← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 16258 | Posts: 50 | Started: 2005-01-11
2005-01-11 02:31 | User Profile
Thomas Fleming
Looks like something a Freeper would write!
TODAY'S LETTER: The Thirty-Year War For Immigration Reform -Thomas Fleming Replies To Peter Brimelow
FROM: Thomas Fleming
[Thomas Fleming, Editor of Chronicles Magazine, explains his Foreword to Chroniclesââ¬â¢ November Special Issue on Immigration, which some of our readers found depressing. For Peter Brimelowââ¬â¢s comments on Flemingââ¬â¢s Foreword, click here. For Brimelowââ¬â¢s answer to this letter, click here...]
Dear Peter:
I wrote the foreword to our issue with the deliberate intention of provoking our allies in the struggle for a sane immigration policy into looking at the world we are really living in. You have quite fairly, I think, represented my views and intentions.
I do have one small point to add: that in any struggle, whether local or global, you can never win if you do not fight, and you cannot fight to any purpose unless you recognize the situation you are in. On both left and right, as I have observed for many years, most people would rather say things to make themselves feel good about themselves, their cause, their country than look honestly at reality and plan effective action. For years we had to endure the delusional twaddle from conservatives lauding the accomplishments of the ââ¬ÅReagan Revolutionââ¬Â as the countryââ¬â¢s health and culture was getting worse every day. The country I was born in, a pale reflection of even the imperial democracy established by Lincoln and only a ghost of the old republic, is now dead. We can, of course, pretend that everything is hunky-dory; we can also do what is equally fantastic and pretend that we are winning the battleââ¬âa favorite tactic of libertarian fund-raisers; or we can face the fact that we are losing on every front: cultural, political, and demographic.
Supposing I am right, what then? I am not suggesting that like Miniver Cheevy we indulge in sentimental nostalgia for the good old days of Euro-America. While we are perfectly right to celebrate the accomplishments and cultural achievements of earlier generations of Americans and Europeans, I think we must also emulate those who weathered hard times with stubborn good grace. If there are those who offer a practical political strategy, which must include either taking over the GOP or forming an effective Third Party, I am all for it. But if people want me to waste my time, energy, and money whining about what the minorities are doing to our country, when in fact the destruction is being wrought by the straight white European males who have owned and operated this nation from the beginning and in large measure still do, then they can take my name out of their data base.
What really surprises me, by the way, are the ââ¬Ånationalistââ¬Â Republicans who say immigration is an important issue, but then turn around, out of fear of Clinton and Gore, and vote for the lesser of two evils. People who vote for George Bush or Orrin Hatch or any of the other Republican destroyers of our freedom and civilization have a lot to answer for.
We cannot organize a political party or movement on the limited basis of immigration or even anti-globalism. It is always fairly easy to cobble together single-issue coalitions on the basis of what people are against. The harder task, though one that is an absolute necessity, is the formation of a movement based on what we are for. I make no secret of what we stand for: the civilization of the West, the Christian religion that sustained and revived that civilization, a limited and decentralized constitutional government that would vigorously defend American interests while preserving and leaving in peace the real communities in which people work, rear their families, and create whatever is useful, true, and beautiful.
However, far too few of the people who share our views on immigration and globalism are willing to take their stand with us on the broader questions. Many of them make no secret of their loathing of Christianity as a ââ¬ÅJewish cultââ¬Â. The very people who should be defending our civilization would like to tear it up from its roots and wipe out the last 1500 years. I donââ¬â¢t care, frankly, what such people believe in their hearts. If they want to build little shrines to Odin and sacrifice a couple of pounds of ribs and chicken on the barbecue to their strong Nordic god, I have no objection. But if they have a drop of sanity or the slightest loyalty to America and its European heritage, why canââ¬â¢t they keep silent about their little fantasies and avoid alienating the overwhelming majority of European Americans who describe themselves as Christians. In other words, why canââ¬â¢t they grow up?
But so many of them prefer their little Sci-Fi fantasies about a once and future kingdom of the Great White Race. Just make this a white manââ¬â¢s country again, and everything will be all right. Well, it wonââ¬â¢t be. White people ruined this country, out of greed, cynicism, and impotence. While we are fighting the big battles to reassert American control over American sovereignty (our border, our markets, our security), we had better be doing our best to revive the dying organism of American civilization.
We at Chronicles are not ââ¬Ågiving upââ¬Â on the immigration questionââ¬âthe November issue is one of the most hard-hitting we have doneââ¬âbut we are not going to lie about the predicament we are in or squander all our precious resources on the fruitless and self-serving crusades of the think-tank and lobbies whose leaders insist upon reducing a profound question of culture and civilization down to the trivial level of economics. If we accept their arguments, the best thing America could do would be to import 100 million hardworking Asians.
VDARE.COM is an important voice for those who want to rescue America from the disastrous and destructive policies pursued by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. It is too bad that not all its readers and allies can think through these issues as clearly as our friend and co-belligerent, Peter Brimelow.
Keep up the good fight,
Tom Fleming
PS We havenââ¬â¢t posted my piece because our magazine loses over half a million dollars a year, because so many so-called conservatives are too cheap to subscribe. If you want to know why all conservative movements fail, it is from the lack of loyalty of the members.
Peter Brimelow replies: Thanks, Tom.
My own judgment is that a political movement could be built around immigration and National Question issues: I regard recent election results in Australia and Denmark as yet more evidence. And I think the U.S. conservative movement has more problems with its leaders than its followers. None of this detracts from Tomââ¬â¢s broader concerns.
Funny thing, we donââ¬â¢t see many Odinists around here at VDARE.COM. Canââ¬â¢t remember one, as a matter of fact, although (at the risk of sounding Nordicist) James Fulfordââ¬â¢s last name is that of the battle in which the Anglo-Saxons were defeated by the great Viking leader Harold Hardrada.
An Odinist Reader Surfaces
December 02, 2001
[url]http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_120201.htm[/url]
2005-01-11 06:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Thomas Fleming
Looks like something a Freeper would write!
