from very mild WNs like Jared Taylor, and, in fact, I believe I am correct in saying that Jared Taylor was one of Fleming's main targets when he wrote his famous essay attacking WNs.
Fleming clearly believes that no strain of White racialism however mild has a place in 21st century politics.
And given the demographic picure that PJB painted in The Death of the West, I think that's insane.
I don't understand what you see in this guy; he's clearly leading people down the wrong path.
2004-07-08 04:03 | User Profile
This is a misrepresentation.
Again, White Nationalism is not monolithic.
Yggdrasil, David Duke, and Don Black are all WN, and none of them endorse violence.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Uhh - you aren't really telling the whole story here, or maybe your just confusing WN with how you like it with WN as it really is. From Pierce's "Day of the Rope" to the remarks you see even by our good ex ODer friends who are now over at the Phora about Raina finding her place "six feet under" violence has always been endemic to WN, as even many sober WN people who recognize the harm it does point out.
And if it doesn't necessarily serve WN's goals, students of the movement find, just listening to the partipants themselves, that it certainly seems to serve some psychlogical one - which seems to be why it is so hard to root out.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-08 04:38 | User Profile
For once, I agree with Okiereddust. Some white nationalists are definetly out for blood. It is quite logical really: one way to get ahead is by hurting the other guy.
But almost all ideologies involve elements that are out for blood. The fact remains, most WN love non-whites--we just love whites more.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Uhh - you aren't really telling the whole story here, or maybe your just confusing WN with how you like it with WN as it really is. From Pierce's "Day of the Rope" to the remarks you see even by our good ex ODer friends who are now over at the Phora about Raina finding her place "six feet under" violence has always been endemic to WN, as even many sober WN people who recognize the harm it does point out.
And if it doesn't necessarily serve WN's goals, students of the movement find, just listening to the partipants themselves, that it certainly seems to serve some psychlogical one - which seems to be why it is so hard to root out.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-08 09:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Uhh - you aren't really telling the whole story here, or maybe your just confusing WN with how you like it with WN as it really is. From Pierce's "Day of the Rope" to the remarks you see even by our good ex ODer friends who are now over at the Phora about Raina finding her place "six feet under" violence has always been endemic to WN, as even many sober WN people who recognize the harm it does point out.
And if it doesn't necessarily serve WN's goals, students of the movement find, just listening to the partipants themselves, that it certainly seems to serve some psychlogical one - which seems to be why it is so hard to root out.[/QUOTE]
VF is absolutely right about the non-monolithic nature of WN.
The Left also has its share of those who are psychologically inclined to violence as well. ARA activists take great pleasure in targeting "racist" individuals for beatings, vandalism, and the like. And that makes no sense to me, that focus on targeting individuals for violence, since attacking one individual serves no political goal. Politics is about the relation of group to group, not person to person, which is why many WNs are on good professional terms with individual non-whites that this society currently forces them to live and work among. For what would it change in the world to pursue isolated individuals?
From another angle, this is also why no enduring value is to be had by isolated terrorist acts (even in series) such as the OKC bombing by McVeigh or that guy who shot up the Jewish day care center. The best analogy for describing the situation that I have found is that when dealing with a yellow jacket problem, you don't spend time squashing individual bees, since that goes nowhere due to the endless amount of bees and you only end up getting stung. You wipe out the nest (recall the point about collectives above) and they all go at once.
I'm not phased by phrases such as "Day of the Rope." That sort of rhetoric is used mainly as a way of throwing out "red meat" and "rallying the troops." Also, I'm inclined to classify any wide-scale "violent" behavior on the part of Whites as something reactive and defensive. I wouldn't worry about seeing outbreaks of this occur anytime soon, since Whites generally tend to be rather docile--things would have to get much worse in this country before you see those sorts of reactions on any significant scale. This hasn't even happened yet among Whites in South Africa, who have much more reason to "revolt" given their population's dire numerical situation.
And that's really the context you see "violence" discussions among WN emerge in--the situation is that there are very few Whites on this planet compared to all the Blacks, Browns, Yellows, etc., and our share is shrinking. They can make more non-whites; with their high fertility, there's plenty to go around, so "violence" wouldn't even make a dent in their future survival. The only people on this planet who are at risk of suffering genocide and extinction are Whites.
2004-07-08 14:32 | User Profile
Re "the day of the rope" stuff,
A long time ago, before American men became emasculated puppydogs worried about the things Jews wanted them to worry about, it was common thought in right-wing circles that sooner or later Americans would no longer be able to avoid learning how they'd been subjugated and used by the Jews, and that they would rise up in indignant outrage and deliver the culprits a death blow. That they haven't risen up and that there are some who actually focus their attention on nazi ghosts and "militant Islam" and the potential for violence among white men is testament to how worthless they've become as protectors of their society. Only Jews and their shabbos goyim, and many dim and easily misled people, worry about these things instead of about the elephant in the living room.