I don't know. Sounds like the old OD. --------------------------------------------------------------------> However, far too few of the people who share our views on immigration and globalism are willing to take their stand with us on the broader questions. [B]Many of them make no secret of their loathing of Christianity as a ââ¬ÅJewish cultââ¬Â. The very people who should be defending our civilization would like to tear it up from its roots and wipe out the last 1500 years. I donââ¬â¢t care, frankly, what such people believe in their hearts. If they want to build little shrines to Odin and sacrifice a couple of pounds of ribs and chicken on the barbecue to their strong Nordic god, I have no objection. [/B] But if they have a drop of sanity or the slightest loyalty to America and its European heritage, why canââ¬â¢t they keep silent about their little fantasies and avoid alienating the overwhelming majority of European Americans who describe themselves as Christians. [B]In other words, why canââ¬â¢t they grow up?[/B]
What can I say? Appears we have another OD lurker :lol:
But so many of them prefer their little Sci-Fi fantasies about a once and future kingdom of the Great White Race. Just make this a white manââ¬â¢s country again, and everything will be all right. Well, it wonââ¬â¢t be. White people ruined this country, out of greed, cynicism, and impotence. While we are fighting the big battles to reassert American control over American sovereignty (our border, our markets, our security), we had better be doing our best to revive the dying organism of American civilization.
True.
2005-01-11 08:21 | User Profile
Fleming's a White man and a patriot in the real sense...let's mothball the armbands & hoods and start taking back our grandads' Republic.
2005-01-11 10:17 | User Profile
What can I say? Appears we have another OD lurker :lol:
True.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that really jumped out at me, too. Exactly the arguments we've been making here against our Nazi and assorted other Pagan brothers. Flemings talk of the social "organism" sounds very familiar, too. Fleming is definitely reading OD. (note to Tom Fleming: hey, I subscribe to Chronicles, why not show your face here?)
I nevertheless think that Fleming tends not to give race enough weight, though. Culture and race are different things, but they're intimately related. He seems to be saying that the only objection to importing a hundred million smart Asians is that we couldn't assimilate them culturally speaking. That's dangerously wrong.
Our white genetic pool establishes the limits and general contours of our culture, while our culture provides the symbolic wall behind which our genetic destiny can be realized. Even if we could perfectly assimilate culturally a hundred million Asians, we still couldn't expect to have the same civilization in the long run since the gene pool that gives it shape would have been forever altered.
As Jared Taylor put it, those of other races can't live among us because they aren't us, and I would add in their mass simply can't become us, because we are white and they are not.
2005-01-11 18:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yeah, that really jumped out at me, too. Exactly the arguments we've been making here against our Nazi and assorted other Pagan brothers. Flemings talk of the social "organism" sounds very familiar, too. Fleming is definitely reading OD. (note to Tom Fleming: hey, I subscribe to Chronicles, why not show your face here?)
I nevertheless think that Fleming tends not to give race enough weight, though. Culture and race are different things, but they're intimately related. He seems to be saying that the only objection to importing a hundred million smart Asians is that we couldn't assimilate them culturally speaking. That's dangerously wrong.
Our white genetic pool establishes the limits and general contours of our culture, while our culture provides the symbolic wall behind which our genetic destiny can be realized. Even if we could perfectly assimilate culturally a hundred million Asians, we still couldn't expect to have the same civilization in the long run since the gene pool that gives it shape would have been forever altered.
As Jared Taylor put it, those of other races can't live among us because they aren't us, and I would add in their mass simply can't become us, because we are white and they are not.[/QUOTE]Walter,
I have always loathed any type of hate group, or even fringe racialist group. For a Christian believer they can never be acceptable in any degree or form, and I know I am grateful that I'm part of a church in a religion that allows me to confess my occasional offensive thoughts and words. Even my once diehard Eurocentrism seems to be waning. I recently realized this when watching a report on the BBC about the dwindling [RC] church-goers in France. It showed an African priest walking with six middle-aged/older people in a French park. The broadcast said that these six or so people constituted the entire parish! It went on to mention that this African priest's parish back in Africa had over 5000 members! Catholic churches back in Africa are holding services outside because the parishes have grown too large for buildings. Watching this program I said to myself, "Wow, these are the new People of God. The European man had it all but threw it away. The Renaissance and Reformation was 'The Fall' of Europe's Adam. God's clearly moved on to SE Asia, Africa, and Latin America (now home to half of the world's 1.4 billion RC's). But alas, what was God supposed to do?
2005-01-11 22:17 | User Profile
Speaking as an actual pan-Aryan national socialist, I don't see anything to object to in Dr. Fleming's remarks. Whatever role the Jews and other minorities have played in our ongoing demise, it is first and foremost the greed, stupidity, ignorance, apathy, perfidy, laziness, moral degeneracy and decreptitude of the White man that has permitted the Jews, the Mestizoes, and others to score so many resounding victories against our rapidly declining Western civilization. I may be an admirer of Herr Hitler, but I'd vote for Fleming for President (with Paul Craig Roberts or Paul Gottfried as his running-mate) in a heartbeat. Its ridiculous to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially in light of the fact that it remains to be seen just which strain of pro-Western thought will eventually turn out to be the best series of ideas (with all due respect to those who's faith largely answers the question for them).
2005-01-12 03:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Walter,
I have always loathed any type of hate group, or even fringe racialist group. For a Christian believer they can never be acceptable in any degree or form, and I know I am grateful that I'm part of a church in a religion that allows me to confess my occasional offensive thoughts and words. Even my once diehard Eurocentrism seems to be waning. Self loathing?
I recently realized this when watching a report on the BBC about the dwindling [RC] church-goers in France. It showed an African priest walking with six middle-aged/older people in a French park. The broadcast said that these six or so people constituted the entire parish! It went on to mention that this African priest's parish back in Africa had over 5000 members! Actually you read it here [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=96873&postcount=6]Original Dissent - Jack Cassidy[/URL] and you aren't making sense.
2005-01-12 05:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Self loathing? Actually you read it here [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=96873&postcount=6"]Original Dissent - Jack Cassidy[/url] and you aren't making sense.[/QUOTE]Yes, I did read and post to that OD article, but the program that stirred me was on the nightly BBC news show. I think my problem is that I have moved much further to the right and now view damn near everything as a product of the demise of European Christian civilization. I have little time for white separatists, racialists, et al., and no longer view them as standing heroically defiant against the fall of European Christian civilization but rather as an inbred product of those who were part of the hastening of the decline of Western Christendom, namely, the Protestant Reformation and its offspring. You don't like the mud flood? You don't like crosses coming down and minarets going up in Europe? You don't like every city in America looking like a cross between Johannesburg and Guadalajara? Then don't blame me. Blame those who unwittingly champion and work for it more than a million multiculturalists, i.e., descendants devotees of civilization arsonists like Calvin and Luther and Hus and Wycliffe. I mean, come on, enough beating around the bush, guys like Buchanan, Sobran, Fleming, et al. need to start saying what they know, but for reasons of pale-con unity, don't. Becoming a convert doesn't clue enough people in.
2005-01-12 06:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy] I mean, come on, enough beating around the bush, guys like Buchanan, Sobran, Fleming, et al. need to start saying what they know, but for reasons of pale-con unity, don't. Becoming a convert doesn't clue enough people in.[/QUOTE]
It is interesting that those guys are all Catholics, no?
Chesterton and Belloc continue to exert enormous influence on Catholic intellectuals of a more conservative turn of mind. You state the essence of the Chesterbelloc position.
The Church is Christendom, Christendom is the Church. Heresy weakens the Church, as is most evident in those places where heresy is most rampant, namely the West. Over time it has completely destroyed the European Church, bringing down with it the strong cultural walls that kept the race pure.
Our best (only?) chance for survival is a total collapse of the current system, which maybe - just maybe - would allow the ancient institutions of Christendom to reassert themselves. It won't happen absent a collapse, though. And the chances for that seem to be receding at the moment.
2005-01-13 05:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It is interesting that those guys are all Catholics, no?
Chesterton and Belloc continue to exert enormous influence on Catholic intellectuals of a more conservative turn of mind. You state the essence of the Chesterbelloc position.
The Church is Christendom, Christendom is the Church. Heresy weakens the Church, as is most evident in those places where heresy is most rampant, namely the West. Over time it has completely destroyed the European Church, bringing down with it the strong cultural walls that kept the race pure.
Our best (only?) chance for survival is a total collapse of the current system, which maybe - just maybe - would allow the ancient institutions of Christendom to reassert themselves. It won't happen absent a collapse, though. And the chances for that seem to be receding at the moment.[/QUOTE] Sobran's a convert, alot of the Chronicles guys are converts (and I'd say Harold O.J. Brown is within years of converting). Evangelical Protestantism is good for the vibrancy of Catholicism and vice versa (if nothing else some of the best new defenders of Catholicism come from the ranks of conservative Protestantism), but it also weakens Catholicism from without (i.e., the members of a handful of DC-area synogogues have more influence than the Vatican and over a billion Catholics worldwide).
Many Catholic writers have speculated about a return to the Christianity of the catacombs. I'll be content to read about such scenarios of the apocalyptic unfolding in the books by Michael O'Brien ([u]Father Elijah[/u], and the rest).
2005-01-13 05:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It is interesting that those guys are all Catholics, no?
Chesterton and Belloc continue to exert enormous influence on Catholic intellectuals of a more conservative turn of mind. You state the essence of the Chesterbelloc position.
The Church is Christendom, Christendom is the Church. Heresy weakens the Church, as is most evident in those places where heresy is most rampant, namely the West. Over time it has completely destroyed the European Church, bringing down with it the strong cultural walls that kept the race pure.[/QUOTE]Actually I could argue that all these guys are Protestants. At least in the historical sense of the word at the time of Luther, (who was theologically as much of a Catholic as you are for much of his life).
After all, they go against the contemporary Catholic doctrines on immigration, among other things.
Face it Walter, if it wasn't for Luther, guys like them, and you, would be the first ones being burned at the stake right now.
2005-01-13 06:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] It is interesting that those guys are all Catholics, no? As is Buckley of course. I think the Catholicism of American conservatism is mainly a product of Buckley and his circle. And really it arguably carried with it a lot of the seeds of the neocon ascendency.
Both neocons and Catholic cons seem to carry the same reflexive distrust of the religion and culture of rural and heartland Protestants, and the neocons were very successful in capitalizing on it in the case of the more pragmatic/opportunistic types like Buckley. Say what you like about guys like Sobran and Buchanan, the conservativement they participated in became prominent because it initially obstentatiously avoided the sympathy for people like Gerald L. K. Smith of the Protestant anti-Communist crusader types.
The fact of the matter is when mainstream conservatives talk of Buchanan and Sobran as turncoats ephemerel intellectual fly-by-nighters, and poitical flakes, they're right. That's why politically neither of them have accomplished much, and even arguably why paleoconservatism (a rather ineffective and even stupid term created by Fleming after all) has accomplished so little. Catholic intellectuals like them and yourselves seem to insist on distancing and alienating themselves from the basic American Protestant culture and constantly posturing.
2005-01-13 14:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE]As is Buckley of course. I think the Catholicism of American conservatism is mainly a product of Buckley and his circle. And really it arguably carried with it a lot of the seeds of the neocon ascendency. [/QUOTE]
I'd say Chesterton and Belloc and their many followers in the States constituted the biggest influence on American Catholics of a conservative bent. You've no doubt seen the Catholics here quote the Chesterbelloc many times, but I think I've yet to read a quote from Buckley.
Buckley came from a larger tradition, including especially John Courtney Murray. Buckley was just one of many Catholic conservatives. Influential to be sure, but certainly not a fountainhead of American Catholic conservatism. Murray probably was such a figure, Buckley was not.
Buckley's influence will not last much beyond his own life, whereas I have no doubt people will be reading Chesterton and Belloc for centuries to come.