Nobody need worry about violent white men, unless you're a foreign national or head of state. The potential for violence has all been channelled into agression abroad, leaving pussified knee benders and neighborhood nazi seeking effeminates at home. It's no coincidence that the brave defender of his country, when he's finished his tour of the world, comes back and feels right at home as a third class citizen in the US.
2004-07-08 17:18 | User Profile
[Quote=PaleoconAvatar]As far as C goes, for some reason unknown to me, there's this unspoken perception floating around out there that White Nationalists are out to somehow kill or injure non-whites. That's not the case. There's no specific White Nationalist goal that requires physical violence or bodily harm inflicted on anyone. That being said, keep in mind I define "harm" as in physical harm. Some people no doubt would consider stripping non-whites of the right to vote as a "harm."
................From a more realistic point of view, I can say that I do not support the use of violence not because I believe in fictions such as "human rights" or anything like that, but because I think it's actually a waste of time and resources to go out of one's way to build an apparatus whose only purpose is to "do harm."
At the same time, I think from a historical point of view modern American White Nationalists are extremely generous, and almost bordering on soft and squeamish. Keep in mind that not too long ago, our ancestors dealt with the Indians in ways that would have had Amnesty International screaming.
Your general protestation that WN are unfairly accused of being violent I think you should admit must be properly interpreted in context. I see traces of an almost ambivalent attitude here - yes WN cannot be accussed of violence. But is that good or bad (for WN?)
Researchers in WN's said that for many WN violence is basically viewed as essential for the very legitimacy of WN and the white race itself. This comes through more clearly in Ruffin's post.
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Re "the day of the rope" stuff,
A long time ago, before American men became emasculated puppydogs worried about the things Jews wanted them to worry about, it was common thought in right-wing circles that sooner or later Americans would no longer be able to avoid learning how they'd been subjugated and used by the Jews, and that they would rise up in indignant outrage and deliver the culprits a death blow. That they haven't risen up and that there are some who actually focus their attention on nazi ghosts and "militant Islam" and the potential for violence among white men is testament to how worthless they've become as protectors of their society
...... The potential for violence has all been channelled into agression abroad, leaving pussified knee benders and neighborhood nazi seeking effeminates at home. [/QUOTE]
2004-07-08 18:28 | User Profile
Researchers in WN's said.....
Who are these "researchers" and why do you emphasize the supposed danger of potential violence that is in fact practically non-existant over the real violence that has been overwhelmingly and deliberately a part of the anti-white agenda? Or need I even ask?
"Goverment is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ~ George Washington, Farewell Address
2004-07-08 21:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]1. Who are these "researchers" ...... Or need I even ask?
[/QUOTE]
No, it's a very reasonable question. I was thinking of what I'd read in the book White power, white pride!" : the white separatist movement in the United States by Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile.
I think we've discussed this book before on this forum or SFF. Whatever the political, academic, and ethnic origins of the authors, (I think they were academic researchers, one of them might even have been jewish) the book was received, at least relatively speaking, rather well by WN's at the time. It seems to me I even remember seeing this book recommended by Stormfront or some similar group. They recommended it not because it was written by WN supporters, sympathizers, or anything like such, but because it generally is a fairly dispassionate book, consisting of and relying in large part inteviews with WN's themselves for its conclusions and observations.
- and why do you emphasize the supposed danger of potential violence that is in fact practically non-existant over the real violence that has been overwhelmingly and deliberately a part of the anti-white agenda? I don't really think I'm being unfair. This forum provides plenty of space to discuss and warn of the methods of the anti-white agenda. Any movement worth its salt must be capable of self-critique.
2004-07-11 00:46 | User Profile
Everyone makes very interesting points here, many to which I'm very sympathetic.
Valley Forge... if there a link to the "famous" Fleming White Nationalism piece, I'd love to read it. I would imagine Fleming has no major quarrel with Jared Taylor, considering the relationship he has with Sam Francis.
I read the WN FAQ and found it rather reasonable. 2 objections did occur to me after one read, however.
The writer (I forget the strange pseudonym) asserts that his vision of a future America divided along racial lines will occur rather naturally over the next 20 years. I couldn't disagree more. Liberalism and by association political correctness will reign supreme until there is a MAJOR ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE in the United States to surpass by far the Great Depression. I thought 9/11 might be that catastrophe but the U.S. proved much more resilient than I expected. Kudos to us. 2 or 3 more greater 9/11s might finally shatter the powerful veneer of liberalism and political correctness and force people to deal with race honestly.
The writer makes a dangerous assumption. He claims that he prefers the descriptive title "European Americans" because "inter-marrying" has for all practical purposes eliminated once formidable social barriers like "Italian-" "Irish-" "Polish-" Americans, etc. He assumes that inter-marrying between races couldn't eliminate the same barriers. There's a fairly easy answer to the assumption, that all the Euros are white, but it's by no means an absolutely conclusive answer.
2004-07-11 01:33 | User Profile
Well, we can all make lots of predictions here, but I see no reason to believe either Randon or YD. I will offer my 3rd set of predictions: racial political correctness will slowly decline; the white fertility rate will slowly and then dramatically increase; the non-white fertility rates (in the West) will decrease; and whites will feel more than ever take pride in [I]intra[/I]-white racial identities, with those of Nordic and Celtic descent showing themselves more interested in preservation of certain ideal racial characterstics than are other whites.