2005-01-13 14:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]I'll be content to read about such scenarios of the apocalyptic unfolding in the books by Michael O'Brien ([u]Father Elijah[/u], and the rest).[/QUOTE]
I read Father Elijah and a couple of O'Brien's other novels. They're okay, and they certainly present some interesting ideas, but let's face it O'Brien is no Leo Tolstoy. In fact, he's a rather crappy writer, IMHO.
The man NEEDS a different editor.
Walter
2005-01-13 14:07 | User Profile
[I][B] - "Sobran's a convert, alot of the Chronicles guys are converts (and I'd say Harold O.J. Brown is within years of converting)."[/B][/I]
Are you sure that Sobran is a convert? He's ethnically Ruthenian (from the westernmost Ukraine), and they are almost all Catholics.
(Perhaps he's a convert from atheism...)
Petr
2005-01-13 15:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "Sobran's a convert, alot of the Chronicles guys are converts (and I'd say Harold O.J. Brown is within years of converting)."[/B][/I]
Are you sure that Sobran is a convert? He's ethnically Ruthenian (from the westernmost Ukraine), and they are almost all Catholics.
(Perhaps he's a convert from atheism...) Petr[/QUOTE]I think you're right Petr. I remember Sobran saying he "was raised a lapsed Catholic", and found conservatism in college, through a girl he met.
2005-01-13 15:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I'd say Chesterton and Belloc and their many followers in the States constituted the biggest influence on American Catholics of a conservative bent. You've no doubt seen the Catholics here quote the Chesterbelloc many times, but I think I've yet to read a quote from Buckley.
Buckley came from a larger tradition, including especially John Courtney Murray. Buckley was just one of many Catholic conservatives. Influential to be sure, but certainly not a fountainhead of American Catholic conservatism. Murray probably was such a figure, Buckley was not.
Buckley's influence will not last much beyond his own life, whereas I have no doubt people will be reading Chesterton and Belloc for centuries to come.[/QUOTE]Well Buckley as editor of the major Catholic dominated conservative journal in the country certainly kept awareness of the tradition up at least to some degree, especially in opposition to the Protestant old right, (such as the Birchers) to which he used I think Catholic conservatism as a negative factor in opposition.
In retrospect I think its noteworthy that he referred to these people a lot more than he really used them philisophically. I think he sort of name-dropped, a lot for show, as Sobran described him, Sobran who also quotes him regarding Irish Catholics "we don't need these people".
In a way I think he might have been conditioning WASPish american conservatives for neo-conservatives all along. Once we were successfully conditioned to accept a tradition most of which we really didn't understand or study much as Protestants (actually I suspect most American Catholics too) it was much easier to substitute the neocons in the old bait and switch, especially since neocons in a way have now trained and oriented themselves to the modern mass American psyche far more closely than Catholic conservatives.
2005-01-13 22:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well Buckley as editor of the major Catholic dominated conservative journal in the country certainly kept awareness of the tradition up at least to some degree, especially in opposition to the Protestant old right, (such as the Birchers) to which he used I think Catholic conservatism as a negative factor in opposition.[/QUOTE]
????
I've never heard of the Birchers being identified as Protestants. I think McManus is a Catholic from a Catholic college, and I know Bill Jasper is definitely traditional Catholic.
Just wanted to note that.
2005-01-13 22:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]PS We havenââ¬â¢t posted my piece because our magazine loses over half a million dollars a year, because so many so-called conservatives are too cheap to subscribe. If you want to know why all conservative movements fail, it is from the lack of loyalty of the members.
Maybe Chronicles and other so-called conservative periodicals are struggling for subscribers because they pull their punches WRT Israel and don't feature writings from marginalized (but popular on the Web) folks like Sobran and MacDonald. In otherwords, they aren't offering the content many potential subscribers would like to read.
EDIT: Not to mention that Web publishers are competing against them for eyeballs, that their content is usually offered free of charge, and that writers can be considerably more candid on the Web because they don't need to worry about "offended" ethnic tribes needling newsstands and bookstores to cease distribution for un-PC publications. People donate to Sobran's site even though it's free (or subscribe to his electronic columns to get them before they are made publicly available on his site) because what he writes is of value to them and he writes about subjects that seem to be untouchable for "respectable" print publishers.
2005-01-13 22:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]????
I've never heard of the Birchers being identified as Protestants. I think McManus is a Catholic from a Catholic college, and I know Bill Jasper is definitely traditional Catholic.
Just wanted to note that.[/QUOTE]Technically you're right of course - the Bircher's were eucumenical. Welch himself was a Unitarian from New England, i.e., basically an unbeliever to my mind, even though the encyclopedia still lists Unitarian as Protestant.
However, the attack by the New York Intellectuals on the "radical right" in the late 50's and early 60's, and their so-called "paranoid style" in politics (epitimized by the JBS) goes pretty much along with their general record of attacks on the rural Protestant's of the South and West. Both concepts were prominent in Richard Hofstader, whose works epitimize both of the attack paradigms, for instance as described by MacDonald.
Now the JBS has apparently acquired a reputation of being controlled by the Morman Church. (re:Todd Brendan Fahey). The Bircher in Buckley's book was a Morman
[QUOTE] "In that sense, and with characteristic cheek, [I]Getting It Right[/I]'s real protagonist is the author himself, and one happily roots for him throughout. The story begins with Woodroe Raynor, a Mormon from Utah who upon finishing Princeton becomes a spokesman for the John Birch Society. Along the way he meets comely Leonora Goldstein, the daughter of Jewish immigrants, who earns a job doing paperwork for Ayn Rand after reading Atlas Shrugged four times. Becoming disenchanted with their respective idols, they fall out of favor with Welch and Rand, fall in with the National Review crowd, and also fall in love, joining anti-communism and libertarianism in romance just as NR did in politics." [/QUOTE]
Do you think Buggley would have cast a Pat Murphy from Notre Dame or Rocco Pasini from Holy Cross as your Bircher? Not a chance.
Here in the Southwest of course Birchers seemed epitimized by rich Texas oilmen like Nelson Bunker Hunt, and that's sort of my stereotype, although I'm sure it was different on other parts of the country.