[QUOTE=random] Liberalism and by association political correctness will reign supreme until there is a MAJOR ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE in the United States to surpass by far the Great Depression. I thought 9/11 might be that catastrophe but the U.S. proved much more resilient than I expected. Kudos to us. 2 or 3 more greater 9/11s might finally shatter the powerful veneer of liberalism and political correctness and force people to deal with race honestly. [/QUOTE]
2004-07-11 22:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] It isn't hard to see why Fleming prefers to keep his distance from hardcore WN's, admit it - you are impossible to please.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I have no idea what this harsh criticism of Fleming is about. I found his article was wonderful. Why should he be criticised for not advertising any specific WNôs? Did they advertise him? :wacko:
2004-07-11 23:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge] Fleming actually has a lot in common with the neos; both he and the neos hate so-called "Nazis" (defined as anyone who thinks race should be an organizing principle in the political/social sphere of human life). [/QUOTE]
More power to him. Your definition is faulty: For Nazis, race is [B]the[/B] (one and only) organizing principle. Christianity and Justice can take a hike, according to their gospel. It is [B]they[/B] who have a lot (most everything) in common with the Neos.
Different race, same philosophy. I am glad Fleming is of a different ilk.
2004-07-12 01:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]It is [B]they[/B] who have a lot (most everything) in common with the Neos.
Different race, same philosophy. I am glad Fleming is of a different ilk.[/QUOTE]Quote of the month.
I pointed it this out to Trisk, and it made him, and eventually his followers, quit the forum.
2004-07-12 01:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Quote of the month.
I pointed it this out to Trisk, and it made him, and eventually his followers, quit the forum.[/QUOTE]
I wonder why they were so offended? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the quote. To me, it seems logical that each race would classify its own survival as a priority that "overrides" all competing concerns. Further, it's often been said that National Socialism is a mirror-image of Judaism--sort of a reactive "Judaism for Whites." I've never faulted the Jews for their ability to put their own first. The problem is when Whites fail to do the same.
The analogy ends where military policy begins...today, most in that sector of the Right do not embrace military expansionism the way the Jews do with their "Greater Israel" ambitions, but instead favor what the mainstream calls "isolationism" and "protectionism."
BTW, I can't help but admire that wall they're building in Israel. That's the way it should be--true borders worthy of the name. If only we'd build one in the Southwest....
2004-07-12 02:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Further, it's often been said that National Socialism is a mirror-image of Judaism--sort of a "Judaism for Whites." [/QUOTE] Trisk went beserk when I said this. He said of this MacDonald orginated quote that MacDonald didn't know anything about National Socialism.
I've never faulted the Jews for their ability to put their own first. The problem is when Whites fail to do the same.
The problem I see with this sang-froid is that logically it leads to the philosemitism of Nietszche, that jews are the master (or at least a uniquely superior, race)
The analogy ends where military policy begins...today, most in that sector of the Right do not embrace military expansionism the way the Jews do with their "Greater Israel" ambitions, but instead favor what the mainstream calls "isolationism" and "protectionism."
BTW, I can't help but admire that wall they're building in Israel. That's the way it should be--true borders worthy of the name. If only we'd build one in the Southwest....
Of course, good aggresive logical racist policy is to adopt strategies that allow you to build a wall, but keep other competing races from do8ing the same.
2004-07-12 02:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]For Nazis, race is [B]the[/B] (one and only) organizing principle. Christianity and Justice can take a hike, according to their gospel.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised I didn't notice before that there's a false choice presented here: whoever said anything about any other values "taking a hike?" No one's ever implied that there are no other considerations, merely that those other considerations don't mean much if your entire people end up dead, since logically there'd be no one left around to piously take those other considerations into account. Everything has its proper place and sequence, and survival and life are the prerequisites of all other activity. As I've pointed out in the past, what good are other values if they don't serve life (especially that of one's own kind)?
2004-07-12 02:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Trisk went beserk when I said this. He said of this MacDonald orginated quote that MacDonald didn't know anything about National Socialism.[/QUOTE]
I think I recall Alex Linder once agreeing on VNN that Judaism and NS are mirror-images, as well.
2004-07-12 02:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]I'm surprised I didn't notice before that there's a false choice presented here: whoever said anything about any other values "taking a hike?" [/QUOTE]Read the Nazi's, and listen to their more doctrinaire advocates (Franco comes to mind).
2004-07-12 03:55 | User Profile
test
2004-07-12 22:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]I'm surprised I didn't notice before that there's a false choice presented here: whoever said anything about any other values "taking a hike?" [/QUOTE]
William Pierce and his NA leadership handbook comes to mind. Someone once posted the chapter here where he laid down the law on Christianity.
Hitlerôs Fuehrerhauptquartier dialogues; quite a lot about strategically starving the Christian churches.
Himmlerôs Posen speech.