2005-01-13 22:51 | User Profile
[url=http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_121101.htm]TODAY'S LETTER: An Odinist Reader (Aargh!) Surfaces To Reprove Tom Fleming[/url]
2005-01-14 06:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]What can I say? Appears we have another OD lurker :lol:
The VDARE article was dated 2001, before OD was in existence, right?
Havig said that, I wouldn't be surprised if all the major paleos (except PJB maybe) lurk here. We already know that Brimelow does.
2005-01-14 08:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]The VDARE article was dated 2001, before OD was in existence, right? That's party why I put the LOL simile after that statement. My real experience with WN starts about then, Fleming's experiences with WN obviously goes back far, far, more.
But obviously his opinions were right on target with today's OD.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if all the major paleos (except PJB maybe) lurk here. We already know that Brimelow does.[/QUOTE]You may flatter us slightly. These are busy people, and the web is a big place. I do think however we are one of the few places where WN participate on a paleo forum in a dialectic and meaningful way. If someone was looking for something new specifically in that area this is one of the places I'd think they might keep in their files to look. I wish sometimes we were better at coming up with new things, and why I do try hard in that area.
I might note though that Fleming quite likely might have kept up with our direct predecessor, the Sam Francis Forum. He and Sam always were quite close. Obviously he would have picked up a rather low opinion of WN's off that forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's where that remark was in part based on. I'd also suspect both he and Francis kept track of the SFF and its successors, even though Sam Francis claimed he was totally unaware of the nasty things said on his forum. Yeah right.
2005-01-14 17:03 | User Profile
Buster,
You are right, the John Birch Society was full of Catholics. I remember Francis X. Gannon's BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LEFT. I think he was their director of reseach.
2005-01-14 17:19 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
Why are you attacking the Samuel Francis Forum? I did not like the few National Alliance types, but other than that I thought it was great place.
[QUOTE]I might note though that Fleming quite likely might have kept up with our direct predecessor, the Sam Francis Forum. He and Sam always were quite close. Obviously he would have picked up a rather low opinion of WN's off that forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's where that remark was in part based on. I'd also suspect both he and Francis kept track of the SFF and its successors, even though Sam Francis claimed he was totally unaware of the nasty things said on his forum. Yeah right.[/QUOTE]
And as for Thomas Fleming what kind of marxist trash is this. He may well be right to attack "white European males" for the evil they have done to America, but what is the greatest evil they have done to America? Allowing non-European into America is the greatest evil they have done.
[QUOTE]"Supposing I am right, what then? I am not suggesting that like Miniver Cheevy we indulge in sentimental nostalgia for the good old days of Euro-America. While we are perfectly right to celebrate the accomplishments and cultural achievements of earlier generations of Americans and Europeans, I think we must also emulate those who weathered hard times with stubborn good grace. If there are those who offer a practical political strategy, which must include either taking over the GOP or forming an effective Third Party, I am all for it. But if people want me to waste my time, energy, and money whining about what the minorities are doing to our country, when in fact the destruction is being wrought by the straight white European males who have owned and operated this nation from the beginning and in large measure still do, then they can take my name out of their data base."-Thomas Fleming[/QUOTE]
2005-01-14 17:24 | User Profile
More on Dr. Thomas Fleming
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.
Mr. Jared Taylor also responded briefly to Dr. Fleming's article. To view Jared's response click here
Dennis Wheeler on Thomas Fleming: [url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/white.htm[/url]
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
Jared Taylor on Thomas Fleming: [url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/jt.htm[/url]
2005-01-14 18:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]In a way I think he might have been conditioning WASPish american conservatives for neo-conservatives all along.[/QUOTE]
I also suspect that WFB was a Trotskyite from way back in this college days. He was tasked with creating a false front that could neutralize the conservative reaction. The fact that his rag is now firmly in Trotskyite hands makes this quite a plausible theory.
Say what you will about his intentions, Max Schactman himself couldn't have hoped for a better result.
2005-01-14 18:49 | User Profile
Walter Yannis
Some attacked WFB as early as the 1960's. I recall the JBS never liked him. Given what he has done the last 15 years it is hard to disagree with those that attacked him back then.
"[QUOTE]In a way I think he might have been conditioning WASPish american conservatives for neo-conservatives all along."
I also suspect that WFB was a Trotskyite from way back in this college days. He was tasked with creating a false front that could neutralize the conservative reaction. The fact that his rag is now firmly in Trotskyite hands makes this quite a plausible theory.
Say what you will about his intentions, Max Schactman himself couldn't have hoped for a better result.[/QUOTE]
2005-01-14 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I also suspect that WFB was a Trotskyite from way back in this college days. He was tasked with creating a false front that could neutralize the conservative reaction. The fact that his rag is now firmly in Trotskyite hands makes this quite a plausible theory.
Say what you will about his intentions, Max Schactman himself couldn't have hoped for a better result.[/QUOTE] Wasn't WFB rumoured to have CIA ties? Of course, that wouldn't preclude him from being a Trotskyite.
2005-01-14 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Wasn't WFB rumoured to have CIA ties? Of course, that wouldn't preclude him from being a Trotskyite.[/QUOTE]No rumour. It seems to me he actually did work for the CIA at one time. That's been described as the basis for a lot of his spy novels.
2005-01-14 19:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Wasn't WFB rumoured to have CIA ties? Of course, that wouldn't preclude him from being a Trotskyite.[/QUOTE]
Why would that preclude him from being a Trotskyite?
2005-01-14 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Why would that preclude him from being a Trotskyite?[/QUOTE] Walt, I said it would not preclude him from being a Trotskyite.
2005-01-15 04:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Walt, I said it would not preclude him from being a Trotskyite.[/QUOTE]
Right. Sorry.
The CIA was chocked full of Jewish commies, as the recently released Venona files prove.
Herbert Marcuse was a member of the OSS.
2005-02-10 10:24 | User Profile
[I]Wasn't WFB rumoured to have CIA ties? [/I]
No rumors about it. I worked with the late Theodore L. "Ted" Humes, "former" CIA officer, and Ted spoke very often of years 1950-54, when he and William F. Buckley were stationed in Japan, both being in the Division of Slavic Languages (Ted's real last name was "Huminski," and his parents were both Polish Catholics; Ted Humes spoke, wrote and read superbly in Polish; also could cope with Cyrrillic nearly fluently).
Ted Humes still had fond memories of Buckley, but knew, by this time (this being 1986-87), that Buckley was bought/paid for by interests antithetical to the Constitution. He'd figured out the Skull & Bones connection long ago.
2005-05-13 03:05 | User Profile
Some interesting observations here on William F. Buckley. Buckley was always an establishment man. I really don't think that Buckley was ever a Trotskyist. I see WFB as a man who has too much of an emotional stake in the old conservative movement to admit the whole thing was a failure. He welcomed the Trotskyist Neo-cons into the movement because they gave Conservatism intellectual legitimacy in the very rareified atmosphere of that "skinny little island," Manhattan.
Buckley fought for his vision of post-war conservatism for twenty years and by the late seventies was pretty much exausted and worn out. Maybe he thought the Jews could make conservatism powerful. He should have listened to his friend Russell Kirk, who warned him about the Neo-cons. They gave conservatism intellectual legitimacy all right, while almost completely changing its meaning.
Another element that can't be ignored is Buckley's role in the New York social scene. His wife Pat is a rather shameless social climber. If Bill ever went up against the Neo-cons, all those invitations to the best drawing rooms in Manhattan and the Hamptons would suddenly begin to dry up. Bill always styled himself as a kind of New York aristocrat, but he was kidding himself. His family was pretty much "new money" and he is an Irish Catholic for heaven's sake!
It takes courage for an old man to realize that 40 years of political activism has been a mistake and admit it publically. William F. Buckley is not a man with that kind of courage.
2005-05-13 06:48 | User Profile
Over time I have grown to like Thomas Fleming less and less.
I agree with AntiYuppie In this regard he is not atypical of paleoconservatives in general. Jared Taylor took Thomas Fleming to task (correctly) for opposing racial separation in America while championing a naive neo-Confederatism. Fleming must genuinely believe that a white man in Missouri has more in common with a St. Louis negro than with another white man across the river in Illinois. Even Joseph Sobran is obviously not a racialist - he even criticized Buchanan's opposition to mestizo immigration. The only major name in paleoconservative circles who had strong racial views and genuinely wanted to work with racialists was the late Dr. Francis. I was attracted to "paleoconservatism" because I had thought that Francis was representative of that worldview, in fact he was the exception rather than the rule.-AntiYuppie
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.-edward gibbon
Fleming, Buchanan and Sobran are both Catholics who claim that John Paul II, a degenerate leftist who was one of the leaders of the Vatican II ââ¬Åreformsââ¬Â is a great guardian of faith, morals, and traditions of the Roman Church. Sadly I fear they believe it too. But Buchanan and Sobran never take up the kind of sick marxist anti-racism Fleming seens to believe in.
I think Dennis Wheeler's rebuttal of Thomas Fleming is better than anything I could write.
Dennis Wheeler's rebuttal to "White Like Me"(Thomas Fleming) [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13330[/url]
2005-05-13 08:52 | User Profile
From Kirk & Sobran to Baby Goldberg and Ponnoru (sp?)...the House of Buckley sinks ever deeper in the quagmire.
2005-05-13 15:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Fleming, Buchanan and Sobran are both Catholics who claim that John Paul II, a degenerate leftist who was one of the leaders of the Vatican II ââ¬Åreformsââ¬Â is a great guardian of faith, morals, and traditions of the Roman Church. Sadly I fear they believe it too. But Buchanan and Sobran never take up the kind of sick marxist anti-racism Fleming seens to believe in. [/QUOTE]
I concur with Corncod that Buckley was never much more than an inveterate Manhattan social climber. He was able to hitch to Reagan for political success, but is now a rather pathetic, degenerate old man.
As to Faust, John Paul's problem was not in faith or morals. Remember the theme of the French Revolution: "liberty, equality and fratnernity." It corresponds perfectly with the theme of Vatican II: "religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality." That is where JPII went wrong. Faith and morals were not involved.
Buchanan progresses more each year as his continued prominence allows him to speak truth to power. The news media (aka Jews' media) can isolate and ostracize Sobran, but Buchanan snuck around them more or less successfully.
2005-05-13 16:44 | User Profile
if people want me to waste my time, energy, and money whining about what the minorities are doing to our country, when in fact the destruction is being wrought by the straight white European males who have owned and operated this nation from the beginning and in large measure still do, then they can take my name out of their data base.
Fleming's statement is half-true. In a sense white people are ultimately to blame for most of America's current problems, simply because a century ago or less the ball was firmly in the court of whites. Separation of the races was the norm (whether socially or legally enforced) and there were clear boundaries in place to keep Jews and other "outsiders" from becoming prominent among the ruling classes and elites of our society.
That this is no longer the case is not the fault of minorities but of the white elite - they thought that it would be profitable politically or economically to remove the social barriers between races, religions and ethnicities. The end of the old social order began when the "elite" was defined purely in terms of wealth and a man's value to society was decided purely on the grounds of how good an economic cog in the machine he could be. Jews could make money as well as any gentile blue-blood, so on those grounds why exclude them from the elite? Mexicans work for less money and in worse conditions than whites in factories and farms, so why exclude them? So who is to blame ultimately? Those who adopted this mindset out of shallow corruption and greed.
Where Fleming and Sobran err is in stating that because whites are ultimately responsible that minorities are not a problem. Sure, the venality of white plutocrats (and their cronies like Arbusto) are the ones who welcomed Mexicans and other Third Worlders here to begin with, but that doesn't mean that the Third Worlders are not themselves a problem. Sobran went so far as to say that he doesn't understand what the fuss about the Mexivasion is all about, while Fleming has stated that he opposes even Jared Taylor's mild form of racial separatism. What Fleming says about who is historically to blame may be true, but that is completely irrelevant to how today's problems will be solved.
2005-05-13 22:26 | User Profile
Buster and AntiYuppie
I was not intending to attack Sobran and Buchanan I just pointing their short comings when it comes to the Roman Church. Whatever one thinks Vatican II one thing can not denied about it, it was a failure. Rather than bring new life into the church it made it sicker. Does the Roman Church moral problem I would say yes. It sets back impotently as the itââ¬â¢s flock morals sink ever lower.
It is Fleming I am attacking. Sobran and Buchanan are nothing like Fleming. Race relation are an open topic to debate for them and they have written some great article on the subject. Fleming is a militant anti-ââ¬Åracistââ¬Â who is much nastier than Jonah Goldberg when writing on the subject. "Racism" is Marxist concept which I reject. The word is meaningless other than as a Marxist instrument of attack, after all the word was coined by Trotsky himself. Anti-ââ¬Åracismââ¬Â is vile I do not have a lot of tolerance for it.
Jim Kalb, a Catholic traditionalist, wrote a great article attacking the concept of "racism."
"Anti-racism" by Jim Kalb [url]http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/articles/jk_antiracism.html[/url]
AntiYuppie is right. [QUOTE]Where Fleming and Sobran err is in stating that because whites are ultimately responsible that minorities are not a problem. Sure, the venality of white plutocrats (and their cronies like Arbusto) are the ones who welcomed Mexicans and other Third Worlders here to begin with, but that doesn't mean that the Third Worlders are not themselves a problem. Sobran went so far as to say that he doesn't understand what the fuss about the Mexivasion is all about, while Fleming has stated that he opposes even Jared Taylor's mild form of racial separatism. What Fleming says about who is historically to blame may be true, but that is completely irrelevant to how today's problems will be solved.[/QUOTE]
2005-05-14 06:14 | User Profile
However, far too few of the people who share our views on immigration and globalism are willing to take their stand with us on the broader questions. Many of them make no secret of their loathing of Christianity as a ââ¬ÅJewish cultââ¬Â. The very people who should be defending our civilization would like to tear it up from its roots and wipe out the last 1500 years. I donââ¬â¢t care, frankly, what such people believe in their hearts. If they want to build little shrines to Odin and sacrifice a couple of pounds of ribs and chicken on the barbecue to their strong Nordic god, I have no objection. But if they have a drop of sanity or the slightest loyalty to America and its European heritage, why canââ¬â¢t they keep silent about their little fantasies and avoid alienating the overwhelming majority of European Americans who describe themselves as Christians. In other words, why canââ¬â¢t they grow up? This is a classic example of why Fleming and his admirers on this forum are going nowhere, politically. Instead of attacking the real problem, they round on a tiny and insignificant and almost invisible minority - anti-Christian and/or pagan white nationalists - and attack a safe target of absolutely no import whatsoever.
Let's turn this around: for the greater good of white solidarity and social cohesion, why doesn't Fleming and his admirers shut up about a handful of utterly invisible and irrelevent anti-Chrisitian white nationalists?
It wasn't white "pagans" who collaborated with Jews and others in opening the floodgates of non-white immigration: it was white Christians. It wasn't white pagans who cheerfully massacred fellow whites in not one, but two, totally unnecessary world wars: it was white Christians. It isn't white pagans, but white Christians, who enable the current political system that Fleming loathes to continue to thrive and grow, because the great vast herd of white sheeple are most definitely Christians (however nominal) and not pagans or atheists or anti-Christians.
It is the continuing loyalty of white Christians that gives the System its legitimacy. If they stopped giving it legitimacy, it would vanish as quickly as the former Soviet Union vanished.
Fleming, you and your fellow white Christians need to put your own house in order first before you point your fingers at totally irrelevant white nationalist "pagans" (about whose religion you know less than nothing).
Fleming, why can't you keep quiet about your "silly" medieval fantasies about some mythical Christendom and just learn to grow up? In other words, why don't you take your own advice? You seem to think that only others are required to make sacrifices on behalf of our mutual political agenda. Well, newsflash: if you aren't prepared to make some sacrifices for the sake of the common good, don't expect others to make them, either.
Everyone wants to protect their own sacred cows from being gored - but they absolutely refuse to admit that others might also want certain considerations in return. American public life was founded on such considerations of mutual restraint and respect - something Fleming either rejects or has never understood in the first place.
I've noticed that many Catholics and Protestants and others are extremely brittle when it comes to any negative comments about their religion. Their reactions are, frankly, childish and don't give one great evidence to believe that they in fact have a lot of faith in their own religious convictions if a few random comments of some anonymous and insigificant pagan white nationalists could so easily put them into such a tailspin.
Where's your faith, fellas?
2005-05-14 06:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]It is Fleming I am attacking. Sobran and Buchanan are nothing like Fleming. Race relation are an open topic to debate for them and they have written some great article on the subject. Fleming is a militant anti-ââ¬Åracistââ¬Â who is much nastier than Jonah Goldberg when writing on the subject. "Racism" is Marxist concept which I reject. The word is meaningless other than as a Marxist instrument of attack, after all the word was coined by Trotsky himself. Anti-ââ¬Åracismââ¬Â is vile I do not have a lot of tolerance for it.
Jim Kalb, a Catholic traditionalist, wrote a great article attacking the concept of "racism."
"Anti-racism" by Jim Kalb [url]http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/articles/jk_antiracism.html[/url] [/QUOTE]This I must agree with. Fleming goes way beyond mere tactical criticism of certain foolish white nationalists who attack Christianity needlessly, to outright advocacy of anti-racism and a pretense that nothing is wrong with our racial situation - or if something is wrong, it must be the fault of those "nasty racists" some of whom have low opinions about religion.
As to Jim Kalb, I met him on Usenet over ten years ago. At the time he said he wasn't religious. He always was an advocate for religious and other traditions, not just Catholic but all of them - has he become a Catholic, or are you just using this as a generic description? I'll have to check out his website. I haven't kept track of Jim Kalb's writings for many years.
2005-05-14 11:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]It is the continuing loyalty of white Christians that gives the System its legitimacy. If they stopped giving it legitimacy, it would vanish as quickly as the former Soviet Union vanished. [/QUOTE] Excellent point.
2005-05-14 14:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Where Fleming and Sobran err is in stating that because whites are ultimately responsible that minorities are not a problem. Sure, the venality of white plutocrats (and their cronies like Arbusto) are the ones who welcomed Mexicans and other Third Worlders here to begin with, but that doesn't mean that the Third Worlders are not themselves a problem. Sobran went so far as to say that he doesn't understand what the fuss about the Mexivasion is all about, while Fleming has stated that he opposes even Jared Taylor's mild form of racial separatism. What Fleming says about who is historically to blame may be true, but that is completely irrelevant to how today's problems will be solved.[/QUOTE]Excellent point. It's fine to point the finger at white elites, as Fleming does, for opening the floodgates. They certainly deserve the blame. But, if these white elites are ever replaced, which surely is the aim of thinkers & activists on the Paleo-Right...well, what then? As you say, the Third Worlders (and Jews, I would add) would still be here. They would still be a problem. The situation would still need fixing, with or without the white plutocrats.
2005-05-14 14:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]This is a classic example of why Fleming and his admirers on this forum are going nowhere, politically. Instead of attacking the real problem, they round on a tiny and insignificant and almost invisible minority - anti-Christian and/or pagan white nationalists - and attack a safe target of absolutely no import whatsoever.[/QUOTE]As much as I like the Chronicles crowd, I think some of the issues here pertain to simple personality differences. Fleming, by some accounts, seems to be a prickly, standoffish character whose sometimes shifting views on race and immigration perhaps can be attributed to his mixed background (Catholic/Southern/Eastern European/Orthodox, etc.). At least, this was how he was once described to me by a gentleman who likes & admires him, and continues to write for the magazine. I admit, I know little about Fleming personally and don't really care. Still, maybe he's trying to have his cake and eat it too, i.e. to advocate a form of Western nationalism without seeming to be a white nationalist, which is why he attacks the safe targets. He's a trimmer. Anyway, I suspect it may be a work in progress. :cool:
2005-05-14 22:23 | User Profile
grep14w,
You are most Right! [QUOTE]This is a classic example of why Fleming and his admirers on this forum are going nowhere, politically. Instead of attacking the real problem, they round on a tiny and insignificant and almost invisible minority - anti-Christian and/or pagan white nationalists - and attack a safe target of absolutely no import whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
Yes, as I said Sobran and Buchanan are sometimes timid when writing on race relation, but Fleming sides with the cultural marxists. [QUOTE]This I must agree with(you). Fleming goes way beyond mere tactical criticism of certain foolish white nationalists who attack Christianity needlessly, to outright advocacy of anti-racism and a pretense that nothing is wrong with our racial situation - or if something is wrong, it must be the fault of those "nasty racists" some of whom have low opinions about religion.[/QUOTE]
I just assumed Jim Kalb is Catholic because the heading on his site,ââ¬ÅTurnabout: Culture, politics, tradition and Catholicism,ââ¬Â and all the other references to Catholicism on his site. Thanks for telling me about that. I will always have great gratitude to Jim Kalb for his great site Traditionalist Conservatism Page. It was from links on that site that I learned so much. I found American Renaissance and the Samuel Francis Site.
2005-05-15 21:24 | User Profile
To a certain extent Tom Fleming's hands are tied. Most of the money for Chronicles comes from some kind of eccentric millionaire who runs a machine tool company. If Fleming gets too racial, all the money dries up. This is not to condone his position on racial issues, just an explanation of his situation. I think some of his writings are worthwhile. Now that Sam Francis is dead, Chronicles will get more and more wimpy. I think Fleming kept Francis on staff because they were pals from college, a good a reason as any I guess. I tend to think that half the folks buying Chronicles did so because of the two pages of brilliance of Francis' "Principalities and Powers" column in almost every issue. Sad to say, but there is no one to replace Francis. He is irreplaceable.
To Fleming's credit he did publish some Nationalist pagans of the Alain de Benoist stripe. The European pagan Nationalists are a lot more sophisticated than their American counterparts. There are some exceptions, but most American pagan Nationalists are either crude streetcorner atheists or guys who dance around fires at night with goat horns on their head.
2005-08-22 03:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]I just assumed Jim Kalb is Catholic because the heading on his site,ââ¬ÅTurnabout: Culture, politics, tradition and Catholicism,ââ¬Â and all the other references to Catholicism on his site. Thanks for telling me about that. I will always have great gratitude to Jim Kalb for his great site Traditionalist Conservatism Page. It was from links on that site that I learned so much. I found American Renaissance and the Samuel Francis Site.[/QUOTE] When I asked Jim where his interest in politics came from, he volunteered this answer: "I became interested in politics because I came from a politically active family (Republican party politics, libertarianism, mainstream feminism) and wondered what it all meant. Puzzling over that meant puzzling over culture, philosophy and religion too. Eventually I became a traditionalist conservative and a Catholic convert, although looking back that's really where my sympathies always were. "
[url="http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001257.html"]http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001257.html[/url]
2005-08-30 06:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hyperborean]When I asked Jim where his interest in politics came from, he volunteered this answer: "I became interested in politics because I came from a politically active family (Republican party politics, libertarianism, mainstream feminism) and wondered what it all meant. Puzzling over that meant puzzling over culture, philosophy and religion too. Eventually I became a traditionalist conservative and a Catholic convert, although looking back that's really where my sympathies always were. "
[url="http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001257.html"]http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001257.html[/url][/QUOTE]
When Mr. Kalb linked to OD from his Traditionalist Conservative website it was an achievement of sorts for many of us here who 'grew up on' much of what his site had to ideologically offer. He has my gratitude and admiration for doing that small thing early on when practically no one else on the traditionalist Right had ever heard of us.
I can't help but think that most all of the mainstream paleo/traditional conservative sites and organizations have heard of OD now, so I'm left to wonder what it would take for them to link to us now? Is it even negotiable?
2005-08-30 13:38 | User Profile
Texas Dissident,
On a related note.
Original Dissent Link on townhall.com [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3244[/url]